Cult Watch
See other Cult Watch Articles
Title: The Denver suburb of Aurora is using recreational marijuana sales tax revenue to help the homeless
Source:
CBS News
URL Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/legal-m ... -drawing-homeless-to-colorado/
Published: May 3, 2016
Author: Staff
Post Date: 2016-05-19 12:56:40 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 20382
Comments: 115
DENVER -- Chris Easterling was sick of relying on drug dealers in Minneapolis when he needed marijuana to help ease the pain of multiple sclerosis. They were flaky, often leaving the homeless man without the drug when he needed relief the most. So he moved to Denver, where legal pot dispensaries are plentiful and accessible. Easterling is among a growing number of homeless people who have recently come to Colorado seeking its legal marijuana, and who now remain in the state and occupy beds in shelters, according to service providers. While no state agency records how many homeless people were drawn by legal weed, officials at homeless centers say the influx they are seeing is straining their ability to meet the needs of the increasing population. "The older ones are coming for medical (marijuana), the younger ones are coming just because it's legal," said Brett Van Sickle, director of Denver's Salvation Army Crossroads Shelter, which has more than doubled its staff to accommodate the increase. The shelter did an informal survey of the roughly 500 new out-of-towners who stayed there between July and September and found as many as 30 percent had relocated for pot, he said. Shelters in some other parts of the state said they haven't noticed the problem or haven't surveyed their residents about it. Colorado's homeless population and its marijuana dispensaries are both concentrated in Denver, which could be why centers say they are experiencing a more noticeable rise. Other factors could be driving the rising homeless rates. Colorado's economy is thriving, but the number of affordable homes and apartments is shrinking. Julie Smith of Denver's Road Home, a city plan that aims to end homelessness, said the city's rising overall population could be a reason for an increase in the number homeless people. She said the agency has heard anecdotal reports about homeless people moving to the state for the marijuana, but officials don't have any numbers to support that assertion. The city is eager to see the results of a study by Metropolitan State University of Denver's Criminal Justice and Criminology Department of issues related to legal marijuana, including any correlation between legal marijuana and rates of homelessness. Assistant professor Rebecca Trammell said the researchers did interviews with shelter employees and volunteers after hearing anecdotes about the problem but have no preliminary findings. Many of those staying in shelters come to Denver with big plans and find they can't make ends meet, said Tom Luehrs, executive director of capital city's Saint Francis Center. The shelter has seen an increase from 730 people a day in 2013 to 780 people this year, and as many as 300 new faces a month. Not all of them are pot-smokers, Luehrs said, but many have said they were drawn to the state because of legal marijuana. Shelters in Washington state haven't experienced a noticeable influx since that state's legal recreational sales started in July. Capt. Dana Libby, Seattle Social Services director for the Salvation Army, said the economy is largely to blame for the high rates of homelessness there. In Colorado, some out-of-town homeless are seeking jobs in the marijuana industry. "There's an enormous migration, even a homeless movement, so to speak," David Spencer, a homeless man from Tennessee, told CBS Denver. "I figured this would be a good place to start over." But the homeless learn only after arriving that they lack the two-year residency requirement needed to work in a dispensary. Others have felony records that make them ineligible, Van Sickle said. Van Sickle's shelter prohibits weed and other drugs, which means those who stay there have to leave the property to smoke. Van Sickle said he has been confiscating more pot and paraphernalia, though he doesn't keep track of how much. Arnold Kelley got lucky. The 60-year-old retired plumber, tired of risking arrest for pot-smoking, moved from Memphis, Tennessee, and got a job fixing pipes at a Denver dispensary. The dispensary helped him get a license to use medical marijuana and paid him in pot for his work. He said pot improved his appetite and lessened his anxiety. "Once I got here, the industry was good to me," he said. But it didn't pay the bills, and Kelley finds himself staying often at Crossroads. The Denver area is seeing younger homeless people, too. Urban Peak, which provides services for those ages 15 to 25, says it saw 829 people between May and July at its drop-in center, up from 328 during the same time period a year earlier. About a third of this year's newcomers cited legal weed as a factor in moving to Colorado, said Kim Easton, the director. Many of the older men, like Easterling, live exclusively on disability benefits and use them to buy pot, since there's nothing to stop someone from using welfare benefits to obtain cash to use at pot shops. "I'm staying here," he said, between puffs on an electronic smoking device filled with pot oil. "This is my home."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-74) not displayed.
