United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Colorado teens are using less marijuana since legalization
Source:
Deseret News
URL Source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/ ... since-legalization.html?pg=all
Published: Jul 4, 2016
Author: Megan McNulty
Post Date: 2016-07-05 13:41:51 by ConservingFreedom
Keywords: None
Views: 2282
Comments: 40
A recent survey by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment found fewer Colorado teens said they used marijuana in the last year than in 2009 — a surprising decrease in one of the first states to legalize the production and sale of the drug for recreational purposes. In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found 38.6 percent of students 12 and up across the nation reported having tried marijuana and 21.7 percent reported usage in the last month, despite only a handful of states having legalized it. Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an organization advocating societal marijuana policies correlating with the understanding of its harmful effects, recently said the CDC survey failed to incorporate responses from students in Colorado, Oregon and Washington where recreational marijuana use is legal. "The lack of data from these three legalized states calls into question the relevance of the CDC results in studying the effects of legalization on youth," the organization published on its website. Colorado and Washington were among the first states to legalize the production and sale of marijuana for recreational purposes. Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia have followed. The CDPH survey gathered information from about 17,000 randomly selected students from more than 157 middle and high schools. The data included information on teen alcohol and marijuana usage, mental health, community engagement and much more. The survey found 21 percent of Colorado teens said they had used marijuana in the past 30 days last year compared with 25 percent in 2009 when the recreational use of marijuana in Colorado was still illegal. "The survey shows marijuana use has not increased since legalization, with 4 of 5 high school students continuing to say they don’t use marijuana, even occasionally," the Colorado Department of Public Heath and Environment said in a news release. Additionally, the teenagers in the CDPH survey were reported to have a different perception of the risks of marijuana with 54 percent viewing usage of the drug as having a moderate or great risk, a decrease from 58 percent in 2011. “The drop in teen use reflects the fact that state and local authorities have far more control over marijuana than ever before," Mason Tvert, the Marijuana Policy Project communication director, told U.S. News. “Our goal should not be increasing teens’ perception of risk surrounding marijuana. It should be increasing teens’ knowledge of the actual relative harms of marijuana, alcohol and other substances so that they can make smart decisions." [...]
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: ConservingFreedom (#0)
(Edited)
So the State of Colorado legalized a nationally prohibited drug, and a State of Colorado follow-up survey found that teen use of that drug is down. Wow! Good news for the State of Colorado!
Colorado teens are using less marijuana since legalization Are we supposed to believe this is a sound cause-and-effect reason, a valid form of rational logic? Where was the resultant relationship scientifically established? It may well be there is no common cause and this is only a casual self-serving statement, like “wishful thinking” for justification. I agree with the Smart Approaches to Marijuana organization: "The lack of data from these three legalized states calls into question the relevance of the CDC results in studying the effects of legalization on youth." Without data to show validation for the headline assertion, I see all this hullabaloo to be misleading or rationalizing, as would be: “Colorado residents are having far fewer accidents since legalization of drunk driving.”
Does "since" suggest that to you? To me it's a simple statement of chronology - which statement does weigh against those who predicted that legalization for adults would cause an increase in youth use. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. *Voters being defined as 25% of the population who spoke for everyone by deciding in a referendum -- ie., mob rule -- to commit sedition and legalize a recreational drug still banned by the federal government. This was followed by the State of Colorado -- in a thinly-disguised gesture of justification -- conducting a survey which showed (It's a miracle!) that teen use of marijuana actually declined in this permissive environment!
Oh yea, since means a great deal to me.
Please. Why would bureaucrats feel any need to "justify" a referendum end-run around their power? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. The politicians probably felt a need to justify their sedition by approving the survey.
Read this carefully: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/since since A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment appears to be an appointed not an elected body: https://www.colorado. g ov/pacific/cdphe/leadership A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Everyone who made this possible is guilty. 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
Where's the force? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Okay, I read that very carefully.
So you noticed it was about simple chronological sequence as I said?
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. It's "conspire to oppose by force" and that conspiracy to oppose is in the law they passed.
