“Legalizing cannabis will reduce crime and raise Tax revenue – All savings will come from reduced policing, lower crime rate, less supply reduction costs, and increased tax-revenue from licensing!”
So pealed the promises to the unwitting population from the addiction for profit advocates! Well, as the following (and little broadcasted) data reveals, the cannabis chaos continues to unfold in California (and other states). It does not augur well the future of this always clearly ‘bad idea’! Outside of the emerging ‘medicinal cannabis’ market, Australia currently has one market for marijuana – the illegal market (Black Market). We most definitely do not need this three market ‘circus’ – Legal, Black and Grey Market and the ballooning costs both fiscally and health wise, these will bring.
‘In regards to illegal Cannabis grows, they are getting worse, not better. One of the things I promoted over two years ago, when I got involved with the issue of cannabis policy, was to address the issue as we move from the illegal to a legal market, that we have to hold accountable those that are not participating in the legal market. Particularly those that are continuing to profit of illegal grows now are manifesting they’re getting bigger and becoming more stubborn, more acute. They are not just issues for environment, of an environmental concern, but increasingly of fire safety itself. So, there is a direct correlation again between our fire preparedness and our fire safety, in addition to addressing – mitigating ah [sic], the Cartel activity that persists up north…” (February 11th 2019 Press Conference)
“Stepped-up enforcement comes with a certain measure of irony — legalization was meant to open a new chapter for the state, free from the legacy of heavy policing and incarceration for minor infractions. Instead, there are new calls for a crackdown on illegal selling…But no other state has an illegal market on the scale of California’s, and those illicit sales are cannibalizing the revenue of licensed businesses and in some cases, experts say, forcing them out of business.
‘Getting Worse, Not Better’: Illegal Pot Market Booming in California Despite Legalization (NY Times 27/4/2019)
California Department of Finance – Office of State Audits & Evaluations.
Even with a thriving illegal market in California, only 15 enforcement unit staff positions have been filled, though 68 were authorized. "The bureau's ability to process complaints, perform inspections and investigations and review ... testing laboratories is severely impacted," auditors wrote.
The three agencies that regulate marijuana need to do a better job communicating. "Enforcement unit staff stated a central contact from the other licensing authorities has not been established," the report found.
There's a cash shortage. The primary source of revenue for the agency is from application and license fees. About $200 million was expected to come in through June 30, 2019, but the bureau has collected only $2 million as of January 2019.
California Cannabis Regulators Struggle With Job, Audit Shows
During fiscal years 2016-17 and 2017-18, cannabis program expenditures totalled $6,774,577 and $14,876,055, with revenue received of $0 and $1,092,250, respectively. Due to the program’s infancy and initial establishment of its structural foundation, the Bureau has incurred expenditures higher than revenue.
Bureau of Cannabis Control – California Department of Consumer Affairs Performance Audit
Aims: The main aim of this study was to assess the relationship between parental attitudes towards children's alcohol use and their child's alcohol use. Secondary aims included assessing the relationship between attitudes reported by parents and those perceived by children, and between perceived parental attitudes and children's alcohol use.
Methods: Meta‐analysis of studies reporting on the associations between parental attitudes towards children's alcohol use and children's self‐reported alcohol use. Published, peer‐reviewed cross‐sectional and longitudinal studies were identified from the following databases up to April 2018: Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science. Quality assessment was performed by using guidelines developed by Hayden, Cote & Bombardier. Pooled effect sizes were calculated by using random‐effects meta‐analyses, if there were at least two studies that could be included per analysis. Of 7471 articles screened, 29 were included comprising data from 16 477 children and 15 229 parents.
Conclusions: Less restrictive parental attitudes towards children's alcohol use are associated with increases in children's alcohol use onset, alcohol use frequency and drunkenness. Children's perception of less restrictive parental attitudes is associated with children's alcohol use.
The following studies are just two of many that continue to affirm one of the fundamentals of socialisation and behaviour – that is; your perception of reality is constructed socially, and that’s done through recency, frequency, proximity and intensity. What and who you are immersed in and with, will INFLUENCE the ‘lens’ through which you see.
What makes things worse still, is that if there is an absence of sound positive values that are not ‘anchored’ to a sustainable and healthy, values informing worldview. These deficits will pretty much ensure that this ‘INFLUENCE’ will push the ‘wheelbarrow’ (that is YOU) in a direction that will be way less than helpful! When substances are thrown into that mix, then you have even less control over what is ‘pushing’ your life and where!
Genes and teens: How is youth cannabis use influenced by genetic risk and peer use?
Having more peers that were perceived to use cannabis was associated with higher levels of cannabis over time, and this factor was nearly 4-times more important in understanding patterns of cannabis use than genetic risk. Further, perceived peer cannabis use predicted cannabis involvement at all levels of genetic risk.
Reducing affiliation with substance using peers is a powerful target for both prevention and treatment, as is correcting and re-structuring misperceptions surrounding normative behavior that might implicitly and/or explicitly impact health behavior.
Network Support II: Randomized Controlled Trial of Network Support Treatment and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol Use Disorder
Background: The social network of those treated for alcohol use disorder can play a significant role in subsequent drinking behavior, both for better and worse. Network Support treatment was devised to teach ways to reconstruct social networks so that they are more supportive of abstinence and less supportive of drinking. For many patients this may involve engagement with AA, but other strategies are also used.
Conclusion: It was concluded that helping patients enhance their abstinent social network can be effective, and may provide a useful alternative or adjunctive approach to treatment.