Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marijuana Use Has Increased in Colorado: Study
NBC Snooze ^ | DEC. 27, 2014

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: California; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: california; cannabis; colorado; dopersrights; duh; libertarians; losangeles; marijuana; markkleiman; medicalmarijuana; nannystate; pot; potheads; rockymountainhigh; teendrugabuse; whytheycallitdope; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last
To: Ken H
It is the bastardized Wickard Commerce Clause and its progeny. This has allowed fedgov to control health care, education, the environment and a slew of other areas never intended.

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.

41 posted on 12/27/2014 5:25:35 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
"Are employers allow to fire workers who test positive for THC?"

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.

42 posted on 12/27/2014 5:31:16 PM PST by boop (I never use the words democrats and republicans. I use liberals and Americans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
That they use commerce and Wickard to assert authority over drugs is just a matter of convenience.

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.

43 posted on 12/27/2014 5:39:28 PM PST by Ken H (What happens on the internet, stays on the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Uh, no. It is a matter of case law.

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.

44 posted on 12/27/2014 5:48:44 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Brandonmark
Ask any Liberaltarian Freeper. They'll tell you that legal pot always leads to less pot smoking.
45 posted on 12/27/2014 5:52:00 PM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

No, the number of people admitting to marijuana has increased.


46 posted on 12/27/2014 5:53:28 PM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SaxxonWoods

No. Pot heads went on disability.


47 posted on 12/27/2014 5:53:33 PM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Shocker!


48 posted on 12/27/2014 6:17:41 PM PST by wjcsux ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boop
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.

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.

49 posted on 12/27/2014 6:26:17 PM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Ken H; iowacornman
"The good news is that they cannot prempt federal law and Colorado and the pot head states will soon be stopped!!! I CANT WAIT"

Obama is already paying his dues by having Holder make the move to allow unlimited and unregulated growing on Indian lands.

50 posted on 12/27/2014 6:28:09 PM PST by Baynative (Did you ever notice that atheists don't dare sue Muslims?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Yes it is, and that is exactly why it is a matter of convenience. Were it not case law, it wouldn't be convenient.

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.

51 posted on 12/27/2014 6:29:46 PM PST by Ken H (What happens on the internet, stays on the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

The good news is stoners don’t vote.


52 posted on 12/27/2014 6:30:17 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SaxxonWoods

> 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...


53 posted on 12/27/2014 6:34:29 PM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: central_va
The good news is stoners don’t vote.

How did recreational mj manage to win by convincing margins in AK, CO, OR, WA and DC?

54 posted on 12/27/2014 6:36:50 PM PST by Ken H (What happens on the internet, stays on the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

> 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....


55 posted on 12/27/2014 6:37:37 PM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

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.


56 posted on 12/27/2014 6:40:08 PM PST by nascarnation (Impeach, Convict, Deport)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Stoners are one issue voters.


57 posted on 12/27/2014 6:41:34 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker

“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.


58 posted on 12/27/2014 6:48:53 PM PST by snarkybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
I'm hyper-conservative on nearly every issue (some deviance from the party line on the death penalty), but if I lived in a state where legalization/decriminalization was on the ballot, I'd probably vote "yes."
59 posted on 12/27/2014 6:49:07 PM PST by TontoKowalski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

is crime up? or down?


60 posted on 12/27/2014 7:11:29 PM PST by Mr. K (Palin/Cruz 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson