CBS poll shows even split for marijuana legalization

posted at 11:21 am on November 30, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Has America become more libertarian on marijuana?  A new poll from CBS shows that respondents split evenly on the question of legalization at 47% either way.  It’s the second year in a row that a majority for prohibition has failed to materialize, and the first time that it failed to get even a plurality:

For the first time since CBS News began asking the question, as many Americans now think marijuana use should be legal as think it should not.

Support for legalizing marijuana inched up slightly from 45 percent in September to 47 percent today, according to a CBS News poll, conducted Nov. 16-19. Another 47 percent think it should remain prohibited. A year ago, a slight majority of Americans, 51 percent, opposed legalizing marijuana use.

This shift in public opinion was seen at the ballot box this month, when Colorado and Washington became the first states in the nation to approve of recreational marijuana use among adults over the age of 21. Marijuana use of any kind, however, is still illegal under federal law. It’s unclear at this point how the Obama administration intends to respond.

The poll shows a significant partisan split on the issue.  Majorities of Democrats and independents favor legalization, but at 51% and 55% respectively, those majorities are not as significant as one might think.  However, two-thirds of Republicans still believe it should be prohibited.

The age demos are more telling on this point. Majorities of age demos below 45 believe in legalization — although again, perhaps not as significantly as one would guess.  The 18-29YO demo favors legalization by only 13 points, 54/41, while 30-44YOs favor it by almost the same amount, 53/42.  The middle-aged demo, of which I’m a member, is almost evenly split at 46/48, but seniors deeply oppose legalization at 30/61.

The numbers are much different for doctor-prescribed marijuana, though:

Eighty-three percent of Americans favor allowing doctors to prescribe small amounts of marijuana for patients suffering from serious illnesses, the poll shows – up from 77 percent a year ago and 62 percent back in 1997. A majority of Americans of all ages – as well as most Republicans, Democrats, and independents – favor allowing this.

The CBS poll doesn’t include age demos on this question; it would be interesting to see how that splits out.  Also interesting is the impression people have about doctor-prescribed marijuana.  Only 29% think doctors mainly prescribe it for “serious medical illness,” while 53% believe doctors prescribe it for “other reasons.”  If so, I wonder why so many back prescription pot but not full legalization.  Perhaps they see it as a stimulus plan for primary-care physicians; they’ll need one under ObamaCare, to be sure.

Earlier this week, I featured Steven Crowder’s look at marijuana in our Green Room, and it got over 120 comments the last time I looked, and it’s worth another look on this post.  Steven argues that there is a valid argument for getting the federal government out of marijuana prohibition, but rebuts the argument that pot is harmless or less harmful than alcohol – as well as provides an entertaining bit of vox populi from Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Update: Scott Rasmussen wrote about legalization two weeks ago, noting that support for it increases when people understand that access will come with significant regulatory oversight:

When we ask Americans simply whether they favor legalization of marijuana, 45 percent say yes and 45 percent say no.

But when we ask about legalizing and regulating marijuana in a similar manner to the way alcohol and cigarettes are regulated, support for legalization increases to 56 percent. Only 36 percent remain opposed.

Most support regulations that would make it illegal for those under 18 to purchase pot, insure that those who drive under the influence would receive strict penalties and favor a ban on smoking marijuana in public places.

Fifty-eight percent support a requirement that marijuana could be purchased only in pharmacies. A plurality thinks that would cut the income of those who continue to sell drugs illegally.

Perhaps the impulse here isn’t entirely libertarian.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Even spliff?

Capitalist Hog on November 30, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Steven argues that there is a valid argument for getting the federal government out of marijuana prohibition, but rebuts the argument that pot is harmless or less harmful than alcohol

My view exactly. I’m sick and tired of pot heads claiming that pot is less harmful than alcohol because that simply isn’t true.

On the plus side, legalization of pot would once and forever make Ron Paul irrelevent because the single issue morons who support the racist idiot would be finally be satisfied.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 11:27 AM

I’m of the “I don’t give a fark either way” mind, but I would warn all the proponents of “legalization” that along with that comes the FDA, NIH, HHS, IRS, local & state taxes,USDA growing regs, DOT regs, just to name a few…

In other words, costs will soar, quality of product will drop dramatically, and as an added benefit, the same “non-smoking” crusaders will shift their attention to you as the new spawn of satan as well…

Be careful what you wish for…

Tim Zank on November 30, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Legalize medicinal use. Decriminalize personal possesion/consumption.

Employers, drug test everybody! Make a public scene if you encounter somebody who is high on their job. Decriminalization does not mean you all have to live like losers.

Liberty compels personal freedoms that do not impose on the public good. I have little regard for the wasted lives of drug abusers. I don’t even must much sympathy for them.

What I do have is respect for their freedom. The thing to watch for is if employers are forced to accept someone with pot in their system who claims they didn’t smoke recently. That’s the next threshold. I still want the right to deny employment to losers of all sorts.

