The Campaign For DA


A Tale Of Two Cities . . . Uh . . . I Mean States

From today's news:

From the Texas DPS twitter feed this month:

Who do you think will win this war? Is there a place in Vegas I can gamble everything I own on it?


Anonymous said...

I have a feeling the Mexican cartels will win.

Denney Crane said...

Can someone show me where increasing government revenue through taxation of tobacco, alcohol or weed has decreased their personal taxes or other liabilities?

What's the cost vs revenue stats on taxation of alcohol sales in Texas? When figuring cost, please include the cost in our prison and legal system, health care institutions, insurance premiums, welfare payments, productivity losses, ect...

I have no problem with legalizing weed, but to justify it through the revenue it generates in our economy or bureaucracy does not compute.

wordkyle said...

Well, the "winners" apparently aren't the citizens of Colorado. A couple of findings from a recent government report on legalization's impact on Colorado: Drug use is up among kids and the traffic fatalities related to marijuana have increased. Emergency room visits tied to ingesting too much THC have spiked among adults and children.

Man, who could have seen that coming?

Anonymous said...

Mac and cheese ad over an article about legal marijuana? Looks like Kraft wins the drug war!

Anonymous said...

Such a bogus government report written by an agency with a vested interest in continuing the drug war using horrible methodologies and very misleading numbers. What a crock of shit.

wordkyle said...

...bogus government report...crock of shit" Support for your conclusions, please.

Sources for the government report include the U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Colorado Department of Transportation, National Survey on Drug Use and Health Model 2013, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, Colorado Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, various studies conducted by professionals in their fields (e.g., Deborah Brauser, Medscape Medical News from the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP) 25th Annual Meeting, December 16, 2014, “Cannabis-Related ED Visits Rise in States with Legalized Use”) and a host of scientific reports (e.g., POST-LEGALIZATION OF RETAIL MARIJUANA: A STUDY FOCUSING ON EFFECTS OF CRIME, LIVABILITY AND PERCEPTIONS OF CRIME IN THE DENVER METRO AREA, EARLY SUMMER 2015 BY METROPOLITAN STATE UNIVERSITY)

All bogus?

Anonymous said...

Of course, Wordy's website is total bs.

"The organization, operated under the supervision of director Tom Gorman..."
"...Gorman has acknowledged that some of the data assembled by the RMHIDTA is opinion-based,"

Anonymous said...

Can you imagine running in to Wkyle at a party? I'm yawning just thinking about it.

Anonymous said...

News flash, Turdkyle- Marijuana is not a drug, it's a plant. Friggin dipshit.

Anonymous said...

Yes, all bogus/biased. Sorry wordy. Just say no to The War on Drugs: Marijuana Edition.

Anonymous said...


There are many other evils that deserve your intention more than cannabis legalization. You are obsessed with it.

Let it go

DF Tommy Chong

Todd Carruth said...

Here you go:

"No one from the RMHIDTA responded to requests for comment. The report cites the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration and its own research for its data.

But when contacted, a spokesman for the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration referred us back to the Colorado Department of Transportation for the figures, saying each state reports different information. No federal data could confirm the report’s claim.

Meanwhile, the statistics from Colorado’s DOT don’t match the RMHIDTA report. "

Anonymous said...

Yes to hemp!

DF Woody Harrelson

Anonymous said...

Hey Colorado, pass that around, dude.

DF Texas 420

Anonymous said...

I think I just heard Wordy's head explode.

wordkyle said...


245 - I'm not obsessed with it; the people who promote it are obsessed. As for evils in the world, I agree with you. Why add another one?

214 - Thanks for the update. You have proven yourself extremely clever and articulate.

153 - If you think you know anything about someone else's real life from their comments in a forum such as this, you probably don't get invited to many parties in the first place.

152 - ""...Gorman has acknowledged that some of the data assembled by the RMHIDTA is opinion-based..." That's as misleading a statement as anything you're trying to say. In the article that they linked to for that statement, Gorman references a survey sent to one-hundred randomly selected school resource officers. They were asked for their professional opinion in several areas. That's the "acknowledgment."

wordkyle said...

419 - Head explode? Why? I'm parrying arguments made by a bunch of pro-pot enthusiasts. It's more fun than plinking targets on the midway at a county fair.

Anonymous said...


From the report you reference, just a sample, don't get all happy because a table/chart/page was not mentioned does not mean it is correct.

Page 15

Prior to weed legalization, the number of state wide traffic deaths was over 500 per year. After legalization, less than 500 per year every year.

