Of course.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27...federal-survey
If you seriously expected anything different then you need to check your connections with the Real World.
I am sincere. As you know, people get hit by drunk and drugged drivers. The legal status doesn't really change that. lol@age... nah, you're just stuck in a different ageI know you weren't trying to pedal fear, you're relying on professional evidence... so that's being taken care of for you
![]()
As for the blur... nah, that's ours... "we" passed it on to those later generations, but that's another story. I see it as, as long as you're awake, then that 1 car on the road should miss you... but there ain't no guarantees. I do wish you safe though.
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
True. No one is ever out unless there's a "shortage"... and if it were legal there would be plenty resources available to ensure supply. But how many really go without during a "shortage"? Statistically relevant or outliers? Either way, guessing gets us not closer to knowing.
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
Colorado and Washington State have, around 20%.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27...federal-survey
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
I'm wondering if Katman actually exists or if he is a Neuromancer-entity / William Gibson-like construct - surely no-one who can function in society receiving feedback from daily reality could be so consistently wrong...
Or maybe you read this sentence 'When asked, roughly one out of every eight Colorado residents over the age of 12 reported using marijuana in the previous month' and jumped to a conclusion.
If one out of every eight Colorado residents reported using marijuana once it was made legal, when only one out of every ten residents admitted the same when it was illegal, it could simply be down to the fact that people are more prepared to be honest once they know they're not breaking the law.
Evidence is.
...always up for debate.
They could have ensured the survey results were anonymous; like pretty much every survey into illicit substance use ever.
But hey, I've put up some evidence for my point, you think you've found a hole in it, now follow through and find some evidence for that, and your point.
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
Is this still the Cancer drug thread, Is recreational drugs now a cure for Cancer? or is it just a pulpit to preach drug reforms from under the guise of Medicinal
Don't worry its Katman so it will be pushing another agenda of his own![]()
![]()
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
No, but the NSDUH offers transparency on this issue.
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/.../studies/35509
Specifically:
Now as I said evidence is always up for discussion and I'd welcome evidence you can put forward to counter that which I have...To protect the privacy of respondents, all variables that could be used to identify individuals have been encrypted or collapsed in the public use file. To further ensure respondent confidentiality, the data producer used data substitution and deletion of state identifiers and a subsample of records in the creation of the public use file.
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
Decline of drug abuse is a completely logical outcome of its legalisation, especially with the measures portugal could put in place due to its legalisation. However, drug abuse is not a measure of drug use; or are you suggesting the usage would have fallen by half as well?
The other point to note, is which demographic best matches our own, US or portugal?
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks