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."
#1: Gatlin To: All (#0)
Gatlin posted on 2016-05-19 13:01:46 Reply Private Reply
#2: ConservingFreedom To: Gatlin (#0)
That noted, homeless immigration is certainly a possible outcome for the first several states to legalize - but will grow less as more states do so.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-19 13:22:07 Reply Private Reply
#3: Gatlin To: ConservingFreedom (#2)
Gatlin posted on 2016-05-19 13:33:21 Reply Private Reply
#4: sneakypete To: Gatlin (#0)
Within a few months homeless shelters will be shutting down due to lack of clients. Most of those people aren't homeless because they can't work,they are homeless because we as a nation have made it too easy for them to live without working,and they don't want to work.
sneakypete posted on 2016-05-19 14:54:13 Reply Private Reply
#5: buckeroo To: sneakypete (#4)
buckeroo posted on 2016-05-19 20:52:25 Reply Private Reply
#6: sneakypete To: buckeroo (#5)
All true,but that's not the way it is supposed to be.
Nor should it be the way it is.
sneakypete posted on 2016-05-19 21:10:51 Reply Private Reply
#7: GrandIsland To: ConservingFreedom (#2)
No house, no food... no ambition, no drive, no retirement, no car, no savings, no functional life... but damn it, they need their pot.
No brains
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-19 21:10:53 Reply Private Reply
#8: Fred Mertz To: GrandIsland (#7)
How much do you need? I have connections.
Fred Mertz posted on 2016-05-19 21:14:06 Reply Private Reply
#9: SOSO To: Fred Mertz (#8)
You moved to Colorado?
SOSO posted on 2016-05-19 21:15:30 Reply Private Reply
#10: Fred Mertz To: SOSO (#9)
A friend has terminal cancer. He visited his boyhood friend in New Mexico in April and they drove to Colorado. He bought and shipped what he wanted to where he needed it. I asked him about the post office workers and cops. He said Eff them - he's dying.
Fred Mertz posted on 2016-05-19 21:21:17 Reply Private Reply
#11: Gatlin To: Fred Mertz, GrandIsland (#10)
Clean up your language.
Gatlin posted on 2016-05-19 21:23:33 Reply Private Reply
#12: Fred Mertz To: Gatlin (#11)
Fred Mertz posted on 2016-05-19 21:24:08 Reply Private Reply
#13: GrandIsland To: Fred Mertz (#8)
Hopefully Bubba lets you bite your pillow when he goes in dry.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-19 21:25:58 Reply Private Reply
#14: Gatlin To: Ethel Mertz (#12)
Gatlin posted on 2016-05-19 21:28:21 Reply Private Reply
#15: GrandIsland To: Fred Mertz (#10)
We all die sometime, libtard. We can't save everyone. No reason to break the law
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-19 21:28:24 Reply Private Reply
#16: Gatlin To: GrandIsland, Ether Mertz (#13)
Gatlin posted on 2016-05-19 21:30:08 Reply Private Reply
#17: Gatlin To: GrandIsland (#15)
Paultards breaking the law is nothing new...is it?
Gatlin posted on 2016-05-19 21:31:31 Reply Private Reply
#18: Fred Mertz To: Gatlin, FireIsland (#17)
Fred Mertz posted on 2016-05-19 21:35:17 Reply Private Reply
#19: GrandIsland To: Gatlin (#17)
They are like that asshole neighbor that lets his dog shit in your yard. They don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-19 21:36:35 Reply Private Reply
#20: Gatlin To: Fred Mertz (#18)
Gatlin posted on 2016-05-19 21:37:19 Reply Private Reply
#21: GrandIsland To: Fred Mertz (#18)
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-19 21:37:29 Reply Private Reply
#22: SOSO To: Fred Mertz (#10)
Aren't we all?
SOSO posted on 2016-05-19 21:37:45 Reply Private Reply
#23: GrandIsland To: SOSO (#22)
Liberals and Paultards are the most important people they know.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-19 21:39:36 Reply Private Reply
#24: SOSO To: GrandIsland (#23)
They??????
