Everyone who has a brain knows that marijuanita is a gateway dug. Worse, today's version is loaded with more toxic metals. The excuse use to be, it was needed medicinally. Cannabis medicine is already factual without the hallucinogens part of marijuanita that has cause damages to the brain (a factual medically proven fact). Also, as a gateway drug. It opens the door for more serious drug trafficking aka cartel into our nation, of whom are already thriving in about 20 states (mostly blue state, a proven fact). A gateway drug that destroys and has destroyed lives for decade can only be stop by strong law, and dedicated patriotic Sheriffs.
This article is nothing more than a fear-mongering article that is trying to scare people. Without any evidence of....what seems to be the argument that legalizing recreational cannabis would *checks notes* Bring the mafia and hit squads to South Dakota. This article presents no evidence to back up the claim and instead presents a number of fallacies. Let's count them shall we?
False Cause (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc): The article implies that legalizing marijuana will automatically lead to increased cartel activity, crime, and dangerous drug practices, but it doesn’t provide evidence linking these directly to marijuana legalization. While cartels may have a presence in areas where marijuana is legalized, other factors like enforcement, regulation quality, and socio-economic conditions also play roles in crime rates.
Hasty Generalization: The article generalizes the consequences of marijuana legalization across all states by stating that "most states that have legalized marijuana regret their decision." This is a broad claim that lacks evidence and disregards the diversity of outcomes in states with legalization, some of which report positive results in reduced crime and increased tax revenue.
Appeal to Fear: There’s an appeal to fear by describing cartels as highly organized, violent entities that allegedly infiltrate legalized marijuana markets, slip in fentanyl, and dominate entire neighborhoods. This paints a dramatic picture intended to scare readers into voting against the measure, but the narrative lacks credible data to support these claims.
Slippery Slope: The article suggests that legalizing marijuana inevitably leads to a cascade of consequences (e.g., cartel violence, fentanyl addiction, property takeovers). This fallacy presents an exaggerated chain reaction without showing that each step is a likely or necessary outcome of the initial action (marijuana legalization).
False Dichotomy (Black-and-White Thinking): By stating, “we need to vote NO to preserve our quality of life,” the article implies that rejecting the measure is the only solution to prevent crime and cartel infiltration. This fails to acknowledge that there are other potential solutions, such as better regulation and law enforcement strategies.
Red Herring: The mention of crime in California, unrelated to South Dakota’s IM 29 measure, distracts from the core topic. This red herring fallacy shifts the focus to broader issues in California, without linking them specifically to marijuana legalization or proving that similar effects would necessarily occur in South Dakota.
Appeal to Tradition: Implicitly, the article argues for maintaining the status quo (“vote NO to preserve our quality of life”), which can be seen as an appeal to tradition. It assumes that changes to marijuana laws will disrupt quality of life without considering that legal structures and enforcement methods could adapt to minimize negative impacts.
Finally, according to a Rugers study published in the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction found that prescription opioid use (like fentanyl) has actually DECREASED among populations in states that have legalized cannabis. Here's the link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11469-023-01191-y
And in this case I know the subject cold. I lived in California before and after legalization and know people in the legal business. What is documented here is what happened (and is happening) in California. Have you lived in California?
I was born in South Dakota. I've also lived in NY, Montana, & California (LA to be specific). But that's irrelevant. My point is, this is an opinion piece. Not a factual article. You're using anecdotal evidence based on personal experience. You're not bringing facts or data to the table. If you're going to make these claims, then you need more than you're own personal experience.
There is tons of data from California. Perhaps you could post it. The point of the article was to generate discussion. If you worked in the industry in California, please share your experiences. It would be interesting to hear about them.
The first one is a little old, but still solid data:
"The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data, 1990–2006" by Robert G. Morris et al. (2014): This study analyzes the impact of medical marijuana laws on crime rates, finding that legalization is associated with a reduction in certain types of crime, including homicide and assault.
"The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations: 2021 Update" by Jeffrey A. Miron and Elina Tetelbaum (2021): This analysis reviews the effects of marijuana legalization across various states, including California, concluding that legalization has minimal impact on overall crime rates.
"Measuring the Criminal Justice System Impacts of Marijuana Legalization and Decriminalization Using State Data" by Erin J. Farley and Stan Orchowsky (2019): This report examines the effects of marijuana legalization on criminal justice resources, noting that legalization has led to fewer marijuana-related arrests and court cases in states like California.
Here's another: This one deals more with recreational cannabis in relation to mental health and lowered Alcohol Use Disorders where legalized - Conclusions
The article does make an excellent point saying that the cannabis black market is driving up the cost and says,
"It all comes down to the price of weed on the black market, Linegar added. As long as there is a demand for pot where prohibition remains the law of the land, there will be a vibrant black market.
The only way to bring this violent fiasco to a screeching halt is “ending the federal prohibition and resolving the banking issue,” he said."
Thank you for sharing your opinion. The point of this site is to provide content and allow people to share their viewpoints. I appreciate you taking the time to share yours.
Everyone who has a brain knows that marijuanita is a gateway dug. Worse, today's version is loaded with more toxic metals. The excuse use to be, it was needed medicinally. Cannabis medicine is already factual without the hallucinogens part of marijuanita that has cause damages to the brain (a factual medically proven fact). Also, as a gateway drug. It opens the door for more serious drug trafficking aka cartel into our nation, of whom are already thriving in about 20 states (mostly blue state, a proven fact). A gateway drug that destroys and has destroyed lives for decade can only be stop by strong law, and dedicated patriotic Sheriffs.
Thank you for commenting!