.
.
.
#75. To: Deckard (#72)
(Edited)
Actually, you'll notice a pattern. Maybe you Paultards can notice shit like that. I don't post between 0900 hours and 1700 hours... because personal cell phones are contraband in a prison. I do carry an issued work cellphone... But my work cell is off limits for personal pleasure like posting on a political chit chat channel to you and your asshole twin Sucky Bucky. I respect the policies and procedures and laws of the state and of the work place unlike you filthy drug loving Paultards. So I didn't just "wake" dumb shit, I was at work. You know, the shit all your CopBlock career criminal friends don't do. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
So you think 60,000 potheads moved to Colorado in a single year - and all we're hearing is anecdotal reports from a few shelters? LOL! Dance, clown, dance. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. That's the burglary violating your rights - and it's already against the law. It's immoral to punish nonburgling pot users for what other pot users do. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Wow, so people willing to break the laws against theft, rape, and murder are also willing to break the pot laws ... amazing. You should get the Nobel Prize for this insight. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Someone needs to remind you Paultards what scumbags you are/support... even if it's common knowledge. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Founding Fathers used it. Make it "over the centuries".
Other than the obvious parallel (illegality), no Go to an eye doctor.
Someone needs to remind you Paultards libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...?ArtNum=46260&Disp=38#C38 I neither break the laws against theft, rape, and murder nor support those who do. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Neither do wife beaters. Does that make them angles like you'd like me to believe you are? Wtf does that prove... or is that your yella attempt to make drug use glamorous? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Neither do wife beaters. Does that make them angles like you'd like me to believe you are? I don't give a shit what a moron like you thinks about me - assuming for the moment that "thinks" is even a verb that can be applied to you. Morons like you often have short term memory problems ... it shows that your slur about "scumbags you are/support" was another of your sleazy lies. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Interesting - but no support there for your claim that "Marijuana use would have declined also" since the paper shows a one-time bump in past-month use, which after MML implementation remains flat at its new level. (It's also worth noting that MML implementation was found to have no effect on rates of first-time use - that is, any increase in use was among those who had already been using.) A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. "We also find an increase in marijuana use initiation among those aged 12 –20." (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629615000351)
But no evidence of an increase in regular use. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Give me $39 and I'll buy the report and get back to you. Or, if you're so fucking curious, buy it yourself. Isn't it enough that medical marijuana leads to teen first-time use?
You support drug addicts. That makes you the sleazy liar. Drug addicts are scumbags. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
This is what an agenda poster does when he can't spin my post YELLA... they resort to just being an asshole. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Scumbags and parasites.
I meant, the report finds no evidence of an increase in regular use. Teen first-time use that leads to no greater repeated use should be enough to deny medicine to people who can benefit from it? Certainly not. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. This pot thread still going?
Quote?
The report did not say, "Teen one-time use". It said, "marijuana use initiation among those aged 12 –20". Meaning new teens started using marijuana. I gave you the link. I read nothing about started and stopped.
Pffft! The report said teens started using marijuana for the first time. Numbnuts thinks we should assume they then stopped.
He appears to be intuiting penumbral emanations in a paragraph long abstract of the report that he has never read. And never will.
Yeah. What you said.
In what way do I "support" them? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. The report did not say, "Teen one-time use". Neither did I - I said "first-time" which is synonymous with "initiation". Seek remedial reading help. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. "this observational trend-comparison suggests a potential association between MML implementation and increased current marijuana use among adults aged 21 or above, but not among adolescents and younger adults." - page 71 A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I have read it; it's available at https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/the-effect-of-medical-marijuana-laws-on-adolescent-and-adult-use-of-marijuana-Apf6j4qTXL. Poor you. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Going strong. Have anything to add? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Then why do you continue to cite from the abstract? How about something from the study itself?
So new teens started smoking pot, adding to the total number of users.
You mean like my very first post about the study (#85)? Or the direct quote in #101? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. See post #101 - no association found between MML implementation and increased current marijuana use among adolescents and younger adults. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. So there was no increase in current marijuana use among adolescents and younger adults. But new adolescents and younger adults started smoking pot.
If those who started had continued, there would have in due course been a rise in current use. "these findings are consistent with a scenario in which adolescents and young adults aged 12-20 who experiment with marijuana use in response to an MML are not transitioning to regular use". A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. There went your pot money for the week.
