Q-poll shows majority favor marijuana legalization

posted at 1:01 pm on December 5, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Did you know that today is the 79th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition?  On this date in 1933, the 21st Amendment passed into law, becoming the only amendment to repeal another in the US Constitution and end the “noble experiment” in enforced teetotaling.  Prohibition was a disaster, but its end didn’t stop the federal government from banning other substances — some inherently and obviously dangerous, others less so, including marijuana, whose relative dangers are still under debate decades after it became a prohibited substance.

A new poll from Quinnipiac today corroborates other polling in the last couple of weeks that Americans may have tired of this prohibition, too.  A majority of respondents want marijuana legalization for the first time in the Q-poll series — but it also shows a huge generation gap on the question:

American voters favor the legalization of marijuana, 51 – 44 percent, with a substantial gender and age gap, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. …

With the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes legal in about 20 states, and Washington and Colorado voting this November to legalize the drug for recreational use, American voters seem to have a more favorable opinion about this once-dreaded drug,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “There are large differences on this question among the American people.

“Men support legalization 59 – 36 percent, but women are opposed 52 – 44 percent. The racial split evident throughout American politics on many matters is barely noticeable on this question with 50 percent of white voters and 57 percent of black voters backing legalization.”

“Not surprisingly, voters 18 to 29 years old support legalization 67 – 29 percent while voters over age 65 are opposed 56 – 35 percent,” Brown added. “Voters 30 to 44 years old like the idea 58 – 39 percent, while voters 45 to 64 years old are divided 48 – 47 percent.”

“This is the first time Quinnipiac University asked this question in its national poll so there is no comparison from earlier years. It seems likely, however, that given the better than 2-1 majority among younger voters, legalization is just a matter of time.”

I’m not surprised to see a generation gap on this question, but I am a little surprised to see where it occurs.  Marijuana use exploded in the 1960s (and perhaps ramped up in the late 1950s), so it might make sense to see seniors stand in opposition to it — perhaps the older end of that demo more than the younger end.  But the 45-64YO demo came of age in the era of expanded and normalized (if still illegal) use of marijuana.  I would have expected to see more support for legalization in that age group, frankly.

As for me, I lean more toward ending the federal prohibition on marijuana, less because I think that legalizing pot would make for a better society than I think that the federal prohibition creates larger problems than it solves.  Unlike most illegal drugs, pot can be raised domestically in a safe manner. It has significant health issues, but so do tobacco and alcohol.  The question of legalization should be left to the states, as should the questions of how to deal with the ramifications in employment, health, and traffic safety.  Marijuana legalization isn’t the nirvana that some of its supporters claim, but the erosion of personal liberty inherent in the federal effort to stop marijuana cultivation, use, and sales outstrips the dangers of this substance.

Reason TV has an interesting feature today for Repeal Day.  Congress had its own bootlegger during Prohibition, and the exploits of George Cassiday — The Man in the Green Hat — have become the subject of historians lately:

From 1920 through 1930 – the thick of the Prohibition era – Cassiday supplied illegal liquor throughout the halls of Congress. Known as “The Man in the Green Hat,” Cassiday was the Capitol’s highest-profile bootlegger, with a client list that included senior members of the Republican and Democratic Parties. How instrumental was he to the D.C. power elite? He even had his own office in the House and Senate office buildings.

Cassiday gave up the liquor trade after his arrest in 1930, but gained notoriety by penning a series of front-page articles for The Washington Post about his days as Congress’ top bottle man.

Though he never named names, Cassiday’s stories detailed every aspect of his former business – and the depths of hypocrisy in Washington. By his own estimation, “four out of five senators and congressmen consume liquor either at their offices or their homes.” Appearing days before the 1930 mid-term elections, Cassiday’s revelations caused a national stir and helped sweep pro-Prohibitionist – and ostensibly tee-totaling – congressmen and senators out of power.

It’s something to keep in mind while debating other prohibitions.

Update: Er, today is the 79th anniversary, not the 78th anniversary.  So much for math.

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

Some day a similar pallet of weed will be labeled “FOR DELIVERY” instead of “EVIDENCE.”

Akzed on December 5, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Great. Like the general public isn’t ignorant enough.

What happens when Mr/MS Dopehead are in a small room smoking their MJ and the baby is sitting in the same room?

What about the airline pilot that had a dope party the prior evening?

Mr. Arrogant on December 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Why not . . . that would be one way to forget about this corrupt, do nothing government we are all burdened with.

rplat on December 5, 2012 at 1:07 PM

And the majority demanded that the good Guy be crucified too, but it seems a waste of hope to think that after 2000 years, we’d be able to choose that which is good, not to be confused with that which gives us the most immediate pleasure.