That’s liberty too, right?

Capitalist Hog on November 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM

This might put us on the slippery slope towards more freedom.

halfastro on November 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Even spliff?

Capitalist Hog on November 30, 2012 at 11:23 AM

I see what you did there…heh heh heh…

Tim Zank on November 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Capitalist Hog on November 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM

I’ll second that.

Archivarix on November 30, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Forward America!!!

Let the cultural suicide continue.

And eventually, this…..

http://jewishwebindex.com/Bulgaria%20-%20Holocaust%20loading%20Jews%20on%20boxcars.jpg

PappyD61 on November 30, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Why don’t we just split up this land mass and give the left their own country. They could replace the stars in the flag with a cannabis leaf and the strips could be psychedelic colors.

rplat on November 30, 2012 at 11:33 AM

I’ve never smoked it, so it’s never been much on my radar, pro or con. So, random reactions: Sucking stuff into your lungs is repulsive. Stoners tend to be irritating people. I do hate that it’s being smuggled through our ranch, so I really hate the people who are buying the foreign stuff. Having drug smugglers on your land is scary. If decriminalizing it would cut down on smuggling that would be a good consequence.

I will likely need it need it someday for medical use, so I’d like to have some access to it for that.

juliesa on November 30, 2012 at 11:35 AM

The GOP would win a lot of votes if they simply framed the marijuana debate as a State issue, not a Federal one. People like Federalism, they just don’t understand what it is.

VinceOfDoom on November 30, 2012 at 11:35 AM

This might put us on the slippery slope towards more freedom.

halfastro on November 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Yeah , until your munchy hungry butt comes to work and I end up losing an arm because you did not see that I had it where it was.

watertown on November 30, 2012 at 11:36 AM

poll today, 50% say I should take out the trash! Can you also poll what I should eat tonite and at what time I should take a dump.

Thank god we have polls to tell us how to think (sarc.)

Danielvito on November 30, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Kids are brain damaged anyway. Go for it.

(what’s the half-sarcasm icon?)

vityas on November 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Legalize medicinal use. Decriminalize personal possesion/consumption.

Employers, drug test everybody! Make a public scene if you encounter somebody who is high on their job. Decriminalization does not mean you all have to live like losers.

Liberty compels personal freedoms that do not impose on the public good. I have little regard for the wasted lives of drug abusers. I don’t even must much sympathy for them.

What I do have is respect for their freedom. The thing to watch for is if employers are forced to accept someone with pot in their system who claims they didn’t smoke recently. That’s the next threshold. I still want the right to deny employment to losers of all sorts.

That’s liberty too, right?

Capitalist Hog on November 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM

What I personally consider the right approach, and a very reasonable one, but sadly, those who are proponents of legalization will probably consider it a offensive idea.

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 11:38 AM

So we have ONE doctor who makes a weak case that MJ is bad for your health, who also seems to think the only issue with alcohol is the rate at which your liver can metabolize it.

So am I to assume there are no doctors that disagree ?

I like Crowder, but this piece is so full of cheap strawmen that it should be kept far, far away from matches or other ignition sources.

The gov’t should not be able to ban pot if it cannot ban alcohol without a constitutional amendment. Period. Further, the societal impact of alcohol is FAR greater than pot. Its not even close. Nobody has ever been killed by pot and the only people that may have died indirectly from pot would be as a result of the criminal enterprises that support the trade of illegal pot.

deadrody on November 30, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Why don’t we just split up this land mass and give the left their own country. They could replace the stars in the flag with a cannabis leaf and the strips could be psychedelic colors.

So, I take it you approve of a federal government that has control over what you grow in your back yard, what you dry in your kitchen, and what you smoke in your living room? I don’t think marijuana is harmless, but the Constitutional erosion its prohibition brings is worse than the pot.

Besides, it’s propping up California’s economy.

Socratease on November 30, 2012 at 11:39 AM

On the plus side, legalization of pot would once and forever make Ron Paul irrelevent because the single issue morons who support the racist idiot would be finally be satisfied.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 11:27 AM

With all due respect, and I say this as a non-PaulBot, I think you’re misinterpreting the Ron Paul voter.

To me, they don’t seem like single issue voters. They are not so much obsessed with legalizing pot as they are with monetary policy and minimizing the size and scope of government.

The smarter ones, anyway.

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Alcohol is just as bad as marijuana, if not worse. Make both legal or make both illegal. And we all know how well prohibition turned out. Come to think of it, the “War on Drugs” hasn’t worked out much better.

DRayRaven on November 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Yeah , until your munchy hungry butt comes to work and I end up losing an arm because you did not see that I had it where it was.

watertown on November 30, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Indeed. Because nobody ever conceived of someone going to work drunk. Only people who smoke pot would ever consider going to work while under the influence.

/sarcasm

Feel free to make an intelligent argument anytime you like.

deadrody on November 30, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Besides, it’s propping up California’s economy.

