63

Jeff Hunt, the Vice President of Public Policy at Colorado Christian University, wrote in a recent opinion piece in USA Today:

In the years since, Colorado has seen an increase in marijuana related traffic deaths, poison control calls, and emergency room visits. The marijuana black market has increased in Colorado, not decreased. And, numerous Colorado marijuana regulators have been indicted for corruption.

[...]

According to the Colorado Department of Public Safety, arrests in Colorado of black and Latino youth for marijuana possession have increased 58% and 29% respectively after legalization. This means that Black and Latino youth are being arrested more for marijuana possession after it became legal.

It seems unlikely that legalizing something would lead to an increase in black market activity around it. So, is the claim true?

Community
  • 1
GreenMatt
  • 771
  • 1
  • 5
  • 14
  • 2
    A good answer to this question will probably reference this document: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2829054-2016-SB13-283-Rpt-Colorado-Early-Findings-in.html – Adam Aug 07 '17 at 19:05
  • This question can't be answered as phrased since "pot"/marijuana is not yet legal in Colorado, so it is referencing an undetermined point in the future. –  Aug 10 '17 at 15:27
  • And since it is still illegal, and that it is quite trivial to show an increase in use/sales since 2012, it is also trivial to show an increase in black market use/sales. It is not clear what you are asking. The only possible meaning I can think of is "The quantitative difference between what is considered unregulated use/sales currently and what would be considered unregulated if the federal law changed." –  Aug 10 '17 at 16:45
  • 1
    @Physics-Compute: Why the pedantry? Yes, technically the federal government hasn't de-criminalized marijuana. However, generally they don't prosecute people for simple possession of small amounts of pot. To my knowledge, they have not prosecuted anyone in Colorado since the state eliminated its prohibition. In effective, the drug is legal there, unless the (relatively) new administration in Washington changes direction in this area. – GreenMatt Aug 11 '17 at 03:17
  • @GreenMatt I assumed that since you're asking a question on Skeptics that you wanted facts, not fabricated alternate realities. I say that not to be abrasive, but to let you know that pedantry many times makes a huge difference in what you're asking. We can't read your mind. –  Aug 11 '17 at 04:12
  • "Yes, technically the federal government hasn't de-criminalized marijuana." Period, there are no buts. It either is or it isn't and in this case it's against the law, regardless of any authority figure's opinion on the matter or negligent unwillingness to enforce it. Please rephrase the question to be specific about the data your are inquiring about so we can actually answer it, since blackmarket doesn't seem to be what you intended. –  Aug 11 '17 at 04:19
  • 1
    It's legal de facto, if not legal de jure. However, somebody could certainly claim all sales of marijuana are on the black market since it's still technically federally illegal. That's a technically true although very misleading interpretation. – Ask About Monica Oct 18 '17 at 16:26

2 Answers2

80

This question has one claim in the title and four others in the body

1. The black market in Colorado has increased since legalization

Possible. There are claims many places including here that legalization has created an environment where illegal and quasi-legal growers can grow and export to other states.

But that's unlikely to be correlated with increased black market sales within Colorado, since it's only illegal for teenagers and children, and statewide surveys of youth in Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and Oregon found that there were no significant increases in youth marijuana use post-legalization.

2. Increase in marijuana-related traffic deaths

Contrary to the data. A Drug Policy Alliance study says:

Legalization has not led to more dangerous road conditions, as traffic fatality rates have remained stable in Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and Oregon.

3. Increase in poison control calls

Contrary to the data. According to the Denver Post:

Three years into regulated sales of recreational cannabis, the Retail Marijuana Public Health Advisory Committee says calls to poison control and marijuana-related emergency room visits are down, even though overall consumption of pot remains steady — signs that existing policy and education efforts may be working.

4. Increase in marijuana-related emergency room visits

Partly, but that may be due to increased reporting (decreased hiding of marijuana usage). A recent report from Colorado's Department of Public Safety says:

[...] it is too early to draw any conclusions about the potential effects of marijuana legalization or commercialization on public safety, public health, or youth outcomes, and this may always be difficult due to the lack of historical data. Furthermore, the information presented here should be interpreted with caution. The decreasing social stigma regarding marijuana use could lead individuals to be more likely to report use on surveys and to health workers in emergency departments and poison control centers, making marijuana use appear to increase when perhaps it has not.

5. Arrests of black and Latino youths for possession have increased (58% and 29%)**

Unlikely. According to the same Drug Policy Alliance study:

Arrests in [all states] and Washington, D.C. for the possession, cultivation and distribution of marijuana have plummeted since voters legalized the adult use of marijuana, although disproportionate enforcement of marijuana crimes against black people continues.