SOSO posted on 2016-05-19 21:40:13 Reply Private Reply
#25: Fred Mertz To: SOSO (#22)
At my local watering hole they call it a safety meeting - that means they go outside for 5 or ten minutes and toke up.
Personally, I don't do the stuff, but I don't condemn those that do.
Fred Mertz posted on 2016-05-19 21:40:26 Reply Private Reply
#26: Fred Mertz To: GrandIsland (#21)
Lardasss, I'd like to grab your wind pipe and jerk it out of your fat neck.
Fred Mertz posted on 2016-05-19 21:41:50 Reply Private Reply
#27: GrandIsland To: Fred Mertz (#25)
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-19 21:43:22 Reply Private Reply
#28: GrandIsland To: Fred Mertz (#26)
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-19 21:44:45 Reply Private Reply
#29: Gatlin To: Fred Mertz (#25)
Anymore ... you forgot to say.
You are living proof that brain damage the use causes is permanent.
Gatlin posted on 2016-05-19 21:45:54 Reply Private Reply
#30: SOSO To: Fred Mertz (#25)
I am not aware that I do. Personally I think that, save for legitimate medical reasons, toking up is BS. I am over 70 and neither my wife nor I have ever used weed or any other recreational drug. We have had a very rich, rewarding, and fulfilling life to date without that sh*t. I saw what drugs did to the heavy weight musicians I used to hang around with when I was a teenager and decided at a very young age that even with all of their talent they were a said and wasted life.
SOSO posted on 2016-05-19 21:47:41 Reply Private Reply
#31: Fred Mertz To: GrandIsland (#27)
You make up stories like my friend with Tourettes Syndrome.
Every pothead I know works for a living. A few are retired with Purple Hearts from Vietnam.
Fred Mertz posted on 2016-05-19 21:47:52 Reply Private Reply
#32: GrandIsland To: SOSO (#30)
That's because you are smarter than a Paultard Deckard.
Excellent.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-19 21:49:22 Reply Private Reply
#33: buckeroo To: SOSO (#30)
Excellent. The government has no role in abusing POWER due to medical use for any narcotic.
buckeroo posted on 2016-05-19 21:50:33 Reply Private Reply
#34: GrandIsland To: Fred Mertz (#31)
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-19 21:52:29 Reply Private Reply
#35: Fred Mertz To: SOSO (#30)
You'd be surprised. I didn't know they did what they did when I was strait laced. When I loosened up, and they trusted me I learned about reality.
It doesn't bother me at all and I don't think any less of them.
FireIsland acts so sanctimonious...it makes me ill.
Fred Mertz posted on 2016-05-19 21:54:15 Reply Private Reply
#36: Fred Mertz To: GrandIsland (#34)
Why don't you get a real job? Get out and see the real world.
No wonder you're so bitter.
Fred Mertz posted on 2016-05-19 21:55:26 Reply Private Reply
#37: GrandIsland To: buckeroo (#33)
You might wanna check your states laws and review USSC case law, Sonny. I think you're hitting the glass pipe again.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-19 21:55:56 Reply Private Reply
#38: buckeroo To: GrandIsland (#34)
So why are you playing RAMBO in your mother's basement with tens of thousands of primers when you can be assured that the nice constaple on patrol will save your worthless ass when the SHTF?
You make no sense.
buckeroo posted on 2016-05-19 21:56:54 Reply Private Reply
#39: GrandIsland To: Fred Mertz (#36)
It's a second pension job... and im a pro at dealing with shitbirds.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-19 21:57:23 Reply Private Reply
#40: GrandIsland To: buckeroo (#38)
That's because you're a drug addled hippie libtard tool bag. Sober up.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-19 22:00:28 Reply Private Reply
#41: buckeroo To: GrandIsland (#40)
buckeroo posted on 2016-05-19 22:03:33 Reply Private Reply
#42: GrandIsland To: buckeroo (#41)
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-19 22:43:57 Reply Private Reply
#43: buckeroo To: GrandIsland (#42)
Meanwhile you claim to have stockpiled thousands of primers for the SHTF; now you don't trust the government; meanwhile, LF is confused because you calim to be a retired constaple on patrol which infers you trust your brethren to save your ass just like your 300 bucks a month.
You make no sense.
buckeroo posted on 2016-05-19 22:52:14 Reply Private Reply
#44: GrandIsland To: buckeroo (#43)
Add another zero... shitbag.
Haaaaaa
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-19 23:09:07 Reply Private Reply
#45: GrandIsland To: buckeroo (#43)
7,100 a month in 11 years. I'll go on a cruise, 4 months later vacation on a all inclusive resort... 4 months later another cruse... 4 months later another resort... and so on until I die.
lol
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-19 23:13:51 Reply Private Reply
#46: Gatlin To: SOSO (#30)
Bingo! Bingo! Bingo!
One can enjoy a life of natural highs…there is no need for the illegal drugs.
Gatlin posted on 2016-05-19 23:54:42 Reply Private Reply
#47: Roscoe To: Gatlin (#1)
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-20 04:52:56 Reply Private Reply
#48: ConservingFreedom To: GrandIsland (#7)
Who says it doesn't? "For the first time since the tech boom, Colorado added nearly 101,000 people to its population in a single year [...] Net migration —more people moving to the state than leaving — accounts for about two-thirds of the population gain" - www.denverpost.com/busine...ulation-jumped-by-101-000
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 11:09:55 Reply Private Reply
#49: ConservingFreedom To: GrandIsland (#19)
False analogy - someone else's pot use violates none of your rights.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 11:13:15 Reply Private Reply
#50: ConservingFreedom To: GrandIsland (#34)
And every non-pothead in there is - what - a sterling citizen who was framed?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 11:15:54 Reply Private Reply
#51: ConservingFreedom To: Gatlin (#46)
Nor for the legal ones. What's the public policy conclusion?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 11:17:41 Reply Private Reply
#52: SOSO To: Fred Mertz (#35)
Life is full of surprises. As long as they do not light up in front of me or flaunt it they can do as they wish. OTOH if they smoking in front of there grandkids or other children then I would have a problem and likely terminate our acquaintance.
SOSO posted on 2016-05-20 11:46:10 Reply Private Reply
#53: ConservingFreedom To: SOSO (#52)
That's the American conservative spirit. Some who like to fancy themselves American conservatives are apparently tortured by the knowledge that somebody somewhere might be having a kind of fun of which they disapprove.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 11:54:19 Reply Private Reply
#54: SOSO To: ConservingFreedom (#53)
You mean like pedophiles for example?
SOSO posted on 2016-05-20 12:01:27 Reply Private Reply
#55: ConservingFreedom To: SOSO (#54)
No, I mean like pot smokers, who (with the exception of parents of minors who inebriate themselves to the point of being unable to meet their parental duties) violate nobody's rights. Pedophilic acts always violate the rights of the child.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 12:06:20 Reply Private Reply
#56: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#51)
That alcohol is part of the American culture and tradition and has been so for hundreds of years. That we tried banning it once to no avail. That, despite the pain, misery and death that it causes, is something we'll have to learn to live with.
And finally, that if we had the opportunity to legalize even more recreational drugs to add to the pain, misery, and death, we would not do so.
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-20 12:13:09 Reply Private Reply
#57: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#56)
Marijuana has been widely used in America for over half a century and is near if not over 50% lifetime use. And our attempt to ban it seems to have availed primarily to enrich cartels and other criminals.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 12:45:56 Reply Private Reply
#58: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#57)
Always as part of the sub-culture.
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-20 13:02:08 Reply Private Reply
#59: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#58)
That's tautologically true if you assume your conclusion by defining the subculture to encompass all pot use. Can you support your claim without thus assuming your conclusion?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 13:09:11 Reply Private Reply
#60: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#59)
Are you saying marijuana is accepted as part of our culture?
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-20 13:44:44 Reply Private Reply
#61: Deckard To: misterwhite (#56)
Yet you see no parallels between banning alcohol and the current prohibition on drugs.
You admit the first one was a failure - when will you wake up and realize that the current one is as well?
Deckard posted on 2016-05-20 13:48:15 Reply Private Reply
#62: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#60)
Some don't accept marijuana use - some don't accept alcohol use. You're the one making claims about "culture" and "subculture" so you're the one who needs to define those terms. Or just continue handwaving ... your call.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 13:52:31 Reply Private Reply
#63: misterwhite To: Deckard (#61)
Other than the obvious parallel (illegality), no.