Socratease on November 30, 2012 at 11:39 AM

California has a 2 TRILLION dollar a year economy, if pot is propping up California’s economy, then we really should legalize it, it would save the entire worlds economy.

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Personally – I big fat doobie would have been nice – the morning of November 7th

jake-the-goose on November 30, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Meanwhile drug dealers and prisons favor prohibition by a stunning 100%.

lester on November 30, 2012 at 11:43 AM

I have to wonder about that first woman doctor claiming that, even after smoking pot, it’s drug remains in the brain, affecting the nervous system longer. But she doesn’t say how much. Then she says people at a young age have a higher rate of psychosis from smoking pot…but alcohol consumption by youth is also bad for them, which is why there is a minimum age to drink, and there would be a minimum age to smoke…just like with cigarettes.

It’s just like with guns…referencing the story here at HA a day or two ago…where a rise in gun ownership brought down crime. Pot legalization would do the same. And it’s sad that there really is a whole lot of misinformation about pot, as Crowder says. But it’s high time
(pardon the pun) this country decriminalized pot.

JetBoy on November 30, 2012 at 11:43 AM

And eventually, this…..

http://jewishwebindex.com/Bulgaria%20-%20Holocaust%20loading%20Jews%20on%20boxcars.jpg

PappyD61 on November 30, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Yeah, because decriminalizing a substance that grows from the ground will necessarily lead to people being shoved into boxcars and carted off to concentration camps.

***** big, big eyeroll *****

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Yeah , until your munchy hungry butt comes to work and I end up losing an arm because you did not see that I had it where it was.

watertown on November 30, 2012 at 11:36 AM

A hypothetical risk that most federalists are willing to take.

Hmmm… of the five jobs I had in Colorado, only one didn’t require a drug screen (and uncuriously, that was a university job). Of the two jobs I’ve had in Washington, neither employer required drug screens (and at the first employer did that ever show).

Not a bring fan of drug screens personally – since I always pass and it’s an unnecessary hassle – but I kinda wish more employers required them. I support the right of Americans to loaf around all hopped up on goofballs, but any and every employer should be permitted to use that as a reason not to hire said clowncars. And hey, in the Obama’conomy, I’ll take whatever “competitive advantage” I can get.

Jeddite on November 30, 2012 at 11:45 AM

A national poll is irrelevant. It is something for each state to decide for themselves. At least it is irrelevant until SCOTUS rules on Dopers vs. Stoners and finds the secret language written using lemon juice in the Constitution that finds a constitutional right to be baked.

NotCoach on November 30, 2012 at 11:45 AM

juliesa on November 30, 2012 at 11:35 AM

That puts you in either southern Arizona, southern New Mexico or southern Texas. I am sympathetic to your plight. My daughter works for Border Patrol in Southern Arizona and has many a story to tell about ranchers caught in the middle of this nonsense.

Legalize and regulate it the same way as cigarettes. Let the nanny staters add in all the same type of sin taxes they do to cigarettes.

chemman on November 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM

With all due respect, and I say this as a non-PaulBot, I think you’re misinterpreting the Ron Paul voter.

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM

With all due respect, am I?

I find it much more disconcerting if any of them actually agree with the idiot’s ideas about isolationism and non-intervention even when it is in the national interest. Paul’s views on the economy are half-baked and inconsistent. And while there is some common sense in his views on the scope of government, the idea that government will cut and limit itself is completely irrelevant.

I prefer to think of the Paul-bot morons as stoned out of their minds because, otherwise, these people are too damned stupid to be on the streets.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM

My view exactly. I’m sick and tired of pot heads claiming that pot is less harmful than alcohol because that simply isn’t true.

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Good thing you’re not entitled to your own facts. Number of deaths caused by MJ throughout the history of time = 0. Can’t say the same about alcohol.

SirGawain on November 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Yeah, because decriminalizing a substance that grows from the ground will necessarily lead to people being shoved into boxcars and carted off to concentration camps.

***** big, big eyeroll *****

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 11:44 AM

So, by that logic we should also legalize Cocaine and Heroin as well right? After all, they are both just plants that grow out of the ground as well…

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Yeah , until your munchy hungry butt comes to work and I end up losing an arm because you did not see that I had it where it was.

watertown on November 30, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Because everyone at your job is drunk today since alcohol is legal. This is just too easy.

SirGawain on November 30, 2012 at 11:48 AM

The GOP would win a lot of votes if they simply framed the marijuana debate as a State issue, not a Federal one. People like Federalism, they just don’t understand what it is.

VinceOfDoom on November 30, 2012 at 11:35 AM

That, and public schools seem to do a pretty bang-up job of equating “states rights” with slavery/The Confederacy/The Civil War. So if the GOP ever gets around to promoting federalism – HAW HAW HAW – one can expect to see Democrats rushing to the nearest camera crew to declare that Republicans want to bring back slavery.

