U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-03-2014, 01:35 PM
 
459 posts, read 670,600 times
Reputation: 726

Advertisements

Marijuana still hasn't killed anyone, from the story we are being told (now) is he jumped off a balcony sometime after consuming MJ and jumping off the balcony killed him. No one -including the coroner- can say with any degree of certainty that marijuana caused him to jump off.

I live in a high rise DT Denver we had an incident a few years ago where someone had a few drinks and jumped off a balcony. It was ruled a suicide even though no one found any note, and it came as a complete shock to those that knew him. No one thought to blame the alcohol (I certainly didn't).

The investigation into Levy Thamba's death is still ongoing and the story told to the public has been substantially altered at least 3 times since the incident occurred. It's way too early for those who voted no on 64 to be celebrating this man's tragic death and using him as a martyr for their cause.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-03-2014, 01:47 PM
 
5,090 posts, read 13,493,670 times
Reputation: 6923
I think that our auto insurance will rise with the addition of many more people having the option of smoking marijuana in this state which will lead to more smoking and driving. Driving under the influence of marijuana certainly slows people reactions and attention to driving and will be a causative in more accidents.

Consequently the insurance industry will see it as a perceived risk in the actuarial calculations and so all of us will be paying more for auto insurance.

Perhaps the smoking of dope is associated and co-morbid with increased alcoholism and people who have bad debts and people who are just bad risks for all kinds of assorted reasons--I just do not know what direct relationships exist but the insurance industries will know. The actuarial figures will certainly take that in account if there is a relationship and there will even be more costs. Keep in mind, we will now be attracting many more people into this state who are coming here just to smoke dope and that influx of these types changes the risk assessment for all drivers in the state.

Do not think you know all the relationships that are associate with increased insurance risk. My insurance is low because of a very high credit score. That is because it is perceived that people who pay their bills are considered more responsible drivers. Now, I will be paying more just like I pay more because of the uninsured and the risks associated with others, even though I do not smoke dope and I do not drink and I pay my debts.

So, even if you think of yourself as a responsible driver and know others and think that dope smoking does not impair judgement, it does not matter as it is what your the insurance companies will calculate and I bet that we will be paying more in Colorado for Auto insurance.

It also may impact all kinds of insurance from employer's liability insurance rates, to workers compensation, to health insurance; all this will be passed on to us in this state with everything we consume. For the risks associated with smoking dope is not only a risk for drivers, it is a risk that can impact all jobs and all situations.

I voted NO!

Does it bother you now that you will be paying more and did all you who voted YES, think of these issues.

Livecontent

Last edited by livecontent; 04-03-2014 at 02:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2014, 02:16 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
1,081 posts, read 1,052,548 times
Reputation: 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by McGowdog View Post
I'm sure there's some social and moderate weed smokers out there, but maybe 10% or better are likely to go overboard with it.

But maybe these edibles are hard to moderate and can be easier to abuse, idk.
Marijuana didn't kill the kid; the impact with the ground did. Every substance has contributed to the death of a person at some point. There's a big difference in saying it caused him to die, though. And given the side effects of edibles, there's more to the story. Edibles make you tired and sleepy. His friend got sick off of a few bites of a cookie or brownie. He got up and jumped off of the balcony. The coroner's report sounds like it was written by Henry Anslinger.

Millions and millions of users over thousands of years, and the first death is due to a teenager eating a brownie and thinking he could fly? Geez, Louise. Better keep it a schedule 1 narcotic. This all sounds like part of a narrative to regulate edibles.

And beat it with your 10% number. There are plenty of productive people out there that consume cannabis, despite whatever stereotypes you maintain in your mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2014, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
1,081 posts, read 1,052,548 times
Reputation: 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by livecontent View Post
I think that our auto insurance will rise with the addition of many more people having the option of smoking marijuana in this state which will lead to more smoking and driving. Driving under the influence of marijuana certainly slows people reactions and attention to driving and will be a causative in more accidents.

Consequently the insurance industry will see it as a perceived risk in the actuarial calculations and so all of us will be paying more for auto insurance.

Perhaps the smoking of dope is associated and co-morbid with increased alcoholism and people who have bad debts and people who are just bad risks for all kinds of assorted reasons--I just do not know what direct relationships exist but the insurance industries will know. The actuarial figures will certainly take that in account if there is a relationship and there will even be more costs. Keep in mind, we will now be attracting many more people into this state who are coming here just to smoke dope and that influx of these types changes the risk assessment for all drivers in the state.

Do not think you know all the relationships that are associate with increased insurance risk. My insurance is low because of a very high credit score. That is because it is perceived that people who pay their bills are considered more responsible drivers. Now, I will be paying more just like I pay more because of the uninsured and the risks associated with others, even though I do not smoke dope and I do not drink and I pay my debts.

So, even if you think of yourself as a responsible driver and know others and think that dope smoking does not impair judgement, it does not matter as it is what your the insurance companies will calculate and I bet that we will be paying more in Colorado for Auto insurance.

It also may impact all kinds of insurance from employer's liability insurance rates, to workers compensation, to health insurance; all this will be passed on to us in this state with everything we consume. For the risks associated with smoking dope is not only a risk for drivers, it is a risk that can impact all jobs and all situations.