"You admit the first one was a failure - when will you wake up and realize that the current one is as well?"
Do you mean because some states legalized medical marijuana? Yeah. That's a failure.
Do you mean some states decriminalizing marijuana? Yeah. That's a failure.
Do you mean some states actually legalizing marijuana? Yeah. That's a failure.
Do you mean Obama's justice department refusing to enforce federal drug laws? Yeah. That's a failure.
In spite of all that, marijuana use has remained relatively flat for the last 20-25 years. That's not failure. Do you want to actually reduce use? Do you? Really? I know how, but you won't like it.
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-20 16:06:11 Reply Private Reply
#64: Deckard To: misterwhite (#63)
ALL illicit drug use has remained flat despite spending trillions of dollars.
Yeah - I got a real good idea what you would propose.
Deckard posted on 2016-05-20 16:12:32 Reply Private Reply
#65: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#63)
Sounds like it to me - use of the drugs tobacco and alcohol has declined for much if not all of that time, and they're not even illegal.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 16:13:48 Reply Private Reply
#66: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#63)
Or selectively enforcing them in different states. So much for due process.
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-20 16:34:56 Reply Private Reply
#67: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#65)
Marijuana use would have declined also, had it not been for the four issues I raised. That's not failure.
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-20 16:38:53 Reply Private Reply
#68: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#67)
Legalization is the case in only four states, and like Obama's nonenforcement covers only a few of the last 20-25 years.
As for decriminalization and medical, those hold in less than half the states; are you claiming that marijuana use fell in states that have neither? And that, as a corollary, it rose in the states that have one or both (so that the national average be flat)?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 16:55:30 Reply Private Reply
#69: GrandIsland To: ConservingFreedom (#48)
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-20 17:53:33 Reply Private Reply
#70: GrandIsland To: ConservingFreedom (#49)
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-20 17:54:56 Reply Private Reply
#71: GrandIsland To: ConservingFreedom (#50)
Their aren't any "non potheads" in prison. There isn't one of these dysfunctional scumbag mother F'ers that wouldn't stick a shank in their cell mates back for their stash of weed.
Wake the F' up, Paultard.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-20 17:57:44 Reply Private Reply
#72: Deckard To: GrandIsland (#71)
Deckard posted on 2016-05-20 18:06:29 Reply Private Reply
#73: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#68)
As an average, sure, why not? Doesn't that make sense?
"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."
"The study findings suggest that state MML implementation between 2004 and 2012 led to a 14 percent increase in past-month marijuana use and an 18 percent increase in marijuana abuse/dependence among adults aged 21 or above."
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-20 18:11:28 Reply Private Reply
#74: GrandIsland To: Deckard (#72)
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-20 18:38:00 Reply Private Reply
#75: GrandIsland To: Deckard (#72)
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.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-20 18:38:39 Reply Private Reply
#76: ConservingFreedom To: GrandIsland (#69)
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.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 21:36:42 Reply Private Reply
#77: ConservingFreedom To: GrandIsland (#70)
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.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 21:39:25 Reply Private Reply
#78: ConservingFreedom To: GrandIsland (#71)
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.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-20 21:42:34 Reply Private Reply
#79: GrandIsland To: ConservingFreedom (#78)
Someone needs to remind you Paultards what scumbags you are/support... even if it's common knowledge.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-21 00:11:38 Reply Private Reply
#80: A Pole To: ConservingFreedom, misterwhite (#57)
Founding Fathers used it. Make it "over the centuries".
A Pole posted on 2016-05-21 04:12:00 Reply Private Reply
#81: A Pole To: misterwhite, Deckard (#63)
Go to an eye doctor.
A Pole posted on 2016-05-21 04:14:17 Reply Private Reply
#82: ConservingFreedom To: GrandIsland (#79)
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...?ArtNum=46260&Disp=38#C38
I neither break the laws against theft, rape, and murder nor support those who do.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-23 13:39:19 Reply Private Reply
#83: GrandIsland To: ConservingFreedom (#82)
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?