Jeddite on November 30, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Meh

ted c on November 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM

That puts you in either southern Arizona, southern New Mexico or southern Texas. I am sympathetic to your plight. My daughter works for Border Patrol in Southern Arizona and has many a story to tell about ranchers caught in the middle of this nonsense.

Legalize and regulate it the same way as cigarettes. Let the nanny staters add in all the same type of sin taxes they do to cigarettes.

chemman on November 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Cough cough, or Southern California… wink win… ;p

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Medical marijuana in California is a sham. For $100 you can get a prescription on the spot at most pot shops.

John the Libertarian on November 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Earlier this week, I featured Steven Crowder’s look at marijuana in our Green Room, and it got over 120 comments the last time I looked, and it’s worth another look on this post. Steven argues that there is a valid argument for getting the federal government out of marijuana prohibition, but rebuts the argument that pot is harmless or less harmful than alcohol – as well as provides an entertaining bit of vox populi from Ann Arbor, Michigan.

This is my main problem with some marijuana advocates — to listen to them, you’d think cannabis is the only beneficial type of smoke you can ever put into your lungs. Pot and alcohol may be a wash in terms of it’s short- and long-term detrimental effects from repeated use (liver disease vs. emphysema and other lung capacity issues). But don’t try to sell the idea one turns you into an angry, confrontational sociopath that is a killing machine behind the wheel while the other makes you the friendliest dude in the universe while allowing you to crap rainbows and fairy dust out your arse.

jon1979 on November 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Excellent video.

I’m against legalization. First, I have had juvenile clients as young as 12 years old who smoked dope who were a mess and who I am sure are already in adult prisons. Second, I have had two adult acquaintances who also smoked dope who would then get aggressive and paranoid and impossible to be around. With one, his wife left him because of it. The other, her friends did an intervention but she continued to do it and would then lie about it.

Blake on November 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM

So, by that logic we should also legalize Cocaine and Heroin as well right? After all, they are both just plants that grow out of the ground as well…

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Really? Cocaine and Heroin are plants? Can you show me a plant that produces refined heroin or coke?

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 11:51 AM

The GOP would win a lot of votes if they simply framed the marijuana debate as a State issue, not a Federal one. People like Federalism, they just don’t understand what it is.

VinceOfDoom on November 30, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Exactly. Setting aside all of the arguments about the harmfulness of marijuana, conservatives should be arguing this on the basis of the 10th Amendment/federalism all the way. This is great opportunity to make a big point about federalism, and one where there can be a meeting of principle and politics.

thirteen28 on November 30, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Excellent video.

I’m against legalization. First, I have had juvenile clients as young as 12 years old who smoked dope who were a mess and who I am sure are already in adult prisons. Second, I have had two adult acquaintances who also smoked dope who would then get aggressive and paranoid and impossible to be around. With one, his wife left him because of it. The other, her friends did an intervention but she continued to do it and would then lie about it.

Blake on November 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM

So, of course, you’d like to answer the central premise of that video: What is the Constitutional authority for the US Government to place a prohibition on cannabis?

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Kids are brain damaged anyway. Go for it.

(what’s the half-sarcasm icon?)

vityas on November 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM

The evidence is pot adversely affects brain development up to the age of 25. Since college students are the prime pot-smoking group, do we really want to legally sanction the active brain damaging of college students? And, do only I see the irony in college students, paying so much money to support their own intellectual, social, and emotional growth through attending college, instead using those years to get high?

There was a hilarious Sat Nite Live sketch 25 years ago when it was found that Reagan Supreme Court nominee Douglas Ginsburg had smoked pot even as a graduate student. Played by Jon Lovitz in the skit, he’s smoking a joint, and another guy there said he really liked some opinion Ginsburg wrote, and Lovitz replies in his best stoner voice, “Yeah, man … I was so high when I wrote that opinion” as he takes another toke. That didn’t help Ginsburg’s nomination!

Pot use and achievement and accomplishment don’t go together. Well, unless you’re an artist or jazz musician, maybe.

Paul-Cincy on November 30, 2012 at 11:53 AM

I think #s in favor may have been stronger – but some naturally in favor might not have understood the question.

verbaluce on November 30, 2012 at 11:53 AM

California has a 2 TRILLION dollar a year economy, if pot is propping up California’s economy, then we really should legalize it, it would save the entire worlds economy.

This report — based on U.S. government data — details the enormous volume of marijuana harvested and sold untaxed in the U.S., where in 2006 it was the country’s number one cash crop, worth more than the corn and wheat crops combined.

Socratease on November 30, 2012 at 11:53 AM

JetBoy on November 30, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannibanol,the active agent in Marijuana, is soluble in lipids. The brain is rich in lipids so in that she is correct. Any other cells (like sperm and fat tissue) that is mainly lipids will concentrate and store the chemical. So occasional short term use of pot shouldn’t create large problems but constant long term use may cause significant problems.

chemman on November 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Blake on November 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Sounds like all of the people you’re talking about have other, bigger issues than just substance abuse.