You'd be such a wit if you were twins.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Like you and buckeroo?
Don't inhale.
You recommend edibles - noted.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. No I do not.
Looks like someone woke up from his afternoon nappie a little crabby today.
#76. To: GrandIsland (#69)
Yeah... 2/3 gain of potheads.
#77. To: GrandIsland (#70)
"False analogy - someone else's pot use violates none of your rights."
It does when they burglarize my house while I work
#78. To: GrandIsland (#71)
Their aren't any "non potheads" in prison.
#79. To: ConservingFreedom (#78)
Wow, so people willing to break the laws against theft, rape, and murder are also willing to break the pot laws ... amazing. You should get the Nobel Prize for this insight.
#80. To: ConservingFreedom, misterwhite (#57)
Marijuana has been widely used in America for over half a century and is near if not over 50% lifetime use.
#81. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#63)
"Yet you see no parallels between banning alcohol and the current prohibition on drugs."
#82. To: GrandIsland (#79)
"Wow, so people willing to break the laws against theft, rape, and murder are also willing to break the pot laws ... amazing. You should get the Nobel Prize for this insight."
what scumbags you are/support
#83. To: ConservingFreedom (#82)
(Edited)
I neither break the laws against theft, rape, and murder nor support those who do.
#84. To: GrandIsland (#83)
"I neither break the laws against theft, rape, and murder nor support those who do."
Wtf does that prove...
#85. To: misterwhite (#73)
"Researchers from Emory’s Rollins School of Public Health found an increase in adult marijuana use ... after the implementation of medical marijuana laws (MML) in ten states that permit marijuana use for medical purposes."
#86. To: ConservingFreedom (#85)
"It's also worth noting that MML implementation was found to have no effect on rates of first-time use - that is, any increase in use was among those who had already been using."
#87. To: misterwhite (#86)
"We also find an increase in marijuana use initiation among those aged 12 –20."
#88. To: ConservingFreedom (#87)
"But no evidence of an increase in regular use."
#89. To: ConservingFreedom (#84)
it shows that your slur about "scumbags you are/support" was another of your sleazy lies.
#90. To: ConservingFreedom (#84)
I don't give a shit what a moron like you thinks about me
#91. To: GrandIsland (#89)
"Drug addicts are scumbags."
#92. To: misterwhite (#88)
"But no evidence of an increase in regular use."
Give me $39 and I'll buy the report and get back to you. Or, if you're so fucking curious, buy it yourself.
Isn't it enough that medical marijuana leads to teen first-time use?
#93. To: ConservingFreedom (#92)
#94. To: ConservingFreedom (#92)
I meant, the report finds no evidence of an increase in regular use.
#95. To: ConservingFreedom (#92)
"Teen first-time use that leads to no greater repeated use ..."
#96. To: Roscoe (#94)
"Quote?"
#97. To: misterwhite (#96)
Pffft!
#98. To: Roscoe (#97)
"He appears to be intuiting penumbral emanations in a paragraph long abstract of the report that he has never read."
#99. To: GrandIsland (#89)
You support drug addicts.
#100. To: misterwhite (#95)
"Teen first-time use that leads to no greater repeated use ..."
It said, "marijuana use initiation among those aged 12 –20".
#101. To: Roscoe (#94)
Quote?
#102. To: Roscoe, misterwhite (#97)
the report that he has never read.
#103. To: redleghunter (#93)
This pot thread still going?
#104. To: ConservingFreedom, Roscoe (#102)
"I have read it"
#105. To: ConservingFreedom (#100)
#106. To: misterwhite (#104)
How about something from the study itself?
#107. To: misterwhite (#105)
So new teens started smoking pot, adding to the total number of users.
#108. To: ConservingFreedom (#107)
"no association found between MML implementation and increased current marijuana use among adolescents and younger adults"
#109. To: misterwhite (#108)
So there was no increase in current marijuana use among adolescents and younger adults. But new adolescents and younger adults started smoking pot.
#110. To: ConservingFreedom (#102)
it's available at https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/the-effect-of-medical-marijuana-laws-on-adolescent-and-adult-use-of-marijuana-Apf6j4qTXL.
#111. To: Roscoe (#110)
#112. To: ConservingFreedom (#111)
if you were twins.
#113. To: ConservingFreedom (#103)
Going strong. Have anything to add?
#114. To: redleghunter (#113)
#115. To: ConservingFreedom (#114)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]