Page 27

The total number of traffic accidents of 115K in 2014 are less than the totals for 2005 and 2006.

Page 73

Stories, not based on statistical facts, like Ralphie the Comedian being too high to perform, are nothing but sensationalism and have no place in a scientific, statistical report based on facts.

Page 105

Where are the stats from weed coming from Mexico?

Generally, there is a huge % increase in many areas related to weed. Obviously Denver and Colorado must be huge crime havens and the overall numbers must have at least doubled, but they didn't. Is it because numbers have declined rapidly in other areas not included in this report? Is is possible the government would publish numbers that support their position and ignore the numbers that undermine their position? Surely not......not the government.....they'd never try to snow the public with numbers, charts and graphs that leave out facts detrimental to their way that would happen. See the government reporting of the Vietnam war and get back to me.

A "paradigm" would be if the government reported Global Warming was a fact because TX average temperature rose 2 degrees over the last 10 years, and disregarding the fact that the average temperature of the other 49 states had remained the same or declined.

Liars use statistics, take if from a pro in this arena.

Anonymous said...

Okay, WK,

From a debate point of view, you are kicking ass and taking names (well, numbers, actually) on this one. And most of the time I agree with you. But really man, this is one you should just let go of. You still win the debate but you should let go of the prize.

wordkyle said...

550 - Since no one posted at 4:30, I don't know if you're talking to me or not. But just in case, 1) I referenced a couple of reports. You'll need to be more specific. 2) Your comments are all over the place, and other than disagreeing with something, you don't make a lot of sense. 3) Traffic fatalities in Colorado had shown a downward trend for several years prior to pot legalization. Contrary to what I think you're trying to imply, legalizing marijuana did not prevent accidents.

Anonymous said...

I like pot. I am retired, disabled, and have nothing else to do anyway. If women can say their bodies are their own and kill their own babies, then why can't I smoke a little pot to relieve the pain and nausea of my cancer as I slowly waste away? It doesn't hurt anybody and it sure takes my mind off my troubles. By the way, I'm not a damn liberal either like the little pansy that runs this here blog.

Anonymous said...

Free the weed!

wordkyle said...

604 - I can absolutely guarantee you that I'm not as emotionally invested in the subject as the pot proponents. Having said that, I believe recreational marijuana use is a negative to society, not a benefit. So when those proponents try to make exaggerated claims, I take pleasure in poking holes in their arguments, not the least of which pleasure is watching how outraged they get.

tommy said...

In a FREE country people are FREE to do things that they want. Alcohol is abused and drunk drivers hurt other people. People of age are not arrested and jailed for possession of alcohol, they are arrested and jailed for what they do to others under its influence not what they might do. One's drug of his choice not the governments..

wordkyle said...

943 - Basically you're using the "alcohol is worse and it's legal" argument which I've addressed before.

"The difference is that alcohol was legal and ubiquitous prior to Prohibition. Changing the status quo didn't work. Marijuana has not been legal for eight decades; changing the status quo means adding a harmful product onto the many harmful products (e.g. alcohol, tobacco) already legal in our society." - 3/31/15

Anonymous said...

@ Wordy:

But who are you to decide for ME?
As a right leaning Libertarian, it pains me to know that I vote for most of the same people you do.

Anonymous said...

Wordy, your quote from 3/31/15 is the saddest anti legalization argument I've ever read, and that is saying something! Marijuana use may have not been legal for sometime, but it has long been ubiquitous in our society. We have just been OK with that lengthy prohibition because of the social stigma and misunderstanding of the drug.

You have a bias against the type of people with whom you perceive as pot smokers, i.e. blacks, liberals, illegals, free thinkers, etc. Respectable white folks just get their drink on or so it goes and we have long been OK with that. Sending them to the hills and hollars to tend their stills was just wrong I guess so let's repeat that behavior for 80 plus years as long as we don't like the types of people who prefer a safer alternative to self medicate! Your opinion is shameful and ignorant, not for its stance but for its substance, or lack thereof. I'd rather have the drug legalized than see the bloodshed and ruined lives we have endured in a failed war! Your hypocrisy is astounding!

wordkyle said...

I love how pro pot people take something I say, twist it, then rail against what they created. I also enjoy how, almost without fail, they'll attribute stances to me that are also something they created. ("You have a bias against the type of people with whom you perceive as pot smokers, i.e. blacks, liberals, illegals, free thinkers, etc.")

The quote from 3/31/15 was a rebuttal to the "alcohol is worse" argument. That was clear to anyone a)who was reading it with an open mind, and b) whose mind has not been addled because of all the pot they've smoked.