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM

So, by that logic we should also legalize Cocaine and Heroin as well right? After all, they are both just plants that grow out of the ground as well…

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 11:47 AM

No. You should legalize cocaine and heroin for the same reasons that you should legalize cannabis… because there is no authority under the US Constitution to institute such laws.

Unless, of course, you’d care to enlighten us as to where that constitutional authority derives from…

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Really? Cocaine and Heroin are plants? Can you show me a plant that produces refined heroin or coke?

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Coca plant and opium poppy.

NotCoach on November 30, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I’m torn on this subject. I have no problem with someone blowing a joint, but do we want to risk allowing a person who is high behind the wheel of a car? Drunk drivers are bad enough.

Also, liberals will surely say that if it’s okay to smoke pot, why can’t people do some ‘cain as well?

The last thing we need is letting liberals have a slippery slope, because we know they always aim for the bottom and call it a great thing.

Liam on November 30, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Dude on the cover pic looks like patient zero from World War Z.

Bishop on November 30, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Pot and alcohol may be a wash in terms of it’s short- and long-term detrimental effects from repeated use (liver disease vs. emphysema and other lung capacity issues). But don’t try to sell the idea one turns you into an angry, confrontational sociopath that is a killing machine behind the wheel while the other makes you the friendliest dude in the universe

jon1979 on November 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM

And let’s not forget that buying pot is still a crime. I don’t care how easy it is to do, you can’t be a fine upstanding person if you decide to fund the Mexican drug cartels. What? You really think that all the illegals here are just working in restaurants and construction sites?

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM

The left among others spent billions trashing big tobacco but now support big weed? Hypocrites.

jawkneemusic on November 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Really? Cocaine and Heroin are plants? Can you show me a plant that produces refined heroin or coke?

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Coca plant and opium poppy.

NotCoach on November 30, 2012 at 11:55 AM

The key word there was refined. There are many plants that produce psychoactive chemicals in various amounts.

Are you aware that the original formulation for Coca Cola used coca leaves, hence the mane?

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I think #s in favor may have been stronger – but some naturally in favor might not have understood the question.

verbaluce on November 30, 2012 at 11:53 AM

hehehehehe

Bishop on November 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM

hence the mane name?

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM

correction. :-)

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Pot useExtra-constitutional laws and achievement a free society and accomplishment Liberty don’t go together. Well, unless you’re an artist or jazz musician authoritarian, maybe.

Paul-Cincy on November 30, 2012 at 11:53 AM

FIFY

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2012 at 11:59 AM

If you drink alcohol in your own house, it’s not like the rest of us have to drink it too. If you’re smoking pot in your basement, and my kids’ room is 6ft away, I mind. This past summer I was so angry at the neighbors because there were times the stench from their house was so strong that my kids – toddlers – couldn’t be outdoors in our backyard. Many gorgeous days, I had to make sure all the windows on the one side of our place were closed to try to lessen the effect from the potheads next door.

And Crowder is right about the impaired driving, etc. Half a mile from our place, a lady and her son were killed (along with two or three other kids injured) by a driver high on pot. http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/7012698-418/man-charged-in-crash-that-killed-2-had-cannabis-in-system-prosecutors.html

Katja on November 30, 2012 at 11:59 AM

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Slaps hands. My mistake. That said:

Most of the smuggling that went on in S. California has moved east into the Tucson Sector. Yuma to the New Mexico-Texas Border.

chemman on November 30, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Yeah , until your munchy hungry butt comes to work and I end up losing an arm because you did not see that I had it where it was.

watertown on November 30, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Well then you better criminalize alcohol and all sorts of prescription drugs because they have the same effect in the workplace.

How about you fire the worker who shows up intoxicated?

halfastro on November 30, 2012 at 12:00 PM

I think #s in favor may have been stronger – but some naturally in favor might not have understood the question.
verbaluce on November 30, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Indubadibly !

Jabberwock on November 30, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Pot legalization would do the same. And it’s sad that there really is a whole lot of misinformation about pot, as Crowder says.

JetBoy on November 30, 2012 at 11:43 AM

How would it lessen the crime numbers? I would guess that a lot of the people who are in jail “for pot” are actually there via a plea bargain, where the actual crime they are charged with– in all cases a more serious crime– is lessened to pot possession.
Also it may be a reasonable guess that once the stigma of criminalization is lifted, the behavior becomes more careless and sometimes purposefully arrogant, leading to the crime stats simply changing to other crimes, whether selling drugs or traffic violations, accidents etc.

I agree..there is a lot of misinformation about pot. A lot of it preaching the benefits.
The “medical” uses are mostly a scam and limited feel good/a distraction/placebo/”other drugs would provide the same effects..but I like to get high” schtick.

