Pot use disproportionately hurting the poor

[This_person]

Per multiple studies:

Link

The effects of these new laws have been immediate. One study, which collected data from 2011-12 and 2012-13 showed a 22 percent increase in monthly use in Colorado. The percentage of people there who used daily or almost daily also went up. So have marijuana-related driving fatalities. And so have incidents of children being hospitalized for accidentally ingesting edible marijuana products.

But legalization and our growing cultural acceptance of marijuana have disproportionately affected one group in particular: the lower class.

A recent study by Steven Davenport of RAND and Jonathan Caulkins of Carnegie Mellon notes that “despite the popular stereotype of marijuana users as well-off and well-educated . . . they lag behind national averages” on both income and schooling.

For instance, people who have a household income of less than $20,000 a year comprise 19 percent of the population but make up 28 percent of marijuana users. And even though those who earn more than $75,000 make up 33 percent of the population, 25 percent of them are marijuana users. Having more education also seems to make it less likely that you are a user. College graduates make up 27 percent of the population but only 19 percent of marijuana users.

The middle and upper classes have been the ones out there pushing for decriminalization and legalization measures, and they have also tried to demolish the cultural taboo against smoking pot. But they themselves have chosen not to partake very much. Which is not surprising. Middle-class men and women who have jobs and families know that this is not a habit they want to take up with any regularity because it will interfere with their ability to do their jobs and take care of their families.

But the poor, who already have a hard time holding down jobs and taking care of their families, are more frequently using a drug that makes it harder for them to focus, to remember things and to behave responsibly.

The new study, which looked at use rates between 1992 and 2013, also found that the intensity of use had increased in this time. The proportion of users who smoke daily or near daily has increased from 1 in 9 to 1 in 3. As Davenport tells me, “This dispels the idea that the typical user is someone on weekends who has a casual habit.”

Sally Satel, a psychiatrist and lecturer at Yale, says “it is ironic that the people lobbying for liberalized marijuana access do not appear to be the group that is consuming the bulk of it.” Instead, it’s “daily and near-daily users, who are less educated, less affluent and less in control of their use.”

In fact, the typical user is much more likely to be someone at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, whose daily life is driven, at least in part, by the question of how and where to get more marijuana. Just consider the cost. Almost a third of users are spending a tenth of their income on marijuana. And 15 percent of users spend nearly a quarter of their income to purchase the drug. The poor have not only become the heaviest users, but their use is making them poorer.

To all the middle-class professionals out there reading this: Do you know anyone who spends a quarter of their income on pot? Of course not. But these are the people our policies and attitudes are affecting.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yet another limited government source in favor of...more gummint.

Wonder how their research is going in terms of the impact on alcohol sales, accidents and those impacts? I'd like to see violent crime information, too. Maybe it's hurting opioid and mental health drug sales and that's the cause for alarm?

 

[This_person]

Yet another limited government source in favor of...more gummint.

Wonder how their research is going in terms of the impact on alcohol sales, accidents and those impacts? I'd like to see violent crime information, too. Maybe it's hurting opioid and mental health drug sales and that's the cause for alarm?

Maybe a single law can't solve all the world's problems, so linking it to other issues is just a (pun intended) smoke screen?

Murder laws are not "more government" (hate crimes, of course, ARE). Drug laws are not "more government".

 

[Larry Gude]

The gist of the article is that gummint fixed our tobacco problem, suggesting it could do the same for pot after having already failed for 80 years. Your title says legal weed is harming the poor yet there is nothing about the supposed positives of legalization: less alcohol problems, less crime, less hard drug use.
That use went up with legalization and the gummint imposed pricing and taxation is expense doesn't seem to be noteworthy.

 

[tommyjo]

The proportion of users who smoke daily or near daily has increased from 1 in 9 to 1 in 3. As Davenport tells me, “This dispels the idea that the typical user is someone on weekends who has a casual habit.”

Umm...no it doesn't...While the percentage of daily/near daily users has increased...it is only 33%....which means 2/3 are not daily/near daily users. Therefore the "typical user" is a casual user.

Pretty basic math there...

