I'll just leave this here....

[AFK]

Oh, and I noticed you decided to completely ignore my point about the casino.

Sorry, I was more interested in addressing the studies that Rat presented.

A) I'm not sure the Oxford casino is going to qualify as a "large casino".  Compared to casions I've been to and seen, this is going to be small potatoes.  And let's be real, Oxford is a fairly isolated area.  There is no Interstate exit for Oxford.  You'll have to get off the highway in Auburn and then travel across 30-40 miles of roadway that could use some attention.  I really don't see it being this huge magnet for a lot of out-of-state traffic.  Certainly, it will draw the Canadians, and it will obviously draw from within state.

Are there going to be some unsavory elements to accompany the casino?  I won't pretend that it won't happen.  But, as I said somewhere else, perfect is the enemy of good.  I live in this general area of Maine.  It's a part of Maine that could do to have an injection of economy.  And I know that we have some good systems in place with law enforcement.  If shit really goes down, they will be calling in Auburn and Lewiston PDs and they are some good Joes.  I would, myself, prefer if the casino was actually in Lewiston, but it didn't work out that way.  

I'm not worried about the casino.  

[AFK]

The perception of harm?  A friend of my son's - well, his friend's brother, anyway - got busted for a teensy amount of pot a year back.  He managed to avoid jail, but he is now utterly fucked.  No college assistance, no option to join the military, etc.

He's doomed to the lower income brackets for the rest of his life, because he made a poor decision at 16 (and we all know that 16 year olds typically make great decisions).

That's harm.  Not the "perception of harm", harm.

So explain to me why prohibition is a good thing?  It ruins the lives of teenagers, and it keeps the cartels in business.  I am waiting for an upside, here.

Except you are using an "all or nothing" model here.  That the only acceptable solution you see to the problem as you see it is complete legalization.  I would posit there are solutions within a framework where marijuana is still a banned substance, and I've talked about these before.  Jail diversion programs, advocating for changes in policies around financial aid, better access to screening and treatment services.

You don't have to make it legal to fix the problems you are seeing.  But, if you do make it legal, you will be creating new problems and exacerbating existing ones. 

And even if you legalized it tomorrow, let's be real, the cartels will not go away.  There is still money to be made in black market prescription drugs not to mention all of the other illicits.  You might shut down some organizations that are on the edge anyway, but professional criminals are going to be professional criminals.  They would just shift their business model. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Except you are using an "all or nothing" model here.  That the only acceptable solution you see to the problem as you see it is complete legalization.  I would posit there are solutions within a framework where marijuana is still a banned substance, and I've talked about these before.  Jail diversion programs, advocating for changes in policies around financial aid, better access to screening and treatment services.

1.  Currently, we live under the all or nothing model, at least in this neck of the woods - and at the federal level.

2.  If it's illegal at all, it funds the cartels.

3.  I can think of no constitutional basis for the ban.

[East Coast Hustle]

Oh, and I noticed you decided to completely ignore my point about the casino.

Sorry, I was more interested in addressing the studies that Rat presented.

A) I'm not sure the Oxford casino is going to qualify as a "large casino".  Compared to casions I've been to and seen, this is going to be small potatoes.  And let's be real, Oxford is a fairly isolated area.  There is no Interstate exit for Oxford.  You'll have to get off the highway in Auburn and then travel across 30-40 miles of roadway that could use some attention.  I really don't see it being this huge magnet for a lot of out-of-state traffic.  Certainly, it will draw the Canadians, and it will obviously draw from within state.

Are there going to be some unsavory elements to accompany the casino?  I won't pretend that it won't happen.  But, as I said somewhere else, perfect is the enemy of good.  I live in this general area of Maine.  It's a part of Maine that could do to have an injection of economy.  And I know that we have some good systems in place with law enforcement.  If shit really goes down, they will be calling in Auburn and Lewiston PDs and they are some good Joes.  I would, myself, prefer if the casino was actually in Lewiston, but it didn't work out that way. 

I'm not worried about the casino. 

you obviously didn't read what I posted because you basically just agreed with me only you tried to frame it as being a GOOD thing.

[AFK]

Jobs are good.  Gambling is a legal, adult activity.  (Oh and in anticipation)...casions are a legal, adult activity where it is a lot easier to limit access to youth.  (Although, we already have legal forms of authorized youth gambling in America.  It's called Chuck E. Cheese)

I see no reason to prohibit it.  BUT, I do see reason to make sure that it is done right and in a way that very concertedly minimizes negative impacts to the surrounding communities.  You can be sure this casino will be under a very large microscope. 

[Freeky]

This thread is fucking garbage.    

