
In Colorado, a look at life after marijuana legalization - jseliger
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/02/21/from-colorado-glimpse-life-after-marijuana-legalization/rcccuzhMDWV74UC4IxXIYJ/story.html
======
fred_is_fred
Colorado resident here. Everyone in law enforcement loves to talk about stoned
driving, it's their wedge issue to get this over-turned. My issue with that
logic is that people smoked before it was legal too. In fact I'd guess that
other than out of state tourists the rate of people using marijuana hasn't
changed much more than 2-3%. So driving stoned was illegal before, it's
illegal now. Nothing has changed other than law enforcement feels like their
federal drug boondoggle funds are drying up.

~~~
MadManE
Everything about _enforcing_ driving stoned has changed. The stuff stays in
your system too long to have a convenient test like alcohol does. So now you
effectively have no way to prove whether or not someone was breaking that law.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>The stuff stays in your system too long

The _evidence_ of the stuff stays in your system much longer than the
impairment. There is also the issue of "tolerance" and or how the amount of
substance present in urine or blood relates to the supposed impairment.

>So now you effectively have no way to prove whether or not someone was
breaking that law.

But you can still perform an objective test to determine if someone is
currently impaired. They need to design and validate a motor skills and
reaction time test. I'm not sure why anyone cares more about why someone is
impaired than they do about whether someone is impaired.

~~~
MadManE
Sure, I'm all for a test that can determine your actual capabilities on the
fly. What is that?

I agree that the "why" isn't that important (or at all), but what is the
alternative?

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>What is that?

It could hypothetically be as simple as a video game driving test. It could be
some other abstract measurement of reaction time.

I don't understand the question. A driving skills / reaction time test, _is_
an alternative.

~~~
MadManE
Sorry, it should be: What is the _practical_ alternative?

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Mind explaining why you think my proposal is impractical?

------
yesiamyourdad
"He said this month new data indicate that the biggest increases in marijuana
hospitalizations have been seen among out-of-staters, who might be naive about
the drug’s effects."

Colorado is a high-altitude state, and dehydration is a common problem. MJ is
famously dehydrating ("cottonmouth"). Combine that with alcohol consumption
and you've got a trifecta. People who live here are both acclimated to the
altitude and typically familiar with the dehydration issue and tend to take
precautions. Out-of-staters are likely not acclimated and not used to living
in an arid environment.

If you're coming to CO and you want to smoke, remember to hydrate. 2 liters a
day, minimum.

As an anecdote I have a friend who works in an ER. He contends that most of
the cases he sees on the weekends are dehydration (not necessarily from MJ,
just overall).

~~~
aidenn0
Why does altitude dehydrate one so? I was just up in the mountains (~7k feet)
this weekend and I was drinking water constantly but still felt dehydrated.

~~~
xoa
Higher altitude means lower air pressure, simple as that. Remember,
evaporative equilibrium is directly related to pressure. Additional factors
involved in evaporation don't help either: though not perfectly universal,
usually higher altitudes are also more arid as well, which further increases
the rate of evaporation, as do higher wind speeds if you're outdoors. Combined
though and at 1800-2000m above sea level for example you can easily see water
loss from perspiration and exhalation _double_ , which over the course of a
day adds up to a significant amount of water even without any other
activities. In general at low to medium-high altitudes dehydration is a much
much more common issue then reduced oxygen, and some of the symptoms can be
confused.

------
booleanbetrayal
I live in Colorado; Boulder, specifically. People aren't consumed with the
issue of legal weed. It just isn't a serious contender in the arena of
concerns people bat about. Most people smoke it, but it's not a big deal. Take
a vape to the mountain along with a Cliff bar. Enjoy the view.

The revenue and benefits the market brings to the state certainly aren't lost
on its citizens though. =]

~~~
BorisMelnik
you know whats weird I was in Boulder recently (for about a month actually) I
think I saw 1 maybe 2 people smoking...I couldn't even remember passing any
places that sold it!

~~~
kyrra
Smoking pot in public is still illegal, much like drinking in public is
illegal. An apartment I lived in within Boulder had 1 or 2 people that would
walk around while smoking, but I have yet to see anyone out and about the city
while smoking.

So people that are trying to be legal about it will smoke in their homes.

[https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/marijuanainfodenver/residen...](https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/marijuanainfodenver/residents-
visitors)

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
Here in the UK, I see people smoking 'out and about' fairly often. Not every
day, by any means, but enough for it not to be a total 'shock'. This is an
advantage (one of many) of legalisation, IMO; when something is legal, it can
be much more easily controlled because people actually respect the
legislation. Here, anything goes so long as you can get away with it.

------
jernfrost
This does not look good. As somebody heavily in favor of decriminalization and
legalization I am afraid the US is going the ruin the whole project, due to
the way they are implementing this.

American traits of moralizing and money obsessed are showing some bad trends
here.

My opinion favoring legalization is based on a desire to take the organized
crime out of the equation and avoid turning lots of normal teenagers into
criminals.

But like everything else it just looks like the US is totally overdoing this.
Huge pot companies with advertisement and lots of variation of products and
financial muscles is definitely NOT what I wished for.

With this approach one risks getting more new users than ever and get existing
users to develop new bad habits. All these edibles makes my head shake.

I lived many years in the Netherlands where pot has been decriminalized for a
long time. There is none of this American big capitalist approach to drug
sales.

I don't like the attitudes of pro-legalization people in the US. They wont
accept that there are negative sides to drug use and seem to think there
should be no restrictions.

It is as if there is never any middle ground in the US. Either you got the
moralists who spell doom or you got people who think you should be free to do
however dam you please. Where are the pragmatic people who accept it is a bad
thing to do drugs but that a strict regulation is a better solution than a war
on drugs.

I just hope the Canadians can manage to do this is a more sensible way.