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-23 19:28:26 Reply Private Reply
#84: ConservingFreedom To: GrandIsland (#83)
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.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-24 11:10:04 Reply Private Reply
#85: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#73)
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.)
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-24 14:42:53 Reply Private Reply
#86: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#85)
"We also find an increase in marijuana use initiation among those aged 12 –20."
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629615000351)
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-24 15:21:04 Reply Private Reply
#87: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#86)
But no evidence of an increase in regular use.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-24 15:57:14 Reply Private Reply
#88: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#87)
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?
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-24 17:42:21 Reply Private Reply
#89: GrandIsland To: ConservingFreedom (#84)
You support drug addicts. That makes you the sleazy liar. Drug addicts are scumbags.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-24 17:46:02 Reply Private Reply
#90: GrandIsland To: ConservingFreedom (#84)
This is what an agenda poster does when he can't spin my post YELLA... they resort to just being an asshole.
lol
GrandIsland posted on 2016-05-24 17:48:43 Reply Private Reply
#91: misterwhite To: GrandIsland (#89)
Scumbags and parasites.
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-24 17:50:12 Reply Private Reply
#92: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#88)
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.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-24 17:56:29 Reply Private Reply
#93: redleghunter To: ConservingFreedom (#92)
redleghunter posted on 2016-05-24 18:07:29 Reply Private Reply
#94: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#92)
Quote?
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-24 18:37:06 Reply Private Reply
#95: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#92)
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.
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-24 18:54:06 Reply Private Reply
#96: misterwhite To: Roscoe (#94)
Pffft! The report said teens started using marijuana for the first time. Numbnuts thinks we should assume they then stopped.
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-24 19:13:21 Reply Private Reply
#97: Roscoe To: misterwhite (#96)
He appears to be intuiting penumbral emanations in a paragraph long abstract of the report that he has never read. And never will.
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-24 19:42:35 Reply Private Reply
#98: misterwhite To: Roscoe (#97)
Yeah. What you said.
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-25 08:18:48 Reply Private Reply
#99: ConservingFreedom To: GrandIsland (#89)
In what way do I "support" them?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-25 12:02:27 Reply Private Reply
#100: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#95)
Neither did I - I said "first-time" which is synonymous with "initiation". Seek remedial reading help.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-25 12:05:06 Reply Private Reply
#101: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#94)
"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
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-25 12:10:22 Reply Private Reply
#102: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe, misterwhite (#97)
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.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-25 12:14:06 Reply Private Reply
#103: ConservingFreedom To: redleghunter (#93)
Going strong. Have anything to add?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-25 12:15:13 Reply Private Reply
#104: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom, Roscoe (#102)
Then why do you continue to cite from the abstract? How about something from the study itself?
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-25 12:34:07 Reply Private Reply
#105: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#100)
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-25 12:37:03 Reply Private Reply
#106: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#104)
You mean like my very first post about the study (#85)? Or the direct quote in #101?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-25 13:14:01 Reply Private Reply
#107: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#105)
See post #101 - no association found between MML implementation and increased current marijuana use among adolescents and younger adults.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-25 13:15:26 Reply Private Reply
#108: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#107)
So there was no increase in current marijuana use among adolescents and younger adults. But new adolescents and younger adults started smoking pot.
misterwhite posted on 2016-05-25 14:02:32 Reply Private Reply
#109: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#108)
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".
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-25 14:57:27 Reply Private Reply
#110: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#102)
There went your pot money for the week.
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-25 17:21:18 Reply Private Reply
#111: ConservingFreedom To: Roscoe (#110)
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-25 17:23:05 Reply Private Reply
#112: Roscoe To: ConservingFreedom (#111)
Like you and buckeroo?
Roscoe posted on 2016-05-25 17:25:24 Reply Private Reply
#113: redleghunter To: ConservingFreedom (#103)
Don't inhale.
redleghunter posted on 2016-05-26 01:57:55 Reply Private Reply
#114: ConservingFreedom To: redleghunter (#113)
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-26 13:11:33 Reply Private Reply
#115: redleghunter To: ConservingFreedom (#114)
redleghunter posted on 2016-05-26 18:56:52 Reply Private Reply