Yes. I see that you said what you said you said ...
insufficient to establish sedition in the absence of force. You lose, again. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Thanks for abandoning your "cause-and-effect" straw man. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I still read it as "cause-and-effect" ... you may, of course, read it any way you desire. Edit:
It's about the first seven dictionary definitions of "since", not about my desire. Apples and oranges - "happened to" implies a cause. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Apples and oranges - "happened to" implies a cause. Same with this, it also implies a cause?
“Happen” is defined as: “strongly suggest.” Those headlines could be written: And that would be cause-and-effect.
Look What Happened [took place / came to pass / occurred] To Teens When Colorado Legalized Marijuana. Now we know what happens [took place / came to pass / occurred] to teens when you make pot legal. The way I read these headlines is, cause-and-effect.
Inasmuch as they leave themselves open to a causal interpretation, they are poorly composed headlines. But they're not the headlines under discussion.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I still read the original headline the same way....cause-and-effect. Have yourself a nice evening ... later.
The definition says nothing about the presence of force. You're just making shit up. It reads, "to conspire to oppose by force". Conspiracy is all that's necessary.
You're just making shit up - and stupidly. If force is not involved in what is conspired toward, there is no conspiracy to oppose by force. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You can indulge in any baseless blather you wish - just expect to be called on it as you were here. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
So you've given up on the presence of force being necessary for seditious behavior? Smart move. Passing a law means force may be applied to enforce that law. The conspiracy is in the passage of the law.
You keep replying to me - more creative definitions? So far that's "since" and "ignore" you use contrary to standard English usage. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. No force could be useful much less necessary to "enforce" a revocation of penalties against marijuana growing, sale, and use. You're floundering - abandon ship. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. If I'm engaged in a legal activity and someone uses force in an attempt to prevent me from engaging in that activity, I can't respond in kind?
Your responding in kind does not "prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States" (unless you're resisting federal law enforcement agents). Still no support for your sedition claim. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Who else would I be resisting?
If that's who you were talking about, your "someone" was disingenuous to say the least. To pass a state law revoking state penalties against marijuana growing, sale, and use is not to "conspire to by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States" - state residents are not by that revocation made any more able to violate federal law nor to oppose enforcement of that law, much less called on to do so. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I was speaking in generalities. "state residents are not by that revocation made any more able to violate federal law ..." Please. Legal dispensaries and non-enforcement of state laws don't make it easier to violate federal law?
Deceptively so, as you exposed when you said you meant "who else" than federal law enforcement agents. For shame. Not through use of force, so - as ever - no support for your sedition claim. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. In this specific instance where I was calling for charges of sedition for legalizing marijuana, who else but federal agents would I be talking about? "Not through use of force" You and your strawmen. For the third time, it's "conspire to oppose by force" and that conspiracy to oppose is the law they passed. Stop with your gotcha games and pay attention.
Exactly - NOT "conspire to oppose by making noncompliance easier", so your argument remains unsupported. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. "The CDPH survey ..."
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
(Edited)
#3. To: Gatlin (#2)
Are we supposed to believe this is a sound cause-and-effect reason
#4. To: misterwhite (#1)
So the voters of the State of Colorado legalized a nationally prohibited drug, and a State of Colorado follow-up survey found that teen use of that drug is down.
There, now that's correct.
#5. To: ConservingFreedom (#4)
"So the voters* of the State of Colorado ..."
#6. To: ConservingFreedom (#3)
Colorado teens are using less marijuana since legalization
Are we supposed to believe this is a sound cause-and-effect reason
Does "since" suggest that to you?
Since I am getting older, I have the good sense to read carefully.
Since carefully reading the headline again, I still read it as:
"Since legalization, Colorado teens are using less marijuana."
Ergo, since legalization has “caused” teens to use less marijuana, the “effect” is a good resultant.
I am glad to learn that Colorado teens now have more sense.
#7. To: misterwhite (#5)
referendum -- ie., mob rule
This was followed by the State of Colorado -- in a thinly-disguised gesture of justification
#8. To: ConservingFreedom (#7)
"Why would bureaucrats feel any need to "justify" a referendum end-run around their power?"
#9. To: Gatlin (#6)
Since I am getting older, I have the good sense to read carefully.