~~~
rubicon33
That was a fairly naive perspective you had. Capitalism, money, and strong
puritan morals are at the very heart of America's culture (that is changing,
slowly).

Of course it was going to get picked up by companies and exploited for every
penny its worth. Of course there are going to be sensational moral debates
that spiral out of control and detract from the issue.

This isn't the Netherlands. And since when did one country's policies blindly
apply to another?

~~~
karmelapple
Alcohol is a controlled substance that also has huge industry behind it, both
in the USA and abroad.

Why would one expect the same desires that drive alcohol's mass marketing and
consumption to not be present for marijuana?

The side effects are certainly different, but they both affect your mental
state, so comparing these seems pretty reasonable.

~~~
jernfrost
That is not true. Perhaps I have been naive about the American result but as a
Norwegian I am used to a very controlled sale of alcohol. Alcohol
advertisement is banned and any alcohol above 5% is sold in government
monopolies. This is quite different from e.g. the Canadian liquor monopoly
which the government seems to treat as a cash cow. In Norway they are really
not trying to push alcohol on your or increase sales. Instead they focus on
customer satisfaction and teaching customers what wine goes with what food and
things like that.

In the Netherlands there might not be a monopoly on drug sales, but the
coffeeshops are generally small operations without a huge presence. There are
no advertisement. So yes I have experience alternatives which don't treat
these industries as big money operations. And perhaps I naively thought that
was possible in the US, forgetting that Americans tend to think very big when
it comes to business.

~~~
karmelapple
What precisely was not true from my post?

Alcohol has a huge industry behind it in the USA.

And who bought Budweiser-creator Anheiser-Busch, one of the USA's largest beer
companies? InBev, based in Belgium.

Alcohol consumption per capita is higher in plenty of countries in Europe
compared to the USA:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption_per_capita)

Although I can't find numbers on international marketing expenditures for
alcohol, personal experience informs me that most pubs in Germany, and plenty
in Ireland and Austria, have a sign from a beer company hanging outside the
front. That's actually something the USA doesn't have; neon signs are in some
pubs' windows, but not every single one like I'd see in Germany. That sign
outside the bar is most definitely marketing, even if it's less glitzy than
American alcohol TV ads.

I then asked a question about why, and you answered - thank you! I didn't know
alcohol ads (do you mean on tv, in print, on the radio, online...?) were
banned in the Netherlands.

I also must ask for clarification: because I can't sense the tone with which
yore typing these words, it seems like you're using the word naive in a way
that suggests you are simply disappointed that the USA is not behaving like
your country. Am I interpreting that correctly?

Americans do think big when it comes to business... as do many other
countries. The Forbes international 500 [1] has companies from all over, and
the USA does not dominate. In fact, the Netherlands shares the number 3 slot
with the UK. I hope you don't naively think businesses want less success
outside the USA; they may want less growth, though, but the Forbes top 10
global would seem to say otherwise.

Ambition for business is everywhere in the world, although the USA does indeed
have its share of large companies.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_Global_500](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_Global_500)

------
mfoy_
Boosts economy.

Perplexes law enforcement.

Detractors spread FUD.

(EDIT: A tl;dr haiku. Pun fully intended.)

------
oldmanjay
Every concern seems to amount to fear that marijuana would come to be seen as
normal. I can't possibly shrug hard enough.

~~~
dikdik
>"They worry that the burgeoning marijuana industry, like alcohol and tobacco
before it, could eventually use its profits to gain clout and subvert attempts
at regulation."

Or they worry about corporations being corporations, but put the onus on
citizens. Maybe the problem isn't with our citizens, but with our laws? Maybe
corporations shouldn't be able to use an unlimited amount of profits to affect
laws and regulation, but no mention of that in the article.

~~~
oldmanjay
Seems like a red herring to me. It's not like "corporations" turn otherwise
acceptable people into raving power brokers.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It's not like "corporations" turn otherwise acceptable people into raving
> power brokers.

One of the major functions of corporations is shielding the people involved in
them from most personal liability (and, hence, accountability.)

Its hardly a novel thought that reduced accountability might make "otherwise
acceptable people" into problems for the rest of society. (Plato was certainly
not the first to point this out with his account Gyges Ring in the _Republic_
around 2,500 years ago.)