Don L on December 5, 2012 at 1:07 PM

What happens when Mr/MS Dopehead Alcoholic are in a small room

smoking their MJ

drinking their whiskey and the baby is sitting in the same room?

What about the airline pilot that had a dope party drinking binge the prior evening?

Mr. Arrogant on December 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Remind me again why alcohol is any different?

gravityman on December 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I’m 30 and I really don’t care. I hope it doesn’t get legalized but I won’t fight it. That being said, just like with smokers and alcoholics, I’m less likely to want to associate with you if you are a stoner. Get high on life, it’s pathetic to depend on a drug for kicks.

thebrokenrattle on December 5, 2012 at 1:10 PM

B-but it’s a gateway drug to killing puppies or something.

John the Libertarian on December 5, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Quote fail, let me try again…

What happens when Mr/MS Dopehead Alcoholic are in a small room smoking their MJ drinking their whiskey and the baby is sitting in the same room?

What about the airline pilot that had a dope party drinking binge the prior evening?

Mr. Arrogant on December 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

gravityman on December 5, 2012 at 1:11 PM

What happens when Mr/MS Dopehead are in a small room smoking their MJ and the baby is sitting in the same room?

Mr. Arrogant on December 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Usually what happens in this instance is the baby spontaneously combusts.

John the Libertarian on December 5, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Remind me again why alcohol is any different?

gravityman on December 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Crowder covers that question nicely.

Rebar on December 5, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Why not? There could be some electoral benefits.

The young would be too stoned to vote for any candidates that the Liberal Media deems as “cool.”

sentinelrules on December 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Oh for crying out loud, just legalize it, I’m going to need all the help I can get just to manage surviving the next 4 years of King Obama.

JPeterman on December 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Obama will be able to take up smoking again! I don’t think we’ll see much difference in his behavior sober or stoned!

Deano1952 on December 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM

If my future were being destroyed as thoroughly as it is for those 20-somethings, I’d probably want as many forms of chemical distraction as I could get.

JeremiahJohnson on December 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Remind me again why alcohol is any different?

gravityman on December 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM

One swig of alcohol will not make me drunk. One toke will make me stoned.

That’s the difference. I can consume alcohol to a certain extent without effect. (Granted, the amount is different for different people.) ANY consumption of marijuana (or cocaine or heroin or…) results in some effect on me.

CurtZHP on December 5, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Great. Like the general public isn’t ignorant enough.

What happens when Mr/MS Dopehead are in a small room smoking their MJ and the baby is sitting in the same room?

What about the airline pilot that had a dope party the prior evening?

Mr. Arrogant on December 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

The same thing that happens when you replace pot with alcohol. But I digress, it amazes me how similar many of you “conservatives” are to liberals. You just love a big powerful government, and feel that you need them to save you and others.

News flash brainiac, do you really need the government to save you?

MoreLiberty on December 5, 2012 at 1:16 PM

What happens when Mr/MS Dopehead are in a small room smoking their MJ and the baby is sitting in the same room?

Mr. Arrogant on December 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Liberty?

Capitalist Hog on December 5, 2012 at 1:17 PM

One swig of alcohol will not make me drunk. One toke will make me stoned.

That’s the difference. I can consume alcohol to a certain extent without effect. (Granted, the amount is different for different people.) ANY consumption of marijuana (or cocaine or heroin or…) results in some effect on me.

CurtZHP on December 5, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Then don’t get high. Oh I get it…you want the all knowing government to save you – got it. I don’t like pot, but this is about federalism.

MoreLiberty on December 5, 2012 at 1:17 PM

What about the prohibition on meth? Crack? Heroin?

eforhan on December 5, 2012 at 1:18 PM

What happens when Mr/MS Dopehead are in a small room smoking their MJ and the baby is sitting in the same room?

What about the airline pilot that had a dope party the prior evening?

Mr. Arrogant on December 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

A series of retarded arguments that have been debunked many times. Let’s do it again.

If someone smokes in the same room with my baby, I won’t really care if it is legally-obtained tobacco or illegally-obtained marijuana. I’ll ask him to leave or stop smoking, politely. If he doesn’t comply I will ask again, forcefully. If he doesn’t comply again, I’ll either leave or kick his teeth in along with the cigarette.

Airlines routinely screen their pilots for marijuana, and being high is one of a few offenses that clear the employee for sacking with unions. I expect them to continue this practice – even for pilots flying between Denver, CO and San Francisco, CA. Nothing fortifies a CEO’s mind like paying a few hundred million dollars to crash victims.

Archivarix on December 5, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Legalize it and let the tobacco companies distribute it.

sentinelrules on December 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM

What about the prohibition on meth? Crack? Heroin?

eforhan on December 5, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I am perfectly fine with heroin being sold in grocery stores, as long as 1) I am allowed to carry a weapon to put down heroin users who behave like rabid dogs, and 2) I don’t get to pay taxes that are spent on medical treatments and rehabs for heroin users.