Overall, my stance is this:
Recreational marijuana use harms both the individual and society.
It provides no benefit to society.
Adding such an evil to our already too-long list of evils is stupid.
Legalization gives tacit approval to stupid people ("the guvmint said it's legal, so it must be okay") thereby increasing its use.
Those who have developed the habit of smoking an illegal drug simply to get high have already cast doubt about their judgment.
The arguments of such people have the tone of the three-year-old in the toy aisle throwing a tantrum because mommy won't give him what he wants.
If you want to claim the benefits of legalization such as saving government money, reducing crime, etc., then a more direct and elegant solution is for pot smokers to quit smoking pot. All the same benefits, with no downside.

tommy said...

Weed was made a schedule 1 drug, same as heroin, in the Nixon era because the people who used it were considered counter culture. To say that weed is as bad as heroin destroys credibility. I'm an old drug warrior and it's not worth the risk to law enforcement officers to enforce the drug laws. Make drugs (all drugs) available and cheap and natural selection will sort it out. I could never understand why a police officer got killed to keep someone I hate from getting high. Can You?

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle, you are not adding anything, pot is already here and ubiquitous. Hence the status quo drug war does not work! Same as with alcohol during prohibition. Alcohol and pot are here to stay legal or not. Legalize, tax, regulate and and cut the cartels out.

Alcohol is worse, there is no rebuttal to that because it is fact. That doesn't mean I think pot is OK, they both have perils, alcohol is just far more tied to violent crime.

Never used an illegal drug in my life.


wordkyle said...

1222 - Well, your "ubiquitous" drug became more ubiquitous in Colorado after it was legalized. So legalization added new pot smokers to the mix, as well as encouraging already-users to smoke more. This, to smoke a drug that serves no benefit to society, and is harmful to both the individual and society.

The fact that alcohol is worse is irrelevant. Once again: adding another evil to the list of ones we already have is stupid.

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle, you are not adding another evil, it was already here. What about that do you not understand? What is stupid is making felons out of young people and putting them forever in the poverty stream and allowing our neighbors to the south to violently fight to feed our black markets! Why do you think so many illegals are fleeing there home countries.

wordkyle said...

828 - The new smokers, the increased-use smokers, and the damage done to those individuals and to society are evils added just so immature people can get high. What about that do you not understand? And those "felons?" They're felons by choice. THAT is stupid.

Anonymous said...

They are felons where alcoholics are not. That needs to be corrected. I'd rather the "new" smokers (not sure that can be logically quantified or proven) get their pot in a safe environment than have to reach out to the local dealer who might be into hard drugs. The damage is only made worse by the war on drugs and has done nothing to truly put a dent in the illegal supply, while legalisation has in Colorado. I'd rather have a slight uptick in use than bodies in the street....but more dead kids is all good with you I guess!

wordkyle said...

"They are felons where alcoholics are not" - Again, felons by choice. That fact, as much as you wish it, is not to be blithely ignored. They chose to buy, sell, use, or distribute something that has never been legal in their (or their parents', maybe their grandparents') lifetimes. To let such people dictate policy imposes their stupidity on everyone else.

Your "safe environment" has resulted in a 74% increase in marijuana exposure/poisonings in Colorado. The biggest number were children ages 0-9.

Also, since pot legalization, sales of alcohol have increased in Colorado. The evils keep multiplying.

If you want to "put a dent in the illegal supply" then cut off demand. People should not smoke pot for recreation. It's illegal, it harms them and society, and people quitting pot smoking would unburden taxpayers, the judicial system, and would reduce crime. A solution that's cheap, simple, and effective.

Anonymous said...

"A solution that's cheap, simple, and effective."

But one that will never happen.
You sound like a liberal with that ridiculous utopian thinking.
I know you are smarter than that Wordy.

wordkyle said...

308 - Utopian it may be, but the statement is true. I agree that it won't happen any time soon, due in large part to people like you who do everything to advocate smoking pot by minimizing its risk and ignoring real-world consequences. But look at what the "don't do it" campaign has done to cigarette smoking over the last few decades. It just takes public will.

However, pot advocates depend on the stupidity and immaturity of the public to swallow their arguments, which so far has proven successful. Congratulations on charting the course toward Idiocracy.

Anonymous said...

Wordy, so what do we just execute pot smokers? I'm not sure how your abstinence plan works when so many people are already willing to face jail and other repercussions to enjoy their habit. I don't think simply telling folks to quit is a legitimate plan. But of course you don't want solutions to problems because positive change is antithetical to your political philosophy.