[sins]
adverb
1. from then till now (often preceded by ever):
He was elected in 1978 and has been president ever since.
2. between a particular past time and the present; subsequently:
She at first refused, but has since consented.
3. ago; before now:
long since.
preposition
4. continuously from or counting from:
It has been warm since noon.
5. between a past time or event and the present:
There have been many changes since the war.
conjunction
6. in the period following the time when:
He has written once since he left.
7. continuously from or counting from the time when:
He has been busy since he came.
#10. To: misterwhite (#8)
(Edited)
The politicians probably felt a need to justify their sedition
#11. To: ConservingFreedom (#10)
"You just told me it was the referendum "mob"s "sedition."
#12. To: misterwhite (#11)
or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States
#13. To: ConservingFreedom (#9)
#14. To: Gatlin (#13)
#15. To: ConservingFreedom (#12)
"Where's the force?"
#16. To: ConservingFreedom (#14)
So you noticed it was about simple chronological sequence as I said?
#17. To: misterwhite (#15)
It's "conspire to oppose by force" and that conspiracy to oppose is
#18. To: Gatlin (#16)
Yes.
#19. To: ConservingFreedom (#18)
(Edited)
If this were the headline to the story, would this cause-and-effect:
Headline: Look What Happened To Teens When Colorado Legalized Marijuana
#20. To: Gatlin (#19)
I still read it as "cause-and-effect" ... you may, of course, read it any way you desire.
If this were the headline to the story, would this cause-and-effect: Headline: Look What Happened To Teens When Colorado Legalized Marijuana
#21. To: ConservingFreedom (#20)
If this were the headline to the story, would this cause-and-effect:
Headline: Look What Happened To Teens When Colorado Legalized Marijuana
Headline: Now we know what happens to teens when you make pot legal
#22. To: ConservingFreedom (#21)
- "happened to" implies a cause.
“Happen” is also defined as: take place; come to pass; occur. 1. Headline: Look what “Took Place / Came to Pass / Occurred” To Teens When Colorado Legalized Marijuana.
2. Headline: Now We Know What “Took Place / Came to Pass / Occurred” to Teens When You Make Pot Legal.
#23. To: ConservingFreedom (#22)
#24. To: Gatlin (#23)
#25. To: ConservingFreedom (#24)
(Edited)
#26. To: ConservingFreedom (#17)
"insufficient to establish sedition in the absence of force.'
#27. To: misterwhite (#26)
It reads, "to conspire to oppose by force". Conspiracy is all that's necessary.
#28. To: Gatlin (#25)
I still read the original headline the same way....cause-and-effect.
#29. To: ConservingFreedom (#28)
(Edited)
If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings would there be any sound?
No. Sound is the sensation excited in the ear when the air or other medium is set in motion. You can indulge in any baseless blather you wish - just expect to be called on it as you were here.
You can indulge in any calling you wish – just expect to be ignored when you become a bore as you were here.
#30. To: ConservingFreedom (#27)
"If force is not involved in what is conspired toward, there is no conspiracy to oppose by force."
#31. To: Gatlin (#29)
expect to be ignored
#32. To: misterwhite (#30)
Passing a law means force may be applied to enforce that law.
#33. To: ConservingFreedom (#32)
"No force could be useful much less necessary to "enforce" a revocation of penalties against marijuana growing, sale, and use."
#34. To: misterwhite (#33)
If I'm engaged in a legal activity and someone uses force in an attempt to prevent me from engaging in that activity, I can't respond in kind?
#35. To: ConservingFreedom (#34)
(unless you're resisting federal law enforcement agents)
#36. To: misterwhite (#35)
Who else would I be resisting?
#37. To: ConservingFreedom (#36)
"your "someone" was disingenuous to say the least."
#38. To: misterwhite (#37)
I was speaking in generalities.
Legal dispensaries and non-enforcement of state laws don't make it easier to violate federal law?
#39. To: ConservingFreedom (#38)
"Deceptively so, as you exposed when you said you meant "who else" than federal law enforcement agents."
#40. To: misterwhite (#39)
"conspire to oppose by force"
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]