Archivarix on December 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM

One swig of alcohol will not make me drunk. One toke will make me stoned.

I’m sorry but you don’t know what you’re talking about at all. You just need to feel sanctified. Admit it; you’re as much of a nanny as Nancy Pelosi.

One shot gets many people buzzed. Some people don’t get high from smoking pot. But they all have the right to do whatever the crap they want to themselves. If not then you need to be very specific about where the nanny-line gets drawn.

It’s difficult to debate with somebody who won’t stipulate Liberty as a premise. Your reasoning fails once it leaves the bounds of your skull.

Capitalist Hog on December 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Could someone explain to me why our society is moving toward legalizing marijuana, and outlawing french fries?

David Shane on December 5, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Crowder covers that question nicely.

Rebar on December 5, 2012 at 1:12 PM

I’ve seen Crowder’s work on the subject. I’m not saying marijuana is some risk free awesomely good for you thing, but neither is alcohol. Both cause changes to the brain in damaging ways (primarily from excess, not casual use).

The real difference is societal acceptance. One is socially acceptable while the other we’ve been told is not socially acceptable for most of our lives. We’re clinging to a difference that really only exists due to arbitrary social convention.

gravityman on December 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I do not favor legalization, decriminalization, yes. In the strictest terms neither alcohol nor tobacco are “legal”, they have been decriminalized. Marijuana should be treated in a similar fashion.

When I say that in the purest terms neither alcohol nor tobacco are “legal” what I mean is, that not just anyone can produce, distribute, sell or use alcohol or tobacco. There are legal restrictions on both substances.

It is long past time that marijuana be treated in the same manner. No one should ever face jail or prison time or have their future destroyed because they were caught either smoking or in possession of a reasonably small amount of marijuana, and the penalty for being caught driving or at their/your place of employment under the influence of marijuana should be the exact same as if you were caught driving or at their/your place of employment under the influence of alcohol.

SWalker on December 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Crowder covers that question nicely.

Rebar on December 5, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Repeat and inhale rinse.

Thank you. Thank you.

Shy Guy on December 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Mr. Arrogant on December 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

What about the parents that are getting drunk? Should we go back to the days of prohabition? I guess you would prefer we live in a prison planet? Where the only decisions we can make for ourselves are State approved decisions.

If we are not free to make bad decisions; then we are not free.

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 1:26 PM

What happens when Mr/MS Dopehead are in a small room smoking their MJ and the baby is sitting in the same room?

Mr. Arrogant on December 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

What happens when Mr/MS alcoholic are in a small drinking their liquor, chain smoking and the baby is sitting in the same room? Then they get prego with a baby with alcohol fetal syndrome? Hmmm..

B9 approves for various reasons.

Hell..all the legal narcs docs got me on are killing me..give me a doob any day.

Now let the tread commence with the same ol predictable comments.
Always entertaining.

LOL..O.M.G. Reefer Madness!

bazil9 on December 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Legalize it and let the tobacco companies distribute it.

sentinelrules on December 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Business-wise that eat into profits, seriously. Tobacco mfg is frightfully toxic. Whereas you can eat pot right off the plant and it requires no processing unless you are trying to extract essential oils.

Pot’s taste, high and effects are determined by the strains. Botany is a real thing you know. Pot is more similar to alcohol than it is tobacco.

Capitalist Hog on December 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Crowder covers that question nicely.

Rebar on December 5, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Oh well than we sure as heck don’t need federalism…Crowder covered it.

MoreLiberty on December 5, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Q-poll shows majority favor marijuana legalization

.
And a majority favored Re-electing President Obama; does anyone think that’s going to end well?

LincolntheHun on December 5, 2012 at 1:30 PM

I think this is a natural progression from the issues of the last election. The sexual experience may be enhanced with drug use. Can’t wait to see what the next popular issue is…Amerika…wadda country…

RedInMD on December 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Statiscally in the USA, around 10% of the population will toss their lives in the gutter with alcohol.
The use of illegal drugs is pegged at another 10%, with a LOT of crossing the lines.

Making all presently illegal drugs legal probably endangers a non-alcohol 10% – making the at risk population 20% of all Americans.
(None of these are hard numbers, but valid for discussion purposes)

So the question is, are the BILLIONS spent in the war on drugs, including the costs of incarceration, border wars etc, worth saving that +/-60 million people who want to ruin their own lives?

I vote no. To hell with them.
Pay for jails, treatment and rehab if you are worried about society, but like on The Wire, let the gerbils live in Hamsterdam.