Sales of alcohol have increased in CO because of their burgeoning craft beer industry. They are actually consuming fewer gallons but are pitching in more dollars on higher priced swill. This is in no way linked to pot, absolutely no causation there.

I do disagree with edibles and I think CO has already began to address these issues. But hey, it boils down to personal responsibility, if you want guns keep them away from kids, same goes for edibles.

wordkyle said...

"Personal responsibility" You're kidding, right?

I'll assume that you're just playing coy with your "abstinence" remark. The anti-smoking movement has been spectacularly successful.

Your assertion about the craft beer conflicts with information in news stories on the increase in alcohol tax revenue. Quote: "Alcohol is taxed by volume: 8 cents a gallon for beer, 28 cents a gallon for wine and $2.28 a gallon for liquor, plus sales taxes. Colorado saw a sales increase last year in all three tax classes of alcohol. Beer was up 1.1 percent, liquor was up 3 percent, and wine was up 1.3 percent." The increase was in volume, not in prices.

As I said -- you depend on other people's stupidity to advance your agenda.

5:19 said...

Hey Wordy, I'm a gun totin' Texan from a hick town. We grew up hating stoners. I have no agenda here but to see the drug war in regards to Marijuana for what it is, a failure. Anecdotal stats that amount to a hill of beans won't change my mind or take away from the fact that legalization will reduce deaths, shrink prison population, generate tax revenue that is lost in a black market, allow police to focus on violent crime, unburden the criminal justice system, and create a safer alternative to alcohol.

Colorado is a major beer producing state. That beer is being shipped and consumed in other states dumbass, but nice try. Like I said earlier, the growing craft brewing industry will lead to more volume produced but you have to dive deeper into the numbers to see that Coloradans are consuming fewer gallons per capita. They aren't pounding a case of Miller anymore but buying 6 packs of higher quality brew. They have embraced this movement more than any state other than Oregon. I am linked to this industry on the input supplier side and am very aware of the trends in consumption in Colorado. The focus is on quality, not quantity.

I agree it is stupid to put these substances in your body, but you can't fix stupid with more stupid which is what you support....that kinda makes you double dumb!

Anonymous said...

"I agree that it won't happen any time soon, due in large part to people like you who do everything to advocate smoking pot by minimizing its risk and ignoring real-world consequences."

I don't advocate smoking pot...I advocate freedom to do as one pleases in this country as measured by the barometer of relative harm.
The hypocrite Wordy has a pipe smoking avatar.
Way to promote a harmful substance, you dumba$$.

Anonymous said...


I bet 10 to 20 percent of your acquaintances/friends/circle smoke pot and you don't even know it.

Have you ever smoked pot Wordy?

You were that kid that always ran to the teacher to tattle weren't you?

wordkyle said...

934 - Yours are the types of comments that make it fun to debate the pro-pot crowd. If there's a fact you don't like, you simply ignore it. Then you continue to repeat already-proven-false statements and make speculative predictions that exist only because they fulfill your dreams. Responding to you is like playing poker for money with a child. That's why people like you shouldn't be allowed to influence policy -- your thinking ain't right, and you can't be trusted. (In all fairness, it may not be your fault. Heavy pot use has been proven to damage the brain.)

P.S. 1) The news stories simply reported the tax revenue information from the state. That's not "anecdotal." 2) I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm illustrating how weak your arguments are. Anyone still reading can make up their own minds. 3) See point #1 regarding taxation vis-a-vis consumption. (To help you understand, the headline to a news story is "Legal Weed in Colorado Doesn't Curb Alcohol Sales." That's pretty straightforward.)

wordkyle said...

Are you actually making assumptions about someone's real life based on comments in an internet blog? Does your entire life function by using so little information to form opinions, or is it just here?

P.S. When you start the personal attacks, it means you've realized your argument won't stand on its own merits. That's okay, though; it shows readers that you know your limitations.

9:34 said...

Like I said earlier, I have never and will never smoke pot. I also don't pound Oreo cookies and slurp Dr Pepper either which have caused far more death, pain and suffering than pot ever will. Also nothing I've said has been proven false, but nice try though.

It is important to point out your facts for what they really are and that is you grasping for data to support and stoke fear, while ignoring the fact that much larger problems are being solved by legalization than they create. You are also using a rediculously small subset of data in a single state to hang your hat on. It is equivalent to calling a hitter a career .100 after he goes 1 for in his first 10 at bats. While it may be statistically true it don't amount pile of horse shit.

