Supposedly Neutral Federal Report Stacks the Deck Against Marijuana Legalization
An anti-drug task force is desperate to show that legalization in Colorado has been a disaster.

This week a federal anti-drug task force released the third in a series of reports on marijuana legalization in Colorado. As I explain in my latest Forbes column, the main point of the report is to show that legalization was a terrible mistake, even if that means making stuff up:
In 2012 Coloradans approved Amendment 64, which legalized marijuana for recreational use, by a vote of 55 percent to 45 percent. Last February a Quinnipiac University poll found that 58 percent of Colorado voters supported that decision, while 38 percent opposed it and the rest weren't sure.
For prohibitionists determined to portray marijuana legalization in Colorado as a disaster, those poll results are inconvenient, since they indicate that public support for Amendment 64 was higher after more than a year of legal recreational sales and more than two years of legal possession and home cultivation than it was in 2012. Honest drug warriors would acknowledge the Quinnipiac numbers and perhaps try to balance them with other poll results. Dishonest drug warriors would do what the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (RMHIDTA) does in its new report on marijuana legalization: change the numbers.
The RMHIDTA, a federally supported task force dedicated to suppressing marijuana and other illegal drugs, claims only 50 percent of Colorado voters supported legalization in that Quinnipiac survey—eight points lower than the actual result. It also understates the 2012 vote for Amendment 64 by a point, but the comparison still supports the story that the task force wants to tell: The consequences of legalization in Colorado have been so bad that public support for the policy already has fallen.
Even assuming that the RMHIDTA's misrepresentation of the Quinnipiac survey was a mistake, the direction of the error is not random. You can be sure that if the report had overstated support for legalization by eight points, someone would have caught it before the text was finalized. Which underlines a point that should be obvious by now: Despite its pose as a dispassionate collector of facts, the RMHIDTA, which issued similar reports in 2013 and 2014, is committed to the position that legalization was a huge mistake, and every piece of information it presents is aimed at supporting that predetermined conclusion. So even when the task force does not simply make stuff up, it filters and slants the evidence to play up the purported costs of legalization while ignoring the benefits.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So, although legalization is more popular than when it passed, these guys pretended if fell.
Why am I not surprised.
I went to Colorado for my birthday in August. Took my adult nieces and nephews and their significant others. We all had a terrific time. No one was dying in the streets. There weren't little stoned children running amok. As far as I could tell, the dispensaries managed themselves very responsibly and it was a quiet thing people did in the privacy of their own homes.
Why people feel the need to interfere with a proven success is beyond me.
"Why people feel the need to interfere with a proven success is beyond me."
Probably because you are an honest man. See my comment below.
Because it's a success with regard to everything except the one thing that matters -- their power.
So, although legalization is more popular than when it passed, these guys pretended if fell.
Why am I not surprised.
I went to Colorado for my birthday in August. Took my adult nieces and nephews and their significant others. We all had a terrific time. No one was dying in the streets. There weren't little stoned children running amok. As far as I could tell, the dispensaries managed themselves very responsibly and it was a quiet thing people did in the privacy of their own homes.
Why people feel the need to interfere with a proven success is beyond me.
Creating a strong financial incentive for the government to enforce drug laws (legalizing theft) is the root of this problem. It turns cops into robbers, and like other criminals, they lie, cheat, steal and kill.
Anyone who thought that a former member of the Choom Gang would change the culture in law enforcement should have had their eyes opened by his choices in AGs. Especially by Loretta 'Asset Forfeiture is Fine' Lynch.
"Mrs. Clinton do you think Marijuana should be legalized?"
*Ha Ha* "That will never happen. There is too much money in it!" *sips cognac*
Most commenters here will agree: if you have to lie to make a point, it probably isn't worth making.
The intellectually honest ones, that is.
The intellectually honest ones, that is.
Well there's um ... Well if I'm honest and really think about ... um... I got no one.
HEY?!
I am always honest. ALWAYS!
*nose grows*
*puts spot light in Swiss's eyes*
DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT TRY HENDRICK'S GIN?
Swiss: "YOU'RE GODDDAMNED RIGHT I ORDERED THE CODE RED!"
I...I...did. HAHAHAA! AND I DON'T REGRET IT ONE BIT - IT WAS TERRIFIC!!!!! I'D DO IT AGAIN!!!!!
*searches for martini glass*
Glad you liked it.
If there is one thing I know about you H&Rians;....you all do seem to know quality alcohol!
*pours cheap vodka from plastic bottle into coffee cup*
Holy shit, you jest, but I have done that very thing many, many times.
I used to buy the expensive stuff until my sister-in-law challenged me to a taste test. I guess my palate isn't all that discriminating.
Cut to the point - the rule of law, which is the US Constitution.
The US Constitution does not grant government any authority to tell people what they can or can't put into their body.
Pretty sure it's right there in the "Good and Hard" clause...
When you acquire something that you are going to put into your body, you are engaging in commerce. At some point during the production of that something you want to put into your body, something had to have crossed state lines. And if it didn't, then it affected something else that would have crossed state lines. Therefore, putting something into your body is interstate commerce, and thus can be regulated under the Commerce Clause.
COMMERCE CLAUSE SMASH!
Sarc for Supreme Court!!!
USA! USA! USA!
Wanna see what's under my robe?
Please be a merkin...
*waits hopefully*
How did you know?
YES
Note: this applies equally to what you don't purchase, and therefore don't put into your body.
By not purchasing illegal substances, you raise their price; by making the business of trafficking in illegal substances more lucrative, you cause it to attract a more criminal element, thereby causing the deaths of untold numbers of enforcement agents. It's a wonder you can even sleep at night.
I don't get it.
Awful, therefore, perfect.
Happy fucki....WAIT A MINUTE! This isn't Friday "Funnies"!!
Fuck you all anyway.
Also -
*SLAP!*
*narrows gaze, but applauds anyway*
Someday, your face is gonna freeze like that - Swiss' Mom
How do you know it didn't?
Hey, sometimes I sneer....or even grin, ironically.
*Wipes hand on pants-Slap!*
*SLAP!*
*incoherent ranting and rambling* FUCKING SENDMAIL! *continued grumbling and growling*
IT'S LIKE YOU'RE READING MY MIND!
I don't really need to expand upon that sentiment do I? Anyone who'd understand would know why I'm in such a mental state. Anyone who needs explaination has never really tried to configure sendmail.
May things go more smoothly for you for the rest of the day and from this day forward...peace 🙂
configure sendmail.
I can help you out. You just put the little red flag to up and a nice lady from the government takes it wherever she feels like.
Semi-OT: I don't understand what the Darknet is. Can anyone suggest a source that breaks it down for non-tech people?
Internet for black people? Seems racist.
Well I am a redneck from the swamps of Florida.
+1 python hunt
Darknet hides your IP address, making it difficult to impossible for you to be tracked.
I was under the impression it's a whole different Internet on top of the regular internet, but like I said I don't really understand it.
IP (Internet Protocol) is a unique identifier given to you by your service provider that identifies your computer on the internet. It's kinda like a zip code + PO box. Anyone who receives information from you (directly or by snooping) can use it to identify you through your service provider (zip code).
Darknet allows you to send and receive information to other Darknet users without your IP address on it, effectively hiding you from the rest of the world.
Thanks.
No Friday Funny? Well, how's this?
http://explosm.net/comics/1163
C'mon. This one ^ is tailor made for H&R
No pot?
I'll try harder.