HammerNH on December 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM

I’ve seen Crowder’s work on the subject.

gravityman on December 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Then you didn’t understand it, because there is a very fundamental difference between alcohol and MJ effect on the body. MJ is far more damaging to the body – especially the brain – than booze.

Rebar on December 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Q-poll shows majority favor marijuana legalization

…DUH ? !…Yeah!…they all just voted for President a month ago!

KOOLAID2 on December 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM

It is long past time that marijuana be treated in the same manner. No one should ever face jail or prison time or have their future destroyed because they were caught either smoking or in possession of a reasonably small amount of marijuana, and the penalty for being caught driving or at their/your place of employment under the influence of marijuana should be the exact same as if you were caught driving or at their/your place of employment under the influence of alcohol.

SWalker on December 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Agreed Walker.
Thank you for a rational post and not hysterics.

bazil9 on December 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Crowder covers that question nicely.

Rebar on December 5, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Say, that guy in the black leather jacket who’s on a high….

…. is that Bill Whittle?

:)

Shy Guy on December 5, 2012 at 1:33 PM

a majority of leaders and judges were craven, and the people followed. Then the actual enemy of the town showed up and crushed them – Babylon.

I suppose polls are “telling”, but polls-schmolls, how about a little leadership ? just not Ron Paul in this case.

williampeck1958 on December 5, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Could someone explain to me why our society is moving toward legalizing marijuana, and outlawing french fries?

David Shane on December 5, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Welcome to Bizarro Land.

No trans-fats or Big Gulps once you enter.

sentinelrules on December 5, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Would it be legalized for everyone? I don’t think a truck driver or pilot would be allowed to ever smoke it because you can’t know if they smoked it days ago on their home time or right before climbing into the cockpit. Believe me, you don’t want dope smoking truck drivers on the road with you.

Once you say that certain people can never use the substance, you have a problem. We have to look at every occupation and decide whether they can use it or if it remains banned for those people. That is tricky for lots of reasons, even constitutional.

Buddahpundit on December 5, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Hell..all the legal narcs docs got me on are killing me..give me a doob any day.

Feel better.

Capitalist Hog on December 5, 2012 at 1:38 PM

SWalker on December 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Agreed Walker.
Thank you for a rational post and not hysterics.

bazil9 on December 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM

As many here can tell you, I am anything but a big fan of drug use. Been there, done that, seen how it ends, not pretty at all. But, I am a very big fan of Liberty. I am a huge fan of free legal citizens having the right to make their own decisions, of not having the Governments boot on their necks dictating every aspect of their lives.

SWalker on December 5, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Archivarix on December 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I think it’s a lot more expensive for us to continue to house them, feed them, cloth them, provide them with medical care and also provide them with all the other creature comforts they enjoy while incarcerated. It would be much cheaper for the tax payer if they were only given a treatment program. If I’m not mistaken, many treatment programs are already funded by the taxpayer anyway.

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Could someone explain to me why our society is moving toward legalizing marijuana, and outlawing french fries?

David Shane on December 5, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Because American society is run by aging Woodstock hippies. They wanted sex, drug, and rock-n-roll, remember? Free contraception of any kind, check. Legalized marijuana, check. I’m waiting for Elvis to resurface…

Archivarix on December 5, 2012 at 1:41 PM

and the penalty for being caught driving or at their/your place of employment under the influence of marijuana should be the exact same as if you were caught driving or at their/your place of employment under the influence of alcohol.

Exactly.

Society, like religion, requires faith – faith in law. You can’t protect me from your rights by taking them away. We put laws in place. The rest is faith.

Capitalist Hog on December 5, 2012 at 1:42 PM

HA should combine Palin/drugs/creationism and Gay marriage for one mega mega headline.

BoxHead1 on December 5, 2012 at 1:43 PM

One swig of alcohol will not make me drunk. One toke will make me stoned.

That’s the difference. I can consume alcohol to a certain extent without effect. (Granted, the amount is different for different people.) ANY consumption of marijuana (or cocaine or heroin or…) results in some effect on me.

CurtZHP on December 5, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Why would you be consuming something (Alcohol in this case) that has no effect or in amounts that have no effect? That seems like an exercise in futility.

lester on December 5, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I think it’s a lot more expensive for us to continue to house them, feed them, cloth them, provide them with medical care and also provide them with all the other creature comforts they enjoy while incarcerated. It would be much cheaper for the tax payer if they were only given a treatment program. If I’m not mistaken, many treatment programs are already funded by the taxpayer anyway.

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 1:40 PM

That’s because, violence aside, our general-pop jails have turned into resorts. If we weren’t pvssifooting around slavery so much, inmates would be either working or paying cash to get food in jail.

Archivarix on December 5, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Great. Like the general public isn’t ignorant enough.