This article is nothing more than a fear-mongering article that is trying to scare people. Without any evidence of....what seems to be the argument that legalizing recreational cannabis would *checks notes* Bring the mafia and hit squads to South Dakota. This article presents no evidence to back up the claim and instead presents a number of fallacies. Let's count them shall we?
False Cause (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc): The article implies that legalizing marijuana will automatically lead to increased cartel activity, crime, and dangerous drug practices, but it doesn’t provide evidence linking these directly to marijuana legalization. While cartels may have a presence in areas where marijuana is legalized, other factors like enforcement, regulation quality, and socio-economic conditions also play roles in crime rates.
Hasty Generalization: The article generalizes the consequences of marijuana legalization across all states by stating that "most states that have legalized marijuana regret their decision." This is a broad claim that lacks evidence and disregards the diversity of outcomes in states with legalization, some of which report positive results in reduced crime and increased tax revenue.
Appeal to Fear: There’s an appeal to fear by describing cartels as highly organized, violent entities that allegedly infiltrate legalized marijuana markets, slip in fentanyl, and dominate entire neighborhoods. This paints a dramatic picture intended to scare readers into voting against the measure, but the narrative lacks credible data to support these claims.
Slippery Slope: The article suggests that legalizing marijuana inevitably leads to a cascade of consequences (e.g., cartel violence, fentanyl addiction, property takeovers). This fallacy presents an exaggerated chain reaction without showing that each step is a likely or necessary outcome of the initial action (marijuana legalization).
False Dichotomy (Black-and-White Thinking): By stating, “we need to vote NO to preserve our quality of life,” the article implies that rejecting the measure is the only solution to prevent crime and cartel infiltration. This fails to acknowledge that there are other potential solutions, such as better regulation and law enforcement strategies.
Red Herring: The mention of crime in California, unrelated to South Dakota’s IM 29 measure, distracts from the core topic. This red herring fallacy shifts the focus to broader issues in California, without linking them specifically to marijuana legalization or proving that similar effects would necessarily occur in South Dakota.
Appeal to Tradition: Implicitly, the article argues for maintaining the status quo (“vote NO to preserve our quality of life”), which can be seen as an appeal to tradition. It assumes that changes to marijuana laws will disrupt quality of life without considering that legal structures and enforcement methods could adapt to minimize negative impacts.
Finally, according to a Rugers study published in the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction found that prescription opioid use (like fentanyl) has actually DECREASED among populations in states that have legalized cannabis. Here's the link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11469-023-01191-y
And in this case I know the subject cold. I lived in California before and after legalization and know people in the legal business. What is documented here is what happened (and is happening) in California. Have you lived in California?
I was born in South Dakota. I've also lived in NY, Montana, & California (LA to be specific). But that's irrelevant. My point is, this is an opinion piece. Not a factual article. You're using anecdotal evidence based on personal experience. You're not bringing facts or data to the table. If you're going to make these claims, then you need more than you're own personal experience.
There is tons of data from California. Perhaps you could post it. The point of the article was to generate discussion. If you worked in the industry in California, please share your experiences. It would be interesting to hear about them.
The first one is a little old, but still solid data:
"The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data, 1990–2006" by Robert G. Morris et al. (2014): This study analyzes the impact of medical marijuana laws on crime rates, finding that legalization is associated with a reduction in certain types of crime, including homicide and assault.
PLOS JOURNALS - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0092816&type=printable
"The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations: 2021 Update" by Jeffrey A. Miron and Elina Tetelbaum (2021): This analysis reviews the effects of marijuana legalization across various states, including California, concluding that legalization has minimal impact on overall crime rates.
CATO INSTITUTE - https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/effect-state-marijuana-legalizations-2021-update#budgetary-impacts
"Measuring the Criminal Justice System Impacts of Marijuana Legalization and Decriminalization Using State Data" by Erin J. Farley and Stan Orchowsky (2019): This report examines the effects of marijuana legalization on criminal justice resources, noting that legalization has led to fewer marijuana-related arrests and court cases in states like California.
NIJ.GOV - https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/measuring-criminal-justice-system-impacts-marijuana-legalization-and
Here's another: This one deals more with recreational cannabis in relation to mental health and lowered Alcohol Use Disorders where legalized - Conclusions
Recreational legalization was associated with increased cannabis use and decreased AUD symptoms but was not associated with other maladaptations. These effects were maintained within twin pairs discordant for residence. Moreover, vulnerabilities to cannabis use were not exacerbated by the legal cannabis environment. Future research may investigate causal links between cannabis consumption and outcomes. - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/recreational-cannabis-legalization-has-had-limited-effects-on-a-wide-range-of-adult-psychiatric-and-psychosocial-outcomes/D4AB5EB78D588473A054877E05D45F16
The effects of recreational marijuana laws on drug use and crime - Journal of Public Economics - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272724000112
An article from Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeadams/2018/03/28/california-officials-say-marijuana-legalization-causing-more-violent-crime/) from 2018 (again, a little older but still relevant to the conversation) that cites this article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ecoj.12521 which says there's no direct link.
The article does make an excellent point saying that the cannabis black market is driving up the cost and says,
"It all comes down to the price of weed on the black market, Linegar added. As long as there is a demand for pot where prohibition remains the law of the land, there will be a vibrant black market.
The only way to bring this violent fiasco to a screeching halt is “ending the federal prohibition and resolving the banking issue,” he said."
Thank you for sharing your opinion. The point of this site is to provide content and allow people to share their viewpoints. I appreciate you taking the time to share yours.
Voting yes
Thank you for contributing. Since this is a forum for people to share information, I am wondering if you would mind sharing why?