I have a couple of minor predictions:
1. Over the next couple of years in states/localities that have legalized or otherwise reduced penalties for marijuana, there will be a variety of studies (of mixed legitimacy in methodology) that will show an increase in the number of drivers testing positive for cannabis. This will be widely reported.
2. Over the same period of time, those same states/localities will experience a reduction in traffic fatalities. This will be rarely reported, particularly in connection to point 1.
The last two prohibitionist talking points that will remain kicking and screaming, even after the fat lady has sung, will be driving and children.
Kids, driving and the work place. Corporate housing is still banning plants in CA. If Incremental Retardation doesn’t keep it with the Feds. They’re already bickering over tax and quantity. Unless it is removed from the controlled substance act there will be state corruption. Most of the arrests are by states as it is. If science somehow breaks through and we actually deal with reality and remove it as a controlled substance. Then I see no way the states can legitimize piss tasting kids, workers or drivers. It seems to me desperation drives inccrementalism and if we could muster nationally we could free the weed and stop the greed. Selling out the country on lies and fear, for freedom of a few states is not Liberty. When people return as a higher priority than Ganjawar profits. Maybe. I’ll still be toking quasi legally as will we all until the CSA is gathering dust in the archives of bad policy.
Florida: Dying Dad’s Pain Inspired Push for Ganja ecp
Those look like realistic and fun predictions. I’ve got a couple too.
The states who don’t have ballot initiatives, like Illinois, who do pass medical cannabis laws will enact very strict, nonsensical laws just like Democrat-controlled Illinois passed, further escalating the drug war to the benefit of the very few politically connected.
In states like Colorado and Washington where the people can vote on an issue like cannabis, they will also ignorantly vote to regulate and tax the shit out of cannabis worse than they do with tobacco leaving the profits to the very few Democrat and Republican selected corporate insiders.
Here’s a possible game changer with respect to cannabis prohibition;
This report follows on the heels of the 2011 report on medical cannabis investment opportunities. This upcoming report factors in the recreational market. It’s pricey since it’s aimed at investors. I’ve downloaded the executive summary (which is free) but haven’t read it all yet. The reason I think this is a potential game changer can be summed up in one word: –> money. There are plenty of people with deep pockets who don’t give a damn about the ‘rights or wrongs’ of cannabis prohibition. But when you wave a flag in their faces that says “Bigger than the smartphone market” their eyes will light up and they’ll start reaching into those deep pockets. And they’ll start nudging and pushing the politicians they routinely
bribegive campaign contributions to and demand that they ‘reconsider’ their position on cannabis laws — “There’s money to be made dammit, let me in there!”. And those politicians will begrudgingly do so at first — then really think differently when more and more wads of cash are waved in front of them.
The battle(s) royale I see looming as cannabis laws are changed are overly restricted legalization with respect to taxation and the possible banning of home growing and the issues with regard to children and impaired driving as Pete mentions. So even once the laws are changed there will still be battles to wage. For certain it’s only going to get more interesting as The Great Unraveling evolves, in some ways maddeningly so. I say bring it all on.
The greed of a few rich industrialists created marijuana prohibition and the greed of many rich people will end it,,come on big business.
“…the greed of many rich people will end it…”
I just finished reading the executive summary of the ArcView report (talk about slick) and I’m increasingly convinced that what you posit is correct. I recommend accessing the executive summary and you’ll see what I mean. Plenty of institutional investors will plunk down the $475 for the full report — and their eyes will bug out. Even with the uncertainties the report accurately outlines, this will create a new layer of pressure for the laws to change.
The most irreconcilable part of talking point 1 is that most of the seriously inept drivers on the road are stone-cold sober…
When you realize that science can be bought you have to look at other sources,,like history,,we have had stoned drivers since the first wagon was built thousands of years ago and kids used marijuana for thousands of years until 1942 and history mentions very little harm to society from it’s use,,it certainly didn’t fill insane asylums with reefer crazed people.
The drug test industry sharks smell blood in the water…
Yup – don’t smoke and drive, kids. The smell is probable cause, and the per se impairment test WILL give you a DUI.
The per se dui rule was included in I-502 to appease law enforcement, who only understand alcohol impairment and think cannabis impairment is similar. Which we know is not true, but these guys see the results of drunk driving on a daily basis, and in their defence, they don;t want to see more. That they are ignorant of the science of cannabis is understandable in the prohibition propaganda environment.
Undoing the effects of 70 years of brainwashing takes time, In the meanwhile, be careful out there!
L/E who “think cannabis impairment is similar [to alcohol]…”
the logic of that falls apart instantly when “per se” is added to one and not the other…
There is a per se impairment standard for alcohol – .08. The per se impairment standard for cannabis is based on this – although with no scientific evidence.
I second Peteâ€™s prediction.
Fatal auto accidents are more likely to occur in rural and isolated areas because vehicle speeds are typically much higher at impact when compared to crashes in urban areas, and because quick access to medical attention is limited by the longer distances to rural medical facilities when accidents occur. Also, people driving long distances tend to be lax in using their seatbelts. Statistically, oneâ€™s chances of dying in an auto accident are 22% greater in rural areas when compared to accidents on congested urban streets.
Since vehicle speed is a critical factor in fatal accidents, predicting auto fatalities would benefit by conducting research that compares the average, overall driving speeds exhibited between stoned and non-stoned drivers, as well as their performance compared to other types of drivers.
Relative speed studies are an easy bit of research to conduct. Vehicle monitoring equipment needed to measure and record speed variables is available off-the-shelf. People could conduct their own studies. The predictions align with Peteâ€™s, that stoned drivers are more cautious, and probably less anxious to get from point A to B. Their emotional state would make them less likely to speed, which should show up numerically in reduced auto fatalities.
Some of the worst driving I ever did was jonesing on the way to meet the connection and get home again to consume.
With the short detection span of opiates in blood/urine I was probably “sober” as far as testing goes.
(Fortunately i don’t have to do that today.)
My predictions: In spite of data showing reduced traffic fatalities, prohibitionists will warn that traffic fatalities will go up. In spite of data showing reduced teen use, reduced crime, and a variety of other positive outcomes, prohibitionists will report just the opposite.
In other words, nothing will change as far as what prohibitionists say. Just like now. In spite of ample evidence that dispensaries do not increase, and often decrease, crime in an area, prohibitionists say they don’t want dispensaries because they are crime magnets. In spite of ample evidence showing teen use in mmj states stays the same or goes down, they say more kids will surely use mj if mmm is legalized. Prohibitionists’ dire warnings have never been based in reality, even when they are past tense.