What happens when Mr/MS Dopehead are in a small room smoking their MJ and the baby is sitting in the same room?

Tell everyone what will happen, and then kick in their doors to their homes and arrest them so their kid becomes property of the state.

What about the airline pilot that had a dope party the prior evening?

Mr. Arrogant on December 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Airlines drug test. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean everyone’s going to do it.

Fail.

Good Lt on December 5, 2012 at 1:45 PM

I see the pro legal arguments are as lame as they only can be lame and relativistic.

As far as hits go…we need a thread about a pro pot lesbodian who want to adopt a child after getting married to the abortionist who is fasting to make a statement about global warming and a sustainable environment to help the “Fair Trade” concept of the new world order.

How about it Ed?

Mimzey on December 5, 2012 at 1:46 PM

SWalker on December 5, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I agree with you. Its not that I am a MJ fan…

I smoked it back in the day socially. No biggie for me..
my alcohol use in my teens- and my families..was a major destructive force. Just my experiences and view.

My issue is this and agree:” But, I am a very big fan of Liberty. I am a huge fan of free legal citizens having the right to make their own decisions, of not having the Governments boot on their necks dictating every aspect of their lives.”

People make bad, deathly decisions with alcohol daily..destroys families, lives and your body. But their decisions and consequences.

But..now with medical conditions myself..I have legal drugs being pumped into me..but it is legal..so A. O. K. Millions of us around the country. I fear what that is doing to me..more then a toke here and there.

Feel better.

Capitalist Hog on December 5, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Thank you..working on it.. :)

A hit and run..done with my lunch..
be well.

bazil9 on December 5, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Sure, legalize it at a time twinkies are going away…

Static21 on December 5, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Because American society is run by aging Woodstock hippies. They wanted sex, drug, and rock-n-roll, remember? Free contraception of any kind, check. Legalized marijuana, check. I’m waiting for Elvis to resurface…

Archivarix on December 5, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Combine that lot with the boneheaded “wah wah nanny-statist” conservatives who can’t discern rampant drug use from Constitutionally guaranteed rights and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. It’s no sodding wonder you lot are losing the culture war.

I say legalize it; the division of America between productive and nonproductive is already incoming. Instead of dragging everywhere down slowly, why not let some places vote themselves into drug/sex/crime/welfare dens all by themselves. Let everyone else know they’re going to have to take a harsh stand against the blight…and pray there are states with the spine to enact the laws and people with the moral fiber to back them up.

MelonCollie on December 5, 2012 at 1:49 PM

And a majority favored Re-electing President Obama; does anyone think that’s going to end well?

LincolntheHun on December 5, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Correlation =/= causation.

By this flawed logic, you could just as easily say that the majority of religious folks in America are Christians, and the majority of Americans voted to re-elect Obama. Therefore, Christianity is the reason people voted for Obama.

QED

Good Lt on December 5, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Once you say that certain people can never use the substance, you have a problem. We have to look at every occupation and decide whether they can use it or if it remains banned for those people. That is tricky for lots of reasons, even constitutional.

Buddahpundit on December 5, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I believe you are juxtaposing certain people with certain occupations, and it’s not tricky in the sense that such legal precedent already exists. Anyone with a commercial drivers license is already under certain restrictions with regard to alcohol consumption.

The legal limit for influence for operation of a motor vehicle is .08, unless you posses a commercial drivers license and then the legal limit is .03. Moreover, get a DUI under a non-commercial license and your license gets suspended, you attend DUI school and get your license back. If you get a DUI under a commercial drivers license, you loose your commercial drivers license forever.

SWalker on December 5, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Sure, legalize it at a time twinkies are going away…

Static21 on December 5, 2012 at 1:47 PM

ROTFLMAO……….. THREAD WINNAR…

SWalker on December 5, 2012 at 1:51 PM

I’m actually for legalization for conservative/libertarian reasons, but let’s at least be honest: alcohol can be consumed for pleasure beyond (and without) getting buzzed. Marijuana is there for one reason: to get high. I’m sure there are one or two people in the world who smoke it because they like the flavor and don’t get high, but I’ve yet to meet them.

WitchDoctor on December 5, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Correlation =/= causation.

By this flawed logic, you could just as easily say that the majority of religious folks in America are Christians, and the majority of Americans voted to re-elect Obama. Therefore, Christianity is the reason people voted for Obama.

QED

Good Lt on December 5, 2012 at 1:50 PM

You traitorous liberal coward, how dare you compare the Christian faith to drug use and electing an avowed Marxist?

MelonCollie on December 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Then you didn’t understand it, because there is a very fundamental difference between alcohol and MJ effect on the body. MJ is far more damaging to the body – especially the brain – than booze.

Rebar on December 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Actually, I did understand it, Rebar.