Mimzey on November 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM

And let’s not forget that buying pot is still a crime. I don’t care how easy it is to do, you can’t be a fine upstanding person if you decide to fund the Mexican drug cartels. What? You really think that all the illegals here are just working in restaurants and construction sites?

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Your support for prohibition is what funds the cartels, not consumption of cannabis…

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM

School Bus drivers should be smoking Pot before, during, and after work. 24/7.

portlandon on November 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM

All for it.
No, my name is not because I am a drug user.
I think they should make certain that companies are always allowed to discriminate against drug users. Make drug users the new group that will be doing the jobs that sober people are not willing to do. Have them replace the illegal alien in the workplace! Stoner’s need jobs too.

astonerii on November 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM

You really think that all the illegals here are just working in restaurants and construction sites?

Happy Nomad on November 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Not all, some are also working on Pelosi’s vineyard.

Bishop on November 30, 2012 at 12:02 PM

LAWL LAWL LAWL Crowder, buddy, try interviewing a doctor who didn’t print their degree off the internet. You might even find one who limits the post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments.

Although those did fit in quite well with the rest of the video… “Hey crimes have gone up in CA since 1996. IT’S THE WEED!!1!eleventy!”

thirtyandseven on November 30, 2012 at 12:02 PM

It’s the only thing that would make the next four years of Obama barely tolerable.

Joe Biden would require LSD.

profitsbeard on November 30, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Yeah , until your munchy hungry butt comes to work and I end up losing an arm because you did not see that I had it where it was.

watertown on November 30, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Well then you better criminalize alcohol and all sorts of prescription drugs because they have the same effect in the workplace.

How about you fire the worker who shows up intoxicated?

halfastro on November 30, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Au contraire, mon frere.

They have a far more pronounced effect on the workplace…

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2012 at 12:02 PM

They should have kept alcohol illegal and they should keep marijuana illegal too.

Nothing good ever comes from intoxication….

Our society is decaying even faster than I feared….

nazo311 on November 30, 2012 at 12:03 PM

The left among others spent billions trashing big tobacco but now support big weed? Hypocrites.

jawkneemusic on November 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM

They are quite funny about that, aren’t they?

Ever been with a group while a joint is being passed? The guy who just took a hit is coughing his brains out, and the chick next to him is demanding he pass it over.

Never mind his lungs just got irritated as hell, possibly to actual damage no matter how small.

Liam on November 30, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Can MJ cause harm? Yes. So what. So can Big Sodas, and ten thousand other things. You’re either for Liberty and individual responsibility or you’re not. Other than creating a Full Employment Act for the legal and incarceration industries, what else has prohibition accomplished? Oh yeah: criminal cartels. Great.

Kenosha Kid on November 30, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Are you aware that the original formulation for Coca Cola used coca leaves, hence the mane?

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Yes.

NotCoach on November 30, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Yeah, because decriminalizing a substance that grows from the ground will necessarily lead to people being shoved into boxcars and carted off to concentration camps.

***** big, big eyeroll *****

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 11:44 AM

This is a strong argument against criminalization of small amounts for me. To me, smoking a joint being a crime would be like eating wild fruits or vegetables you pick yourself and then being charged with a crime. It’s insane. The problems come from mass production, in the same way problems come from mass production of cigarettes, or the refinement of raw materials into cocaine and heroin. Peruvians chew on coca leaves, seems tame to me.

Paul-Cincy on November 30, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Well, this is certainly a lively discussion.

Why don’t we all take a moment and fire up a blunt and chill out?

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 12:05 PM

This is a tough nut to crack, no doubt. While I lean agnostic on the magic plant, what scares me is the door-opening on stuff like PCP.

A dopehead is most times no worse than a drunk, but a PCP-addled dude….boy howdy, watch out.

Bishop on November 30, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Well then you better criminalize alcohol and all sorts of prescription drugs because they have the same effect in the workplace.

How about you fire the worker who shows up intoxicated?halfastro on November 30, 2012 at 12:00 PM

I have ! Both for alcohol and drugs( MJ and cocaine )
As booze addiction is considered a disease, it is much harder.
Legalized pot will send it down same path.

Jabberwock on November 30, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Well, this is certainly a lively discussion.

Why don’t we all take a moment and fire up a blunt and chill out?

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Long as you don’t bogart, I’m with you. ~S~

Liam on November 30, 2012 at 12:07 PM

How would it lessen the crime numbers?

Mimzey on November 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM

A number of ways…

First, fairly massive amounts of law enforcement resources go into cannabis prohibition. As much as $30 billion per year at all levels. Those are resources that could be directed towards enforcement of laws against other offences.

Second, prohibition, by definition, means that disputes within business relationships are not enforced by contract and law, but by violence. Market position isn’t determined by better business plans, but by murder. Lifting prohibition means taking a $40 billion/year product out of the black market, and into the legitimate market. That, by itself, reduces criminal violence.