~~~
oldmanjay
It shields people from losing personal assets that aren't tied up in the
business. It isn't a get-out-of-anything card, though, and I see no evidence
that corporations as a concept allow people to be personally unaccountable for
actions.

When people complain about corporations as evil in the abstract, I can only
assume they don't understand the nature of the exercise of power, or are
unwilling to examine it closely due to "down with corporations" being
emotionally resonant for them.

------
gravypod
If the government really wanted to curb the usage of pot they should just show
that clip from South Park where they talk about how "Pot makes you fine with
being bored."

I've shown that to a few close friends who ended up in a "rut" at college.
Those are some of the most profound words on the topic that exist.

------
SloopJon
One of the things the article mentions is that marijuana is almost exclusively
a cash business, due to federal law. As a Colorado lawyer explained it, most
of that cash tends to stay in the state. Lawyers, accountants, construction,
what have you--mostly local, and mostly paid in cash.

------
MadManE
I live in Denver, and I hate the legalization. To be clear, I have nothing
against people using drugs, and in an ideal state all drugs would be legal.
But now, that's all that Colorado is: one big haze of pot smoke. I can't get
away from the smell anywhere. Every time I leave and come back, I have a mild
allergic reaction to the smoke, and have to live with perpetual congestion.

If I could get away from the effects of other people smoking, then I would be
a huge supporter. But as it stands, we might as well be back when smoking
cigarettes everywhere was commonplace.

~~~
namlem
They should pass a law mandating air filters for grow houses if the smell is
that bad. I see no reason why they shouldn't be regulated like any industrial
operation. And since smoking outside is illegal, cops should actually ticket
those who do it. Legalization is good policy, but it should be enforced
consistently and properly regulated.

~~~
MadManE
I agree 100%. This is not an insurmountable problem. But we have so many
fanatical supporters of marijuana that no laws can be passed that would
possibly limit its use.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
That's not a surprise since it is one of the few and first places where it is
allowed. Once the new wears off, and once detractors stop attempts to re-
criminalize, I would expect more willingness to compromise from supporters.

------
roflchoppa
You know with all this high quality bud that is being smoked. I wonder how
much and the quality of the bud that is used with making Oils // Shatter.

------
joe_momma
So was it good or bad? Is the tax money benefiting the people socially and
economically while minimizing the side effects?

~~~
zeveb
It's good, because people are exercising their right to consume as they wish.
It's bad, because that right is heavily taxed and regulated. It's good,
because it's helped the economy. It's bad, because people spend way too much
time thinking about it.

~~~
HNaTTY
It's good, because you can avoid all taxes by growing your own.

~~~
ycmbntrthrwaway
Is it legal to grow your own and smoking with friends?

~~~
rdudek
Yes. 6 plants, 3 budding.

------
sarciszewski
[http://pastebin.com/AYW682BJ](http://pastebin.com/AYW682BJ)

[https://archive.is/exvT2](https://archive.is/exvT2)

~~~
feld

        > So has legalization been a plus or a minus?
        > 
        > “Yes,” Colorado Senate President Bill Cadman replied with a laugh.
    

"Yes" is not an answer to the question. WTF?

~~~
elbigbad
It sounded like a joke, meaning that it has been both a plus in some ways and
a minus in others.

~~~
Tenhundfeld
Yeah, this is common joke, especially when you feel ambivalent.

Examples: "Do you want to go out for dinner tonight? Or should we stay in and
save money?" "Do you want cake or ice cream for dessert?" "Should we
prioritize this bug fix or focus on hitting our release target?"

Somebody might reply with tongue in cheek, "Yes", to indicate they agree with
both parts, want both things, it's not a simple choice, etc.

FWIW, I encounter it more with older people. As a kid, I heard it often from
uncles and grandparents.

------
jessaustin
Newspaper headline writers are hopeless. What does the phrase "a look at life"
mean, ever?

~~~
CapitalistCartr
That its a basic compare and contrast paper from composition class, with less
Shakespeare.

------
hvmonk
I've never been to Colorado so could be wrong. But this article makes me
worry, especially for the kids. And, that you can't distinguish b/w a regular
candy and one with marijuana in it. And, the concern that as time passes and
this industry becomes big, and gain enough political muscle, favorable
regulations would be made. All valid concerns.

~~~
tibbon
Sure, it's (a little) tricky to tell if a candy has marijuana in it,
especially for a kid. The solution is simple, just don't leave your pot candy
laying around for kids!!!

If I had kids, had pot candy, and lived in CO, I'd have a small lockbox/safe
in the top of my closet with the candies in there... and/or simply have other
forms of edibles that were less attractive to kids.

~~~
radnor
Yeah, it really should be up to the parents to make sure all edibles are
locked up. An 8-year-old kid was hospitalized last week for eating a "cookie
in a wrapper on the ground": [http://www.kiro7.com/news/northwest-boy-
hospitalized-after-e...](http://www.kiro7.com/news/northwest-boy-hospitalized-
after-eating-pot-cookie/92878830)

I find the story highly unlikely. It's probably more likely that he saw a weed
cookie on the kitchen counter and ate it without knowing.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
In any case the kid was unharmed.