But just like with “climate change”, you will find numerous differing opinions from scientists on the subject. Many scientific studies indicate that marijuana is also completely non-physically addicting (i.e. no bodily withdrawal symptoms or physical craving) whereas we know alcohol creates physical addiction. Mental addicition is another matter, but that occurs with any drug regardless of physical properties.

As I said, neither is risk free. The reasons to ban or not ban either one are essentially the same… we as a society simply deemed at one point that we were ok with one and not with the other for essentially arbitrary reasons.

gravityman on December 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM

That does it. If even a supposed ‘good lt’ is spouting liberal-level kookery, this battle is lost. Legalize away…and may you get what you asked for good and hard.

MelonCollie on December 5, 2012 at 1:54 PM

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both grew marijuana for hemp production. George Washington wrote in one of his maticulously kept agricultural journals that he regreted being late to separate his male hemp plants from his females. For a master farmer like George, there would be little reason to do this except to make the females ripe for smoking. The medicinal uses of cannabis were known to the ancient Chinese. Thousands of years later, it’s inconceivable American growers would not indulge in its recreational powers.

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I’ve seen Crowder’s work on the subject. I’m not saying marijuana is some risk free awesomely good for you thing, but neither is alcohol. Both cause changes to the brain in damaging ways (primarily from excess, not casual use).

The real difference is societal acceptance. One is socially acceptable while the other we’ve been told is not socially acceptable for most of our lives. We’re clinging to a difference that really only exists due to arbitrary social convention.

Agree 100%. The only difference between the two is that for some political reasons, one has been stigmatized, while the other celebrated. Based on the anti-legalization views on this board, obviously the propagandist have been successful.

mazer9 on December 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM

ugh….meticulous. This site really needs an edit function.

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Legalize
Continue to allow employers to discriminate.
Cut back on welfare and disability.
Drive the pot heads and deadbeats into the jobs illegal aliens are taking.

astonerii on December 5, 2012 at 2:00 PM

This is a nice sentiment, but how can anyone be caught driving, flying, or working under the influence of marijuana?

A jury can rule on being under the influence of alcohol based on tests of the amount of of alcohol in one’s breath. These breath tests highly correlate to the amount of influence alcohol has on one’s body at any given time.

What tests can traffic cops and employers administer to individuals suspect of being under the influence of marijuana?

SWalker, you might have to chose one of the other. I’m not sure that we can legalize use and criminalize under-the-influence activity.

How about a field sobriety test?

mazer9 on December 5, 2012 at 2:00 PM

What tests can traffic cops and employers administer to individuals suspect of being under the influence of marijuana?

SWalker, you might have to chose one of the other. I’m not sure that we can legalize use and criminalize under-the-influence activity.

blink on December 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM

You do realize that such tests already exist, right (urinalysis)? That the legal procedures for requesting those test are exactly the same for marijuana as they are for alcohol? Before a police officer can require you to submit to a breathalyzer or urinalysis he is required to have “Probable cause” to do so.

It is already against the law to drive under the influence of marijuana, just as it is for driving under the influence of alcohol (or any other controlled substance). The legal penalties are nearly identical. The procedure for testing, again, nearly identical.

SWalker on December 5, 2012 at 2:00 PM

The THC levels of todays Marijuana are seven times higher than the marijuana of the 70s and 80s. The effect of this drug on (especially) the developmental brain is devastating. It causes paranoid delusions and completely destroys ones short term memory making these people non functioning and unemployable dependants of the state (read us).

You do not have to take my word on it do your own research. Many doctors and Scientist have done extensive research on this (some were trying to prove it was harmless but came to the opposite conclusion).

Natebo on December 5, 2012 at 2:01 PM

The ” War on Drugs” has been a complete failure. It exists, like so many failed social programs, solely because of an entrenched bureaucracy that promulgates it. Other than than the occasional, surprisingly large seizure, no victories can be cited for this “War”. However, a great many thousands of needless deaths can be directly attributed to it.

It is time to try something else to discourage demand; the anti-smuggling efforts -we can’t even stop people- have been the most cruel of jokes.

M240H on December 5, 2012 at 2:01 PM

I’m glad the Paultards here are finally showing their cards.

If some people think drinking and smoking dope in the same room with a child is the same, you need to get re-adjusted.

Mr. Arrogant on December 5, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I’m actually for legalization for conservative/libertarian reasons, but let’s at least be honest: alcohol can be consumed for pleasure beyond (and without) getting buzzed. Marijuana is there for one reason: to get high. I’m sure there are one or two people in the world who smoke it because they like the flavor and don’t get high, but I’ve yet to meet them.

As a former bartender, most people I served alcohol too drank to get a buzz. Otherwise, what’s the point really? Besides, why does that even matter? Who are we? The “Buzz Police”?

mazer9 on December 5, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Huh. I see scum villages in America’s future too.