I voted NO!

Does it bother you now that you will be paying more and did all you who voted YES, think of these issues.

Livecontent
We'll see what actuarial risk is determined. In the meantime, we do have statistics that tell us that traffic fatalities and DUIs have decreased across the board in states that have legalized medicinal marijuana. Correlation or causation? Anyway, I've found that prohibitionists generally only apply correlations when they're negative. Let's review: Enrollment and interest in state colleges is skyrocketing, tourism is spiking, revenue is coming in, and use of other drugs is going down. What do you attribute those positive numbers to? Coincidence? It must really irritate you that the sky hasn't fallen since January 1st.

You're against legalizing marijuana because your car insurance could go up a tiny bit? Oh, and health insurance. Yet the health risk posed by MJ is most likely in the combustion of a substance. Higher potency=less use, and there are plenty of alternatives to smoking that pretty much negate the smoking threat. Of course, most of the people purchasing MJ already consumed it in the past, but no longer have to resort to buying it illegally. Huge influx of new smokers? I doubt it. And do you get apoplectic when you hear about a new brewery, distillery, or winery that the state so loves to tout? They pose a much bigger threat to a body or people on the highway.

But to a bigger point: Where's your outrage at the thousands of people jailed in this state because of marijuana? You do realize that you're paying for their incarceration, correct? Tax dollar after tax dollar for what? Legalization theoretically substantially reduces spending on bogus law enforcement of possession, and reduces the criminal element. Spending millions and millions on locking up people and ruining their lives for a plant bothers me much more. What about you?

So let me ask you: Are you part of the prison/enforcement industrial complex? Does the industry you work in profit from marijuana's illegality? Law enforcement relies on marijuana arrests for a significant amount of their budget, and a shift in policy means a change in their livelihood. Case in point: In their budget meetings over the last few days, the head of the DEA claimed that they'd go against the president and the voters of states in continuing to enforce their policies. Why do you think that is? Oh, and her other claim for keeping it illegal is that your dog may get sick if it eats a brownie. Seriously, that was a main talking point.

In the end I really wish people like yourself would have the intestinal fortitude to admit that you just don't like the people you think use cannabis. Otherwise, if someone can be trusted to not kill themselves or others when buying a bottle of whiskey or having a beer with dinner, why should they not be trusted with a joint?

Last edited by bartonizer; 04-03-2014 at 02:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2014, 02:59 PM
 
Location: The 719
14,463 posts, read 22,301,271 times
Reputation: 13783
Booze doesn't kill people neither. Sudden stops do.

Tell it to the judge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2014, 03:05 PM
 
5,090 posts, read 13,493,670 times
Reputation: 6923
^You have said We'll see what actuarial risk is determined. In the meantime, we do have statistics that tell us that traffic fatalities and DUIs have decreased across the board in states that have legalized medicinal marijuana.

Hostile, are we not? All the other wordage after that sentence does not answer my question. The only issue and question is answered by what we will see about insurance rates.

There are no statistics showing decreasing fatalities and DUI with overall pot smoking because you are just talking about Medical Marijuana and your alleged positive statistics which are not the sole issue that applies to this State issue because that was the case before the recent laws. We will see!

It matters not really what you think or what I think; it will matter what the insurance industry decides and what information or statistics they decide to keep or not keep, to skew or not skew, to divulge or not divulge or a reason, true or not, that will contribute to their profits. You and others have now given them a justifications for increased rates, whether it is necessary or not. Allow yourself to calm down and dwell on that idea.

Last edited by livecontent; 04-03-2014 at 03:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2014, 03:17 PM
 
459 posts, read 670,600 times
Reputation: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by McGowdog View Post
Booze doesn't kill people neither.
Alcohol Poisoning
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2014, 03:56 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
1,081 posts, read 1,052,548 times
Reputation: 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by livecontent View Post
^You have said We'll see what actuarial risk is determined. In the meantime, we do have statistics that tell us that traffic fatalities and DUIs have decreased across the board in states that have legalized medicinal marijuana.

Hostile, are we not? All the other wordage after that sentence does not answer my question. The only issue and question is answered by what we will see about insurance rates.

There are no statistics showing decreasing fatalities and DUI with overall pot smoking because you are just talking about Medical Marijuana and your alleged positive statistics which are not the sole issue that applies to this State issue because that was the case before the recent laws. We will see!

It matters not really what you think or what I think; it will matter what the insurance industry decides and what information or statistics they decide to keep or not keep, to skew or not skew, to divulge or not divulge or a reason, true or not, that will contribute to their profits. You and others have now given them a justifications for increased rates, whether it is necessary or not. Allow yourself to calm down and dwell on that idea.
That's your response to my points? Well a common concern for many states is the danger on the roads. Considering some states have legalized medical mj for nearly 20 years, you'd think insurance companies would have factored mj patients in to their calculus. As far as I know, they haven't. And it has been legal recreationally here for 18 months, but we've seen very little evidence of a huge problem.