I never thought I'd see the day you turned to the liberal media to find your source data. That shows how desperate and half-baked (see what I did there) your arguments really are on this. Nothing about that article can tie legalization of pot to an increase in alcohol consumption; again no causation and the evidence is anecdotal. Alcohol sales are up, I get it, but you are playing fast and loose with volume (production) taxation and consumer (retail) taxation #'s. The consumers of CO are buying premium alcohol at a higher price, thus paying a higher tax, but they are consuming fewer gallons individually than their daddies and grandpappies and this is no secret. Their substantial and ever growing beer industry is pumping out more volume than ever, much of which sits in your local Lubbock supermarket. And this has absolutely nothing to do with pot! BTW, I never argued that legal weed curbed alcohol consumption, just that the two are not tied in any way especially to the volume increase. But you were making assumptions about my life based off comments on a blog, now weren't you! Keep lying pal, it will always catch up with you.

9:34 said...

Wordy, and a couple of more points from your linked article...

A University of Colorado-Denver economist who has studied how marijuana availability impacts alcohol consumption said the Colorado numbers don’t show much.

Economist Daniel Rees pointed out that beer sales growth didn’t even keep up with population growth in the last year, estimated at about 1.7 percent between 2014 and 2015.

“I wouldn’t read too much into one state’s experience,” Rees said.

Anonymous said...

I love how Wordy tries to tell you how he's won the argument because he says so and it is over.

Yes that was an ad hominem attack and you are quite deserving.

wordkyle said...

Once again, you ignore reality because it didn't fit your opinion. In Colorado, taxes from alcohol sales went up. Those taxes are based on volume, not price. An increase in taxes means an increase in volume consumed. If you have evidence to the contrary, please trot it out. What has been amply shown is that marijuana is not a substitute for alcohol, and its use will not reduce alcohol consumption. It will be an additional evil, which was my original point early on.

The damage done by marijuana use, and exacerbated by legalization, has already demonstrated itself in Colorado. That is reality. You deny reality because it conflicts with your fantasy. You try to compare what has already happened (reality) with your wishful projections (fantasy.) Once again, that demonstrates why people like you should not be able to influence policy.

I commend you for your virtuous lifestyle. I believe everything anonymous online commenters say about themselves.

And it appears that someone has stopped signing his work. I should have caught it earlier. The indications were there. But having made the realization, I now cast the shroud back upon you.

Denney Crane said...

My question above was answered today. Here are the latest stats on the cost (dollars only) of excessive alcohol use in the United States. $250 billion sound reasonable?

So where do I find revenue data for comparison?

Cost to relationships and the inflicted emotional damage cannot be expressed in dollars.

Although alcohol attributes to more deaths than guns, do I want to make it illegal? No, but don't freaking justify it's legality and availability with revenue figures. Prohibition proved pointless, as does justification through profit.

9:34 said...

Wordy, the taxes from alcohol sales grew at a consistent rate during the year after legalization, as to be expected. It actually didn't even keep up with population growth according to your own sources. The idea that pot was an immediate substitute was never a cornerstone argument of mine. You floated that since it was theorized by some studying and supporting legalization. I think only time will tell. At least I'm honest enough to admit it is too early to tell while you look at one flawed metric and yell the sky is falling in true nut job fashion.

You choose your data on alcohol sales with flawed logic, no causation, that was anecdotal and and too narrow to base a long term extrapolation on. You fundamentally don't understand the difference in the tax info and how you have to look far deeper to ferret out per capita consumption like what container size was bought, what retail price point, etc. The volume is supply side and that consumption occurs in markets outside of CO as well. These factors are all important. Simply saying "volumes up their all drinking more in CO" is a short sided and politically motivated to fit your agenda. It also has no merit and in your case I consider it an outright fabrication given that you are an unabashed spin doctor!

Overly criminalizing a safer drug is the where the larger problem lies. This only adds to social problems for which you and I pay for the specific teat to be sucked. I want to stop that milking and see the states gain revenue from sources in which don't hit my bottom line. In that case of pot it is a win win, lower costs higher tax revenue.

The reality is the damage done in CO from social ills of marijuana use already existed, the other good thing about legalization is now it is easier to document, analyze and compare that data. The reality that you avoid is that arrests, violent crime, murder and theft are all down in Colorado. How much of that is attributed to the reduction in trafficking remains to be seen, but we know how large a problem it was before.

So basically anyone that intelligently disagrees with you on anything should be banned from politics...very Hitleresque of you!