Dongemaharu on December 5, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Natebo on December 5, 2012 at 2:01 PM

+1, I should’ve posted this myself.

The pot of today is not the ‘goof weed’ people were puffing in the 60s. It is a seriously powerful drug with life-altering side effects that make tobacco and booze look sick.

MelonCollie on December 5, 2012 at 2:03 PM

The THC levels of todays Marijuana are seven times higher than the marijuana of the 70s and 80s. The effect of this drug on (especially) the developmental brain is devastating. It causes paranoid delusions and completely destroys ones short term memory making these people non functioning and unemployable dependants of the state (read us).

You do not have to take my word on it do your own research. Many doctors and Scientist have done extensive research on this (some were trying to prove it was harmless but came to the opposite conclusion).

I wonder if the paranoia has anything to do with the fact that it’s currently illegal?

mazer9 on December 5, 2012 at 2:04 PM

The THC levels of todays Marijuana are seven times higher than the marijuana of the 70s and 80s. The effect of this drug on (especially) the developmental brain is devastating. It causes paranoid delusions and completely destroys ones short term memory making these people non functioning and unemployable dependants of the state (read us).

You do not have to take my word on it do your own research. Many doctors and Scientist have done extensive research on this (some were trying to prove it was harmless but came to the opposite conclusion).

Natebo on December 5, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Gracias.

Mr. Arrogant on December 5, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Huh. I see scum villages in America’s future too.

Dongemaharu on December 5, 2012 at 2:03 PM

You’re more optimistic than me. I see entire scum cities in America’s future, and they won’t even be purpose-built ones for holding especially naughty people. They’ll be what used to be civilized cities.

MelonCollie on December 5, 2012 at 2:05 PM

I’m 30 and I really don’t care. I hope it doesn’t get legalized but I won’t fight it. That being said, just like with smokers and alcoholics, I’m less likely to want to associate with you if you are a stoner. Get high on life, it’s pathetic to depend on a drug for kicks.

thebrokenrattle on December 5, 2012 at 1:10 PM

I’m 59, grew up during the Woodstock revolution and used to smoke pot back in the day. After having experienced that and several other drugs, I would have to agree with your statement. I prefer to hike the Adk Mountains to get my “high” now. It’s far more euphoric and I remember the adventure.

Cherokee on December 5, 2012 at 2:06 PM

I wonder if the paranoia has anything to do with the fact that it’s currently illegal?

mazer9 on December 5, 2012 at 2:04 PM

The ‘paranoia’ of some beat cop catching you is not even close to what pharmaceutically-induced paranoia can do to a person.

MelonCollie on December 5, 2012 at 2:06 PM

For a master farmer like George, there would be little reason to do this except to make the females ripe for smoking.
dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Sorry, this is simply not true. The separation of male and female plants has a great deal to do with fiber, pulp and oil production rates. There is absolutely no evidence, either direct or ancillary that George Washington or Thomas Jefferson ever smoked marijuana. While their is a wealth of empirical data that the sole purpose of their production of Hemp was for the commercial production of paper and rope.

SWalker on December 5, 2012 at 2:07 PM

If recent use is legal, then a positive urinalysis isn’t evidence of any wrongdoing.

blink on December 5, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Good luck trying to argue that to a judge when you are fighting a marijuana under the influence charge.

SWalker on December 5, 2012 at 2:10 PM

You’re more optimistic than me. I see entire scum cities in America’s future…

MelonCollie on December 5, 2012 at 2:05 PM

I see scum colonies on Mars.

Shy Guy on December 5, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Then don’t get high. Oh I get it…you want the all knowing government to save you – got it. I don’t like pot, but this is about federalism.

MoreLiberty on December 5, 2012 at 1:17 PM

I made no such suggestion, Dante. If someone wants to be a pothead, fine. I won’t stop them. But don’t expect me to take them seriously anymore.

CurtZHP on December 5, 2012 at 2:12 PM

blink on December 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM

The same way Washington State would determine if somebody was a DUI..measure the THC blood content of nanograms per milliliter. Washington State determined that it would be illegal to have a THC blood content of 5 nanograms per milliliter and drive.

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Good luck trying to argue that to a judge when you are fighting a marijuana under the influence charge.

SWalker on December 5, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I’m sure they’ll come up with something … eventually. Does marijuana make someone more prone to accidents, anyway?

