Posted on 12/27/2014 4:02:32 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Colorado emerged as the state with the second-highest percentage of regular marijuana users as it began legalizing the drug, according to a new national study. The Denver Post reports the study by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health found about 1 out of 8 Colorado residents older than 12 had used marijuana in the past month. Only Rhode Island topped Colorado in the percentage of residents who reported using pot as often, according to the study.
The study averaged state-specific data over two-year periods. It found that, for the 2011-2012 period, 10.4 percent of Colorado residents 12 and older said they had used pot in the month before being surveyed. That number jumped to 12.7 percent in the 2012-2013 data. That means about 530,000 people in Colorado use marijuana at least once a month, according to the results. Nationally, about 7.4 percent of people 12 and older reported monthly marijuana use. That's an increase of about 4 percent.
The survey is among the first to quantify pot use in Colorado since late 2012, when voters approved legal pot use and possession for those over 21. But the survey did not analyze data from 2014, when recreational marijuana shops opened, which means it is not a good indication of the effect of commercial sales on marijuana use.
"I don't think this tells us about the long-term impacts of legalization," said University of California, Los Angeles, professor Mark Kleiman, who studies marijuana policy. The number of medical marijuana patients in Colorado rose over the same time period, so the results are not surprising, Kleiman said.
He told The Post that researchers will have a better idea about pot use in the first state to legalize recreational sales of the drug once they can focus on data showing how many people use pot daily.
Given that the Wickard court was 8 Roosevelt appointees and one liberal non-Roosevelt appointee, it is safe to say it does exactly what they intended that it should do, but the Commerce clause is a poor constitutional argument for making drugs illegal. The Defense clause is far more appropriate.
That they use commerce and Wickard to assert authority over drugs is just a matter of convenience. Because the liberal courts say they can use it as justification they do so, but it isn't the best fit.
Yes.
Even here in WA state where pot is legal.
Would you let your factory workers use heavy machinery while on pot (or any intoxicant)?
We do random and "for cause" breath alcohol tests and drug tests in my office all the time.
Since pot was legalized we've seen a large upswing in people who come in actually high. As in they just smoked a doobie on the job.
These are industrial jobs, too.
Uh, no. It is a matter of case law.
Because the liberal courts say they can use it as justification they do so, but it isn't the best fit.
IOW, they're whores who love the Drug War more than the Constitution. If you support fedgov imposition of intrastate prohibition, you support Wickard and you should own up to it.
Yes it is, and that is exactly why it is a matter of convenience. Were it not case law, it wouldn't be convenient.
IOW, they're whores who love the Drug War more than the Constitution.
Yes, the Roosevelt appointees were whores to big government dominance and they didn't particularly love the drug war per se, they just loved the idea of Federal dominance.
The drug war itself is perfectly constitutional because drugs represent an existential threat to this nation. (Therefore authorized under the defense clause) We have a right and a duty to fight these attacks on our nation and our society.
No, the number of people admitting to marijuana has increased.
No. Pot heads went on disability.
Shocker!
I guess the question is whether they can be fired for being high over the weekend, rather than on the job. I've heard THC sticks around in the bloodstream for weeks after it's smoked.
Obama is already paying his dues by having Holder make the move to allow unlimited and unregulated growing on Indian lands.
You make my point. It illustrates that prohibitionist don't care about the original Constitution. They'll use whatever is convenient to carry out their agenda.
The drug war itself is perfectly constitutional because drugs represent an existential threat to this nation. (Therefore authorized under the defense clause)
No, it is not authorized under the 'defense clause'. Congress has not claimed such and the Courts have never ruled that way. If you support fedgov control over intrastate marijuana regulation, you support Wickard.
The good news is stoners don’t vote.
> They all got jobs at the pot farms, I guess.
Yeah but no longer gainfully employed because they’re using all their money to get high...
How did recreational mj manage to win by convincing margins in AK, CO, OR, WA and DC?
> Legal Pot will be like homosexual marriage in 10 years
The law of the land
Just the way the Feds want it too. Its much easier to control drugged sheeple with addictions and lowered mental faculties especially if they are distracted by having the munchies....
Just like casino gambling, legal grass will generate way too much dough for state legislators to resist. But get in early to make the most money.
Indiana put in casinos and made a killing. Now that Mi, Ill, and Oh have them, revenues are way down.
Stoners are one issue voters.
“You just CAN’T WAIT for a fedgov that is big, powerful, costly and freedom taking enough to go after Colorado pot users, even after they voted in favor?”
Exactly. I like big government when it’s bustin balls of something I don’t agree with. I’m a true conservative hahaha.
is crime up? or down?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.