The quote above from the pdf says "all states", but refers to the set of states studied (in which recreational marijuana was legalized). Here's a quote from the summary (also from the DPA) of the study:

Marijuana arrests have plummeted in the states that legalized marijuana, although disproportionate enforcement of marijuana crimes against black people continues.

Specifics about youth arrests has been hard to find since the airspace is dominated by people worried about the white-vs-minority arrest rates. There's a Colorado Department of Public Safety report which finds

The types of filings did change, with an increase in public consumption and offenses within 1,000 feet of schools, and a decrease for minor in possession and offenses around the 16th Street Mall.

(NOTE: not necessarily minors, but the "schools" part is suggestive)

SQB
  • 3,339
  • 2
  • 22
  • 48
ReasonablySkeptical
  • 4,350
  • 3
  • 15
  • 18
  • 23
    "This question has one claim in the title and two different ones in the body" - Check the editing history and you'll see that it didn't originally, but a moderator edited it. Thanks for the answer. – GreenMatt Aug 07 '17 at 19:48
  • 10
    "Increase in marijuana-related traffic deaths, poison control calls, and emergency room visits" contains three claims. You responded to one, although your response answers a different claim than was made. Claim: traffic deaths involving marijuana increased. You responded that overall traffic deaths (for all reasons) have been constant. Both claims could be true if traffic deaths overall were steady but the percentage associated with marijuana increased. In regards to your #3, Washington, DC is not Colorado. – Brythan Aug 07 '17 at 21:11
  • 5
    @Brythan - "In all states and Washington DC" would include Colorado as one of the states. Having overall arrests go down (especially if it's significantly enough that "plummeted" is accurate) across that group would at least make it pretty improbable that they'd gone up in Colorado specifically. (I believe that it was only referring to the legalizing states, though.) – Ben Barden Aug 07 '17 at 21:13
  • 4
    @Brythan No it doesn't. It claims "traffic deaths, poison control calls, and emergency room visits" have gone up, meaning all gone up. Proving one of them has not disproves the claim no? Your second point is valid though... – Vality Aug 07 '17 at 21:29
  • 3
    @Brythan If overall accidents rates are steady and the proportion involving marijuana has gone up then that's evidence that marijuana has no discernible effect on traffic accidents (ie, accidents are independent of marijuana, and are caused by other things that actually deserve attention). Which would again disprove the implicit claims and accusations in the OP's article. – zibadawa timmy Aug 07 '17 at 22:09
  • 7
    While marijuana is now legal, the taxes are pretty steep which would create an incentive to sell it under the table. – JonathanReez Aug 07 '17 at 22:10
  • 1
    @Vality you are being really pedantic when you say that, even for this stack. Any reasonable human being would see "3 things have all increased" and expect evidence for all 3 increasing. I personally do not consider "one of them has stayed stable" as a reasonable debunking of "3 things have all increased". Debunk all 3 of them or don't bother, I say. – Nzall Aug 08 '17 at 08:03
  • 1
    @Nzall Debunking one of them would debunk the overall claim, though I agree that all three would be nice. The problem is that this answer debunks _none_ of them. As has been stated, the fact that overall traffic fatalities have not increased doesn't mean that drug-related traffic fatalitiess have not increased. – David Richerby Aug 08 '17 at 12:54
  • 3
    @DavidRicherby In my opinion, a claim that says "X, Y and Z have all increased" is just 3 separate claims "X has increased", "Y has increased" and "Z has increased", merged together into a single claim. Saying that X has remained stable simply debunks "X has increased", but does not say anything about claims Y and Z. – Nzall Aug 08 '17 at 13:13
  • 2
    @Nzall Fair enough. But, still, the bigger problem is the failure to even debunk X. – David Richerby Aug 08 '17 at 13:15
  • 2
    @Brythan - It's pretty impossible to attribute anything traffic-related to marijuana, or to declare it to be a non-factor, either. No way to control for it in the statistics - https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/35317/did-dui-fatalities-increase-or-decrease-due-to-legalization-of-marijuana – PoloHoleSet Aug 08 '17 at 14:52
  • @GreenMatt I understand but it's important to call out the individual claims. It's not a complaint about your post. – ReasonablySkeptical Aug 08 '17 at 15:41
  • @Brythan have edited to address each. – ReasonablySkeptical Aug 08 '17 at 15:42
  • 1
    I don't know if the Drug Policy Alliance can be trusted as a non-biased source. Bias can easily swing neutral or slightly negative data in a "positive" way. The data they present shows a big trend in past data, but the post-legalization data isn't significantly different enough to point in one direction or the other. – Chase Sandmann Aug 08 '17 at 15:45
  • @ChaseSandmann feel free to find your own non-biased source. For example, see the (also linked) reports from the Colorado Department of Public Safety. – ReasonablySkeptical Aug 08 '17 at 15:53