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Billions wasted by government agencies to no effect in an endless drug war, thousands of non-violents jailed for years, and an opportunity to cut away a clearly overpowered moneysink in the expanding fed…I don’t see the problem. Let the states regulate it. Anyone high shouldn’t be behind the wheel anyway, count that as a DUI. Simple.

mythicknight on November 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Your support for prohibition is what funds the cartels, not consumption of cannabis…

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Up until now your arguments have been reasonable but this is sheer poppycock. If people didn’t buy the drugs then the cartels wouldn’t be funded. So the consumption of drugs does fund the cartels. Legal or not somebody is going to get funded since most people won’t grown or synthesize their own.

chemman on November 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM

No stems, no seeds that you don’t neeeeeed!!
Mfsuuuuuuuup!
Acapulco gold is…one bad as weeeeeeeeeeeeeeed.

Rocks on November 30, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I’m against legalization. First, I have had juvenile clients as young as 12 years old who smoked dope who were a mess and who I am sure are already in adult prisons. Second, I have had two adult acquaintances who also smoked dope who would then get aggressive and paranoid and impossible to be around. With one, his wife left him because of it. The other, her friends did an intervention but she continued to do it and would then lie about it.

Blake on November 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Unfortunately, no amount of second hand testimony ever seems to get through to the ardent legalization proponents. No matter how many doctors or professional substance abuse counselors testify that pot is both physically damaging and psychologically addictive, the legalization proponents insist that those people are lying or being misleading.

No matter how many people relate horror stories related to pot being the initial catalyst that led to their friends or family members becoming full on drug addicts, going to jail or prison or dying, it’s always the same story, you guys are lying it’s harmless and you’re just an uncool asshole.

Personally, I might possibly be able to care less (though I doubt it) if an adult over the age of 21 want’s to take the odd toke now and then (as long as they don’t try to drive or come to work high). I don’t think anyone should go to jail or prison just for smoking a little pot, or having a reasonable amount on their person. Decriminalize it, yes. Regulate it like alcohol, yes. But a full on across the board legalization, oh hell no.

On the other hand I am also rather annoyed that the prohibition of pot, also includes the entire cannabis family. There really is no rational justification for that. Non THC producing cannabis plants, from which nearly a dozen hemp related products are derived should not be illegal because some people choose to smoke their rope.

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 12:09 PM

This is a strong argument against criminalization of small amounts for me. To me, smoking a joint being a crime would be like eating wild fruits or vegetables you pick yourself and then being charged with a crime. It’s insane.

By the way, has anybody noticed the expanding trend in growing and curing your own tobacco to get around all the taxes on cigarettes?

Socratease on November 30, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Why in a supposedly “free” country are we even having to debate this issue? Conservatives who are pro keeping it illegal are hypocrits.

mazer9 on November 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM

I’m against legalization. First, I have had juvenile clients as young as 12 years old who smoked dope who were a mess and who I am sure are already in adult prisons. Second, I have had two adult acquaintances who also smoked dope who would then get aggressive and paranoid and impossible to be around. With one, his wife left him because of it. The other, her friends did an intervention but she continued to do it and would then lie about it.

Blake on November 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Unfortunately, no amount of second hand testimony ever seems to get through to the ardent legalization proponents. No matter how many doctors or professional substance abuse counselors testify that pot is both physically damaging and psychologically addictive, the legalization proponents insist that those people are lying or being misleading.

No matter how many people relate horror stories related to pot being the initial catalyst that led to their friends or family members becoming full on drug addicts, going to jail or prison or dying, it’s always the same story, you guys are lying it’s harmless and you’re just an uncool a$$hole.

Personally, I might possibly be able to care less (though I doubt it) if an adult over the age of 21 want’s to take the odd toke now and then (as long as they don’t try to drive or come to work high). I don’t think anyone should go to jail or prison just for smoking a little pot, or having a reasonable amount on their person. Decriminalize it, yes. Regulate it like alcohol, yes. But a full on across the board legalization, oh hell no.

On the other hand I am also rather annoyed that the prohibition of pot, also includes the entire cannabis family. There really is no rational justification for that. Non THC producing cannabis plants, from which nearly a dozen hemp related products are derived should not be illegal because some people choose to smoke their rope.

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM

No stems, no seeds that you don’t neeeeeed!!
Mfsuuuuuuuup!
Acapulco gold is…one bad as weeeeeeeeeeeeeeed.

Rocks on November 30, 2012 at 12:09 PM

You’re showing your age, talking about Acapulco Gold…

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Fiddling while Rome burns.

Etc.

What a vacuous conversation. I’m sure the Dems love every bit of attention that can be focused on this instead of, you know, important stuff.

Midas on November 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM

It’s like how prostitution is illegal.
If it was legal, there’d be prostitutes.
Because it’s illegal, we don’t have any…
never mind.

verbaluce on November 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM

No stems, no seeds that you don’t neeeeeed!!
Mfsuuuuuuuup!
Acapulco gold is…one bad as weeeeeeeeeeeeeeed.