 

[cricketmd]

Umm...no it doesn't...While the percentage of daily/near daily users has increased...it is only 33%....which means 2/3 are not daily/near daily users. Therefore the "typical user" is a casual user.

Pretty basic math there...

I was thinking the same thing. If 28% of the users are poor, then 72% of the users are not poor. :-/

 

[This_person]

Umm...no it doesn't...While the percentage of daily/near daily users has increased...it is only 33%....which means 2/3 are not daily/near daily users. Therefore the "typical user" is a casual user.

Pretty basic math there...

You're missing the trend. From 11% to 33% over a short period of time.

 

[This_person]

I was thinking the same thing. If 28% of the users are poor, then 72% of the users are not poor. :-/

The key word is proportion. "The poor" (whatever that even really means) are those they deem to make up 19% of the population. By the same definition of "the poor", they make up 28% of the users.

By being a larger percentage of the number of users than the percentage they exist in society, they are disproportionately higher represented, thus more affected than others.

 

[Larry Gude]

...thus more affected than others.

Thus benefiting them greater if we take into account less alcohol and narcotic abuse, less violence and we've not even touched on the costs of incarceration. Maybe that's the real beef; too few 'customers' for the jails?

 

[officeguy]

The same usage patterns probably apply to smoking and alcohol. The common factor are poor decision making skills. Smoking, alcohol and limited economic achievements are the results of that common cause. It's not the pot that makes you poor, it's the being stupid part that causes you to spend 1/4 of your income on weed.

 

[b23hqb]

World to end tomorrow! The poor, women, minorities, and children to be hardest hit!

 

[Monello]

Personal responsibility. Actions have consequences, even if the government (or a SJW) says differently.

 

[cricketmd]

The key word is proportion. "The poor" (whatever that even really means) are those they deem to make up 19% of the population. By the same definition of "the poor", they make up 28% of the users.

By being a larger percentage of the number of users than the percentage they exist in society, they are disproportionately higher represented, thus more affected than others.

Thanks. I understood what it meant. Doesn't change the fact that 72% are NOT poor that are using pot. lol

 

[Monello]

It's not the pot that makes you poor, it's the being stupid part that causes you to spend 1/4 of your income on weed.

If we could just outlaw pot, people would get smarter overnight!

 

[Larry Gude]

If we could just outlaw pot, people would get smarter overnight!

If we'd only outlaw shooting people...

 

[This_person]

Thus benefiting them greater if we take into account less alcohol and narcotic abuse, less violence and we've not even touched on the costs of incarceration. Maybe that's the real beef; too few 'customers' for the jails?

I'm not arguing, but can you provide the studies that show the lower alcohol and narcotic use, and lower violence rates for those involved in wacky-tabakky use?

 

[This_person]

Thanks. I understood what it meant. Doesn't change the fact that 72% are NOT poor that are using pot. lol

Sure. The title and post show the poor are disproportionately affected, so arguing the point I thought you missed it.

Now I'm unsure what point you're trying to make besides basic math.

 

[This_person]

The same usage patterns probably apply to smoking and alcohol. The common factor are poor decision making skills. Smoking, alcohol and limited economic achievements are the results of that common cause. It's not the pot that makes you poor, it's the being stupid part that causes you to spend 1/4 of your income on weed.

So you're saying legalizing (and taxing) drug use is just like the lottery - a "stupidity tax"?

 

[officeguy]

So you're saying legalizing (and taxing) drug use is just like the lottery - a "stupidity tax"?

Yes. A voluntary one. Because you know, pot is not addictive right. So every time someone lights up, they make a voluntary decision to do so. Because it's not addictive. Nobody is addicted to cannabis. And its healthy for you, because there wouldn't be 'medical cannabis' if it wasn't. And it never has anything to do with violent crimes. And nobody has ever died from smoking pot, well except for the folks who did, but who is counting. And its not addictive, and good for you.

 

[officeguy]

If we could just outlaw pot, people would get smarter overnight!

We need to outlaw stupid.

As one of the comedians put it*: 'I wish i had done drugs, because there is rehab for drugs. I was just stupid and there is no rehab for stupidity'.

* paraphrased, too lazy to look up the quote right now.