  • 1
    @AndyT see edited answer – ReasonablySkeptical Aug 08 '17 at 15:54
  • 1
    @Nzall have edited to address each separately. – ReasonablySkeptical Aug 08 '17 at 15:55
  • Downvoting as this is filled with opinion or poor leaps in logic.. – Jonathon Aug 09 '17 at 03:07
  • 2
    It's possible for traffic deaths related to marijuana to increase *and* traffic deaths to remain stable if an extremely small percentage of traffic deaths are related to marijuana. Emphasizing percent-based increases in very small figures is a common tactic for generating media hype. – Kevin Krumwiede Aug 09 '17 at 04:23
  • The sections for 2 and 3 start with "Contrary to the data". Does this mean the quotes are not matching statistical information from somewhere? – David Starkey Aug 09 '17 at 13:14
  • I confess I added the extra claims via an edit to the question, but I intended it to be just context for the actual claim which was highlighted in bold, and appeared in the title. Sorry it has caused such a digression. – Oddthinking Aug 09 '17 at 13:20
  • I have deleted some comments in response to flags. [Sorry, but we don't care about your political opinions.](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3858/sorry-but-we-dont-care-about-your-political-opinions?s=1|0.6337) – Oddthinking Aug 09 '17 at 13:21
  • @DavidStarkey Yes, exactly. Please read the text following "contrary to the data" for the statistics that the claims are contrary to. – ReasonablySkeptical Aug 09 '17 at 14:03
  • @JonathonWisnoski Kindly point out any such opinions or leaps. – ReasonablySkeptical Aug 09 '17 at 14:05
  • 1
    @CPerkins 1. The assumption that a Black Market is impossible if it ever possible to get something legally. Counter Examples (Cigarettes, Entertainment Media). 2. Driving is approximately as safe, therefore the causes of accidents must of remained the same. 5. "Unlikely" seems like an unfounded opinion to me based on the data. – Jonathon Aug 09 '17 at 14:13
  • 1
    @CPerkins Furthermore, that is some creative quoting. " a decrease for minor in possession and offenses around the 16th Street Mall." You imply a state sees a reduction is charges, but the quote says that a single building saw a small reduction, with no indication on if it is even statistically significant. – Jonathon Aug 09 '17 at 14:24
  • 1
    Your #2 with the data you cite is confusing causation and correlation. – enderland Aug 09 '17 at 18:34
  • @JonathonWisnoski "creative quoting"? Thanks, we're done here. – ReasonablySkeptical Aug 10 '17 at 13:09
  • @enderland the actual claim is what seems to confuse them. My answer's flaw here is that I'm attempting to refute a rise in "marijuana-related traffic deaths" by citing a paper which says that that isn't true since traffic deaths have remained stable. We could imagine that marijuana-related traffic deaths have risen while other causes have mysteriously declined to match, but I'll leave speculation to others. This is what I've found so far. I'd welcome another answer with better data. – ReasonablySkeptical Aug 10 '17 at 13:15
  • @JonathanReez Marijuana is not yet legal for recreational use in any state in the U.S. –  Aug 10 '17 at 16:04
  • @ReasonablySkeptical I believe this answer is partially incorrect! I actually helped the Drug Policy Alliance research the reported increase in juvenile marijuana arrests post-legalization, so it's somewhat ironic that you cite DPA to deny that. [In this report, on page 63, Table 22, there is data supporting claim #5.](https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2016-SB13-283-Rpt.pdf) – James G. Sep 04 '18 at 23:30
  • @ReasonablySkeptical I'm following up with the author of that report before proposing changes to your answer, because if I recall correctly, the numbers claimed were correct, but have since dropped in the new reports. – James G. Sep 04 '18 at 23:36
9

The last paragraph does appear to be true, at least in the first couple of years. It is based on a study by the Colorado Department of Health.

The report found a huge gap in numbers in relation to how adolescents, ages 10-17 were being in arrested, which apparently was contingent upon their race. While there was an eight percent decrease in arrest of white kids for marijuana from 2012-2014, black juvenile arrests shot up by 58 percent, and Latino arrests followed that increase by 29 percent.

This is not down to disparities in use. There isn't a big racial difference in usage (and for what there is, they found Hispanics use it less than whites).

NPR asked the spokesman for the Denver Police Department about the disparity, and he blamed it on the citizens of Denver rather than the department.

"Most of these cases are complaint-driven," Jackson says. "We get a complaint from someone, we're not sure where it's going to take us, but we have to act on it. And we're not sure, if I get a call to a residence or to a location, who I'm going to encounter until I get there."

Their drug policy expert pointed out that a lot of that disparity may in fact be down to the extra policing that minority neighborhoods get.

But whatever's going on there, I don't think there's any evidence (or arguments) that legalization itself is the root of the problem.

T.E.D.
  • 1,588
  • 1
  • 11
  • 16