Rocks on November 30, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I guess you never had Thai stick.

Amateur…~S~

Liam on November 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Yeah , until your munchy hungry butt comes to work and I end up losing an arm because you did not see that I had it where it was.

watertown on November 30, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Pot makes you blind when you use it?

Please, tell us more.

Good Lt on November 30, 2012 at 12:12 PM

No stems, no seeds that you don’t neeeeeed!!
Mfsuuuuuuuup!
Acapulco gold is…one bad as weeeeeeeeeeeeeeed.

Rocks on November 30, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Daves not here!

Bishop on November 30, 2012 at 12:12 PM

No matter how many doctors or professional substance abuse counselors testify that pot is both physically damaging and psychologically addictive, the legalization proponents insist that those people are lying or being misleading.

SWalker on November 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Bullshiite.

Smoking cannabis is both physically harmful and psychologically addictive.

And it should still be legalized.

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2012 at 12:12 PM

This is a strong argument against criminalization of small amounts for me. To me, smoking a joint being a crime would be like eating wild fruits or vegetables you pick yourself and then being charged with a crime. It’s insane. The problems come from mass production, in the same way problems come from mass production of cigarettes, or the refinement of raw materials into cocaine and heroin. Peruvians chew on coca leaves, seems tame to me.

Paul-Cincy on November 30, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Precisely. And do you know why people mass produce illegal drugs? Because there’s big money in it. Same thing happened during prohibition – consumption of alcohol did not cease, it just went underground. Bootleggers were raking in big cash making the stuff, which was sometimes deadly (they’d cut their hooch with wood alcohol for even bigger profits). Keeping it legal and regulated is preferable to letting the criminals peddle whatever garbage they want to.

There are still dry counties in the South. Bootleggers like to keep it that way, they don’t want any legal booze sales cutting into their business.

UltimateBob on November 30, 2012 at 12:12 PM

It’s like how prostitution is illegal.
If it was legal, there’d be prostitutes.
Because it’s illegal, we don’t have any…
never mind.

verbaluce on November 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM

When are you going to put your mouth and anus back where they properly belong? Because, for so long, you seem to have them totally switched around.

Liam on November 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Up until now your arguments have been reasonable but this is sheer poppycock. If people didn’t buy the drugs then the cartels wouldn’t be funded. So the consumption of drugs does fund the cartels. Legal or not somebody is going to get funded since most people won’t grown or synthesize their own.

The point is people are going to continue buying the drugs regardless. If it wasn’t prohibited perhaps legitimate companies would be producing it instead.

mazer9 on November 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Your support for prohibition is what funds the cartels, not consumption of cannabis…

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Up until now your arguments have been reasonable but this is sheer poppycock. If people didn’t buy the drugs then the cartels wouldn’t be funded. So the consumption of drugs does fund the cartels. Legal or not somebody is going to get funded since most people won’t grown or synthesize their own.

chemman on November 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM

He is right, you are the one that is unreasonable.

The illegality of the drug drives the prices higher. The higher prices are nothing but profit. Something that should sell for $5 based on cost of production and transportation sells for $500 and more. That $5 cost is a very high valuation by the way. Cigarettes, when sold at normal costs without extravagant taxes are less than $1.

Not only does this prohibition fund drug cartels, it funds slave traders and al qaeda.

astonerii on November 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM

A dopehead is most times no worse than a drunk, but a PCP-addled dude….boy howdy, watch out.

Bishop on November 30, 2012 at 12:05 PM

I’m not entirely sold on the gateway idea. I suspect a lot of people who gravitate to harder stuff are self-medicating their demons. The horror stories you hear from AA folks – they were literally trying to commit suicide by poison.

John the Libertarian on November 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Socratease on November 30, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Good for them.

chemman on November 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Legal or not somebody is going to get funded since most people won’t grown or synthesize their own.

chemman on November 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM

I think you’re wrong there. Farming weed is a cottage industry now. Legalize weed and I predict that within a decade it will become the #1 most privately farmed plant in the US. If any government intends to seriously regulate and tax it’s growth it will take a bigger government and more funds than we spend on keeping weed illegal now.

Rocks on November 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM

You know what, I officially cede this issue. The writing is on the wall. When even so-called conservatives are spouting talking points from the potheads and liberals, there’s just no fighting this. Let people find out that, like abortion, legalizing something destructive and treating it like a “right” has horrible consequences. The battle will now go to individual states and communities.

Since we have no responsibility on anything important, quite likely we’re going to come to the point where the only two options on the drug war:

1. Let it be known loud and clear that brewing/growing/selling/distributing illegal addictive drugs is a guaranteed way to shorten your lifespan because of the law that will be enforced.

2. Give up entirely and deal with the consequences as best you can.

MelonCollie on November 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4