When voters approved recreational marijuana sales the state predicted it would pull in more than $33 million in new taxes in the** first six months**. The actual revenue came up more than $21 million short. The problem is that buying pot is less expensive on the streets where people don’t have to pay taxes or fees.
Wow, people who have used, and want to continue using, a product that is illegal under federal law, will continue to use that product illegally if it saves them money. You have to be high not to see that coming.
I’d be surprised if it did. When politicians see their role more as permissive parents than leaders or visionaries, they tend to rely (nay depend) upon the vox populi to guide them. Inevitably, the loud voices are heard and the silent majority simply “goes along” because we live in a “tolerant” culture. Things will have to get really bad before the tolerance bandwagon gets upended.
The state could require you to keep your store receipt with your stash, but that would sound like Big Brother to potheads. It does not seem so burdensome for people in posession of a prescription drug to produce evidence of a prescription, but maybe that is just me. I have not had a drug prescription since 1972.
Politicians didn’t have a say in the matter. The decision was made by the voters to amend Colorado’s constitution to legalize growing, possession, and consumption of cannabis. In terms of this “silent majority”; decisions are made only by those who show up to cast a ballot and it was a significant win. There is a 19 year old kid in Texas facing 10 years to life in prison for making pot brownies in his kitchen. Do you think that is reasonable?
Maybe less taxes than intended but perhaps a step to ending the war on drugs.
The reason why moonshine is not as huge as during prohibition times is because the cost of legal alcohol makes up for controlling the risk of a bad batch of illegal booze. Sounds like that price point hasn’t been found for weed yet.
I agree that it will take something really bad to change back. Here is the scenario I came up with: A truck driven by a stoned driver sideswipes a bus coming from the Denver airport carrying the Denver Broncos, which then crosses the center line and hits another bus carring the the Colorado Rockies to the airport head on, killing all members of both teams. That might get enough people mad enough to change the law.
But there has been no increase in traffic fatalities on Colorado so far. Traffic stops for DWI, but not a spike in fatalities. Once enough data is in it may go either way.i just don’t think it will be as significant as the lives ruined by past law enforcement efforts.
I wonder if the Legalization effort is a veiled attempt to decrease obesity. Food is delicious, we eat for pleasure, but it takes much more carbon to produce our foods and propel our large bodies in our cars. The theory being that if we just inhaled our Pleasure, we would burn less carbon and be much skinnier. :hmmm::hmmm:
You are correct that politicians didn’t have a say in the matter, but perhaps it was precisely because they didn’t “lead" on the matter that “the voters” took things into their own hands. Perhaps mob rule will replace the constitution since politicians have abdicated their real purpose and simply cater to the people, anyway. Why not just cut out the middle man, then, and let “the people” actually create all the laws? What IS the point of having “leaders?”
You are also correct that it wasn’t a “majority” that voted for the amendment - only 37.9% of eligible voters did. As you say, "decisions are made” only by those who have an interest and show up. Strike two for politicians?