I agree with you about actuarial risk, so we'll see. But evidence so far seems to indicate that text messaging while driving is far more dangerous, to put things in perspective. What if time shows that MJ is used as a substitute by alcoholics, and therefore lessens the risk? I'm not condoning ANY distractions to driving, just asking a question.

But if you really want to know why I'm angry- and this is the part that you cranks don't get- is that people don't like the condescending tone aimed at others. You act overly concerned about theoretical price increases in your insurance policies and then ask if it would bother me. Meanwhile, in reality, we all pay out the nose for real people to sit and rot in jail. That bothers me more.

I see you're consistent in not taking substances; good for you. Perhaps I was a little harsh- living in the south for most of my life probably has something to do with my reaction. But far too often I sit and listen to boozehounds condemn people in real life and on these threads for something much more benign than the drink in their hand. And it's not necessarily the substance. One of the main reasons that places are overwhelmingly voting for cannabis isn't because a majority uses it; it's because the counterculture is sick of the hypocritical establishment acting like they know better than everyone else. Quite often, these same people incessantly rail about personal freedoms, while desiring to intrude the lives of others that they don't like. So when people use words like "dope" to describe cannabis and insinuate laziness and apathy among users, I get a little ticked off.

Re-reading your comment, I'll admit that you're more reasonable than I gave you credit for, with the caveat that I think you've come to the conclusion that the amount of irresponsibility and danger that you associate with marijuana will result in significantly higher rates. I personally feel like the negatives are blown way out of proportion. But again-you proceeded to ask if it bothered everyone that voted for legalization to pay more. Many of us hope that legalization will cost everyone less, both taxwise and people-wise, because it's also a moral issue. So again, to answer your question- what bothers me much more than the potential of higher insurance prices is the amount of money we've actually been paying to keep the idiocy of marijuana prohibition going.

Last edited by bartonizer; 04-03-2014 at 04:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2014, 05:23 PM
 
5,090 posts, read 13,493,670 times
Reputation: 6923
I voted against the new proposal of law, not so much for the idea of the concept of smoking dope, as for the idea that the laws on the books for medical marijuana were ill conceived and ill written and ill enforced. So, I do not trust the state to do this right and completely address all the issues.

I believe it is correct to stop all this mindless jailing of people for marijuana and the associated costs. I do know many good people who are responsible and smoke dope. However, I am concerned about attracting the less intelligent, the less responsible to this state but some who will come here will be responsible citizens I certainly will not live in Las Vegas because it attracts too many people who drink excessively and I think we are doing now the same with Colorado with this law.

I do think it must be firmly understood that smoking dope does impair judgment and lessens attention just like alcohol and both should not be abused. So, smoking dope and drinking, both irresponsibly is wrong. I have said I have concern for those who need to do their jobs with attention and from my experience the abuse is there, just as with alcohol. MJ should be given a free ride and allowed in any workplace that needs a responsible employees but some think it is alright to smoke dope and do a job--perhaps it will help a prostitute but not be good for my accountant, or doctor or pilot or lawyer or bus driver, or chef or even more frightening the nuclear missile men, which seems to be the case from the news etc.

We will see problems with MJ as we see problems with alcohol and prescription drug abuse. However, the laws and restrictions have to be in place to deal with those problems. I just do not see that it is now effectively being done.

I also do not think because we have alcohol that means we should have MJ but I am very conservative and that is just how I feel. It is just two evils instead of one.--you have a right to think differently. But the law has passed and we will now have to deal with it.

I am bothered that it is taxed so heavily and consequently becomes costly that high cost do not impact the illegal trade. I think it makes more sense to tax it less and then we can do away with the illegal problems which was one of the ideas that the proponents believed but not if we tax it too high. Also by taxing lower and making the legal outlets products more reasonable we will attract more of the illegal trade and get more revenue anyways.

I should also add that I do not drink not because I am against alcohol, it is because I have severe health problems and take many medications. I miss having a beer or wine with a meal and I have always drank responsibly.

I am also have medical problems that would perhaps benefit from Medical MJ but I could not smoke it because of respiratory distress. So, I am angry and annoyed that recent tests of the MJ candies and smokeless products are not what they purport to be and contain much less of what is stated. That is too me a part of the poor regulations in not effectively implementing medical MJ--so I voted against the new proposal knowing we do not have the people who know how to do it right.

Livecontent

Last edited by livecontent; 04-03-2014 at 06:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2014, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
1,081 posts, read 1,052,548 times
Reputation: 1923
Livecontent Fair enough. Notice I didn't say cannabis is harmless, but it is quite a bit safer than alcohol. I don't think the effects are for everyone, and so I'm not really worried about anything more than a possible temporary spike in usage by the curious. I agree with you on many of your points, but the reason that I voted for it was that it had to start somewhere, and the regulatory framework in this state was more evolved than other medical MJ states when legalization occurred. There are growing pains we will face, to be sure. But I think that we'll figure it out pretty quick. Regulation isn't always a bad thing, and with testing and standards, there will be a more consistent product available for people to use safely. And I feel pretty confident in saying that the smoking alternatives like vapes and edibles will more closely do what they say in the not too distant future. It's moving pretty quick....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top