MetaThought on December 5, 2012 at 2:13 PM

This is an area where the states should have the authority to make their own laws. Full disclosure, I would vote in favor of keeping marijuana illegal if it came to the ballot in my state, but if the citizenry of a state wants to legalize it, that’s their business.calls

What I worry about is the nexus of legalization with the liberal culture of victimhood. Once pot/other drugs become legal, I guarantee you there will be demands for publicly subsidized drugs for addicts (to keep them “safe”, of course), protection of welfare benefits for addicts, and employment protection for addicts (after all, it’s not right to punish someone because of a disability – the same argument used by the EEOC against a trucking company who fired a driver for being an alcoholic).

Again, legalize if you want to, but don’t expect a libertarian paradise to magically appear. That ship sailed a long time ago.

sadarj on December 5, 2012 at 2:13 PM

… It is a seriously powerful drug with life-altering side effects that make tobacco and booze look sick.

MelonCollie on December 5, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Alcohol and tobacco kill hundreds of thousands of people every year in this country through disease and misadventure. Marijuana doesn’t.

M240H on December 5, 2012 at 2:13 PM

The THC levels of todays Marijuana are seven times higher than the marijuana of the 70s and 80s. The effect of this drug on (especially) the developmental brain is devastating. It causes paranoid delusions and completely destroys ones short term memory making these people non functioning and unemployable dependants of the state (read us).

You do not have to take my word on it do your own research. Many doctors and Scientist have done extensive research on this (some were trying to prove it was harmless but came to the opposite conclusion).

Natebo on December 5, 2012 at 2:01 PM

You speak as if one toke and a person becomes a vegetable-like ward of the state for life. The quantities and use pattern required to generate the effects you describe are massive. If I consume equivalent quantities of alcohol, I would be just as impaired in my daily life.

I’ll freely admit I smoked a pretty fair amount of marijuana in high school, college, and well through my twenties and into my thirties… and yet I somehow completed high school with a 3.4 GPA, scored 1480 on my SATs, got a college degree, became very successful in my field of work, own my own home, never took a dime of federal handout money, and managed to have quite a successful life… how in the world can that have happened being that I am apparently a “non functioning and unemployable dependants of the state”?

Everyone’s mileage may vary. Again, isn’t alcohol basically the same? Most of us have a drink with our friends/family now and again and our lives don’t suffer in the least, but there are those that are unable to handle “recreational” levels of use and become disfunctional alcoholics causing misery to those around them.

gravityman on December 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM

And the majority demanded that the good Guy be crucified too,

Don L on December 5, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Odd… I was always told that it was God who demanded that his Son be sacrificed, to save the souls of all mankind.

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Why not . . . that would be one way to forget about this corrupt, do nothing government we are all burdened with.

rplat on December 5, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Duuuuuuuude. That is so awesome. I would give it the Comment of the Day™, but I forgot how to do the trademark.

Oh wait, no I didn’t. All these chooms have me spaced out.

Steve Eggleston on December 5, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Aren’t the under-the-influence testings a difference between the two?

The difference I’m referring to is the relative harmfulness of recreational use. Ironically enough, chronic use of alcohol is probably more problematic due to the potential for physical dependence and liver disease. Moreover, one can overdose from too much alcohol whereas it is virtually impossible to get that high in a sitting.

Ironically, it seems as if the pro-legalization propagandist have successfully convinced you that there is no difference.

I think you are better off acknowledging the differences between the two and using the freedom argument instead.

I don’t need convincing because I’ve actually experimented with both drugs in my lifetime. I also worked as a bartender for several years. My experience with booze is a lot more negative than my experience with pot. I’d much rather legally enjoy a joint every now and then than deal with the hangover from a night of social drinking. No amount of anti-pot propaganda is going to convince me otherwise. Not everybody that enjoys pot is a “stoner” just like not everyone who enjoys cocktails is an alcoholic. Regardless, the choice should be left to the individual states and not the feds. Moreover, conservatives should be welcoming this, not bemoaning it.

mazer9 on December 5, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Remind me again why alcohol is any different?

gravityman on December 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM

No second-hand highs for one thing.

Steve Eggleston on December 5, 2012 at 2:17 PM

The War on Poverty – thank a lot Johnson
The War on Drugs – thanks a lot Nixon
The War on Terrorism – thanks a lot Bush
The (not-so-covert) War on Free-market Capitalism – thanks a lot Barak

And they all implicitly declared war on the Constitution.

Way past the time the subjects “citizens” declared The War on Leviathan!

Bleed the Beast of every single law, regulation, executive order not specified in the Constitution. Drug laws should be up to the individual states – not the central government.

Stand on principle and the Constitution.

If you want to use Leviathan to enforce your own values and preferences then you are no better than the libtards, progressives, statists. The power you give to Leviathan HAS and WILL ALWAYS eventually be used against you – no matter how urgent or well-intentioned or logical. And it feeds Leviathan and Leviathan grows ever more powerful and ever more power-hungry. The history of this once great nation shows this clearly.

Minarchy on December 5, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4