[Triple Zero]

A new report from Sept 2011:

Results  The available evidence suggests that the prevalence of cannabis use among Dutch citizens rose and fell as the number of coffeeshops increased and later declined, but only modestly. The coffeeshops do not appear to encourage escalation into heavier use or lengthier using careers, although treatment rates for cannabis are higher than elsewhere in Europe. Scatterplot analyses suggest that Dutch patterns of use are very typical for Europe, and that the 'separation of markets' may indeed have somewhat weakened the link between cannabis use and the use of cocaine or amphetamines.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x/abstract Robert J. MacCoun (Prof. Goldman School of Public Policy and Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California, Berkeley)

Hmm, but my understanding is that marijuana is not sold in coffeeshops everywhere in the Netherlands, and that indeed there are localities in the Netherlands that were very adamant to NOT have it be allowed.  Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about that but I'm fairly certain I've read that in different reports.

So, the question I would have concerning this study, and one that cannot be answered unless one of y'all are going to pony up the dough so we can read the full report, the question would be, did they study the population solely in those localities where it is permitted or the whole population of the Netherlands?

If it is the whole population than I would suggest the study isn't very conclusive.  I think a more rigorous and conclusive study would be to look at the Dutch in those towns where marijuana is being sold.  I would also run a separate, parallel study with towns adjacent to those towns where it was sold.  What did the pattern look like there?  I mean, because I would expect little to no change in the pattern in those areas that were geographically removed from the localities where it is being sold.  

So, in my opinion, this study, that is this abstract of the study is interesting but I'm not sure it is terribly conclusive, based on what we know about the study from the abstract.  

You're sort of wrong and sort of right. It matches the sort of bias I've noticed in most of your sources.

Yes there's places in NL that don't have coffeeshops, but NL is very densely populated with busy population centers, conglomerates and tiny villages spotted in between. The tiny villages often don't have a high school either, so the kids have to ride their bike every morning to the nearest population center (usually 5 but no more than 20km away) that does have a high school. Physical exercise. Very good for them :P I was surprised that the real tiny villages sometimes don't even have a supermarket! Or maybe just a very small one that doesn't have certain products.

Anyway, it's very similar with coffeeshops, not every town has a coffeeshop, but if they don't, the next one probably does. The only sort of exception to this is a small "bible belt" type of region, but they do have drug problems (except "hard drugs" instead of cannabis/soft drugs) and, well, the sort of typical really creepy horrible abusive shit that goes on in tiny reclusive strongly religious communities .

The Netherlands is very densely populated and there aren't really any large regions without coffeeshops. And if you want to make a fair comparison, it should be between similar small town rural areas, not a small town without coffeeshop and a city.

Also it's not like not having a coffeeshop somewhere makes pot illegal. And if they have to get in the car once every week to do the big groceries shopping in the city, they can go get a gram, if they want. Also, the kids probably won't be spending their Saturday nights in smalltown nowhereville, but getting on their bikes to the nearest population center that has a bar or club or so (drinking age is 16 for beer, 18 for hard liquor, also 18 for pot) (though I personally wouldn't mind raising pot to 21, but, whatever), and there's probably also a coffeeshop.


By the way, you said something about ponying up the dough for that article? Cause I'm pretty sure that anyone with a university library internet connection can just download it and re-upload it somewhere. I don't no longer have that kind of access, but I'm sure some of the PDers do.


(btw in a fluke sense of consistence, alcohol and nicotine and even caffeine are often considered a "hard drug" that just happens to be legal, btw--the difference is made based upon how physically addictive it can be, and the health risks associated with heavy usage. Actually pot is the only commonly used drug that's considered "soft drugs", Dutch wikipedia also names certain kinds of mushrooms and benzodiazepines, except on another page it describes benzodiazepines as a controlled substance (makes more sense!), and I'm sure they outlawed mushrooms a couple of years ago thanks to tourists in Amsterdam getting themselves killed by jumping off a bridge or soemthing)

[AFK]

I don't have that access either but I would love to read the full article so if someone is able to do that, it would be fantastic. 

[East Coast Hustle]

Leaving out my personal opinion of the county mounties in Maine (since that's who will unfortunately be policing the area around the casino rather than the MSP who I consider to be possibly the best police force in the country), here's what I wrote:

RWHN, have you ever lived anywhere with a large casino nearby?

I have. Most of the jobs created are of the below-subsistence-wage variety, most of the real money goes to out-of-state interests and/or indian tribes, and the money that gets earmarked to help the state pay for the needed infrastructure upgrades and the inevitable increases in crime, substance abuse, gambling addiction, etc. NEVER actually matches what the state will have to spend on those things.

The casino in Maine is even worse than most as it's not going to draw very many people from out-of-state. Nobody's gonna drive from Boston to bumfuck western Maine when Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are just as far away and have their own exits right off the interstate, as well as all the trappings of civilization that Massholes expect. The vast majority of casino patrons in Maine are going to be FROM Maine. I hope I don't have to explain to you why that's not a good thing.

[AFK]

If it fails it fails. 

I can't speak to the other funding but the funding for treatment is mandated by law.  The State will be getting 3% of slots proceeds for gambling treatment.  They are already getting that money from the racino in Bangor.  Now, nothing keeps LePage from doing what Baldacci did and raid that money for the General Fund, but the casino has no say, nor control over that. 

[East Coast Hustle]

my point is that the 3% is not going to be enough. And it doesn't even begin to address the extra wear on an already-failing infrastructure nor the increases in crime and substance abuse that the presence of a casino all but guarantees.

And regardless of whether or not the patrons become problem gamblers, they're still going to be Mainers spending money that's mostly going to go out-of-state instead of feeding their families.

But hey, at least a few dozen people will get minimum-wage jobs!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

A new report from Sept 2011:

Results  The available evidence suggests that the prevalence of cannabis use among Dutch citizens rose and fell as the number of coffeeshops increased and later declined, but only modestly. The coffeeshops do not appear to encourage escalation into heavier use or lengthier using careers, although treatment rates for cannabis are higher than elsewhere in Europe. Scatterplot analyses suggest that Dutch patterns of use are very typical for Europe, and that the 'separation of markets' may indeed have somewhat weakened the link between cannabis use and the use of cocaine or amphetamines.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x/abstract Robert J. MacCoun (Prof. Goldman School of Public Policy and Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California, Berkeley)

Hmm, but my understanding is that marijuana is not sold in coffeeshops everywhere in the Netherlands, and that indeed there are localities in the Netherlands that were very adamant to NOT have it be allowed.  Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about that but I'm fairly certain I've read that in different reports.

So, the question I would have concerning this study, and one that cannot be answered unless one of y'all are going to pony up the dough so we can read the full report, the question would be, did they study the population solely in those localities where it is permitted or the whole population of the Netherlands?

If it is the whole population than I would suggest the study isn't very conclusive.  I think a more rigorous and conclusive study would be to look at the Dutch in those towns where marijuana is being sold.  I would also run a separate, parallel study with towns adjacent to those towns where it was sold.  What did the pattern look like there?  I mean, because I would expect little to no change in the pattern in those areas that were geographically removed from the localities where it is being sold.  

So, in my opinion, this study, that is this abstract of the study is interesting but I'm not sure it is terribly conclusive, based on what we know about the study from the abstract.  

True enough, but given that he's currently the instructor of this class: http://conium.org/~maccoun/pp279_f10.html

Empirical arguments and counterarguments play a central role in policy debates, thus public policy analysis requires a sophisticated understanding of a variety of types and sources of data. Quantitative analysis courses teach you how to analyze data; this course will introduce you to strategies of data collection and principles for critically evaluating data collected by others. Topics include measurement reliability and validity, questionnaire design, sampling, experimental and quasi-experimental program evaluation designs, qualitative research methods, and the politics of data in public policy.

I'd guess he understands data collection and analysis pretty well

Now he could be using poor data collection intentionally, but I'd think his reputation would be at risk for such an obvious gaffe.

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/13/lessons-from-dutch-cannabis-system/  Summary

And a link to what appears to be the full paper at Huffingtonpost:

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x.pdf

In the article he does appear to speak specifically about Amsterdam in several comparisons, as well as The Netherlands in other comparisons. Overall, he points out that the approach in The Netherlands is nuanced and not simply broad based legalization.

[AFK]

Which is important because it seems to me that the end goal here in the U.S. is broad based legalization.  That's the flavor I'm getting from this thread anyway. 

To be clear, and probably unsurprisingly, I would not be a fan of the Netherland's model in the U.S. 

But I think it is an important point to keep in mind when trying to use that data as a justification or support for broad-based legalization in the U.S. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Which is important because it seems to me that the end goal here in the U.S. is broad based legalization.  That's the flavor I'm getting from this thread anyway. 

To be clear, and probably unsurprisingly, I would not be a fan of the Netherland's model in the U.S. 

But I think it is an important point to keep in mind when trying to use that data as a justification or support for broad-based legalization in the U.S. 

I think that most people interested in the topic consider 'broad based legalization' to be the most philosophically correct position, but are more concerned with decriminalization for personal use. The paper linked above basically shows that Amsterdam's experience has had some negative consequences and more recent changes have corrected many of those consequences (closing shops near schools, enforcement of non-compliance by coffee shops etc). That is, it seems that The Netherlands experiment could provide real world data for how to decriminalize while accounting for the problems they experienced in the past. That would include regulation and enforcement to protect children which I think almost all of us here would agree with.

[AFK]

In theory yes.  But it's still too big of a gamble from where I'm sitting.  I'm looking currently at a medical marijuana program in my state that is being weakened and that will make it easier for medical marijuana to be diverted, DESPITE, the information the government gets from folks in my field.

So you can understand my reluctance, given my professional duty, to sign on.