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

blink on December 5, 2012 at 4:18 PM

They are not needed for a conviction. There are numerous cases of DUI convictions after intoxylizer results have been thrown out…based on what I described before.

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM

The point is equal protection and application of laws.

Mimzey on December 5, 2012 at 4:03 PM

A bumper sticker with no meaning…

right2bright on December 5, 2012 at 4:29 PM

If you’re intoxicated on the side of the road and it’s illegal in that town, then it’s illegal whether your drunk or stoned.

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 3:24 PM

You can only check for one of those two substances.

With alcohol, there are levels of alcohol that are legally enforced as impairing.
You don’t HAVE to be stumbling or disorientated. If alcohol is smelled or there is evidence in a vehicle like empty bottles etc, a test can be given. Even if you seem fine, you can be arrested. If you’re stoned, and the smell observed is not alcohol but pot….there is no test.
The pot smoker has an unequal advantage, creating a special right.

Mimzey on December 5, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Drugs were never legal in Amsterdam. Selling pot was only legal in the cafe’s and under license.

Mimzey on December 5, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Did you actually read what you wrote? If they sell it legally in cafes, even with a license – that IS in fact legal. So yes – drugs are legal in Amsterdam.
Also, I don’t know all of the drugs they were selling on the street in all areas – I know I heard people talking ecstasy and some others – right in front of cops. And I saw numerous pot cafes – although we didn’t go into any of them.
Those activities all indicate that drugs ARE in fact legal in Amsterdam.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Irresponsible people are currently driving under the influence now. Whether legalization results in a larger number of irresponsible people remains to be seen. But as someone who is in favor of legalization I concede that detecting people under the influence is a problem that needs to be solved, either way. Legalization would create a greater need to solve this problem. Can it really be so hard? And if it is, why is that? Regardless, solving this problem would make us safer immediately.

Besides, when I’m driving, it’s the seniors and their prescription drugs that I fear the most. Where’s the “test” for their driving?

rhombus on December 5, 2012 at 4:49 PM

No, they couldn’t. In the real world, due process is required. It would be legally impossible for an employer of a librarian to disallow alcohol consumption at all times. If alcohol stayed on a person’s breath for several days, then the smell of alcohol on Monday could not be used to fire an employee that was drinking Saturday evening.

blink on December 5, 2012 at 4:14 PM

You apparently don’t understand the employment laws in an “at will” state – like Colorado and many others. If your boss doesn’t like you coming to work with alcohol on your breath, no matter how it has been since you actually drank – he can fire you. An employer can fire you for ANY reason or no reason any time they want to – and you can quit for any or no reason any time you want to. Whether or not you are able to argue the situation to your benefit concerning unemployment compensation is another matter altogether – but it’s NOT a legal issue.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Drugs were never legal in Amsterdam. Selling pot was only legal in the cafe’s and under license.

Mimzey on December 5, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Those activities all indicate that drugs ARE in fact legal in Amsterdam.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 4:45 PM

BTW – all forms of alcohol are also legal – but they are also sold in bars by businesses with a liquor license and not on the street. So in Amsterdam, pot is no different from alcohol – legally speaking.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Those activities all indicate that drugs ARE in fact legal in Amsterdam.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 4:45 PM

I did read it…and no they are not legal. If anyone was selling outside, they were breaking the law.

Mimzey on December 5, 2012 at 4:57 PM

You can only check for one of those two substances.

With alcohol, there are levels of alcohol that are legally enforced as impairing.
You don’t HAVE to be stumbling or disorientated. If alcohol is smelled or there is evidence in a vehicle like empty bottles etc, a test can be given. Even if you seem fine, you can be arrested. If you’re stoned, and the smell observed is not alcohol but pot….there is no test.
The pot smoker has an unequal advantage, creating a special right.

Mimzey on December 5, 2012 at 4:32 PM

That’s just not true.
http://www.coloradoduiattorneys.com/colorado_dui_laws/colorado_dui_statute.html

Colorado legislature is trying to tackle this issue. The problem is NOT because they can’t test it. The problem is argument over whether medicinal MJ users are actually impaired at the blood THC levels some lawmakers are pushing.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I did read it…and no they are not legal. If anyone was selling outside, they were breaking the law.

Mimzey on December 5, 2012 at 4:57 PM

You’re not making any sense or you’re not reading what I’m actually saying.
If there are legal pot cafes, just as there are bars serving alcohol, you can’t say pot is not legal there.
As I previously said, people were selling some drugs on the street. Pot may or may not have been one of them – but then nobody was selling beer or liquor shots on the street either – but that doesn’t make liquor illegal.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM

You can only check for one of those two substances.

With alcohol, there are levels of alcohol that are legally enforced as impairing.
You don’t HAVE to be stumbling or disorientated. If alcohol is smelled or there is evidence in a vehicle like empty bottles etc, a test can be given. Even if you seem fine, you can be arrested. If you’re stoned, and the smell observed is not alcohol but pot….there is no test.
The pot smoker has an unequal advantage, creating a special right.

Mimzey on December 5, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Yes…when you’re talking about driving. This was in reference to simply walking down the sidewalk intoxicated.

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Also, marijuana and industrial hemp are botonically the same plant; they both contain THC…and both are illegal to grow today.

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 4:10 PM

As I said, industrial hemp is much different than marijuana that is smoked today. It’s very, very low in THC.

I take it you don’t have a source for the so-called regret of Washington over the female/male plants?

JannyMae on December 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM

The fact is that if we didn’t have alcohol chemical tests, then we would have far fewer DUI convictions. The absence of an alcohol chemical test would make it much more difficult to enforce under-the-influence laws.

blink on December 5, 2012 at 4:34 PM

And with that being said; where are the statistics showing this ouragous problem with stoned drivers…since they can so easily get away with it.

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 5:16 PM

JannyMae on December 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM

I’m not holding his agricultural journal’s in front of me, but feel free to look it up.

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Yes, acknowledged. The laws regarding being under-the-influence of a substance for which one has a doctor’s prescription are also slow to catch up. It’s the same issue.

blink on December 5, 2012 at 5:02 PM

It’s really impossible. Most of the drugs have warning labels on them that say you shouldn’t drive or operate heavy machinery but with prescribed drugs the dosage is steady and constant. People are always under the influence. They don’t get “high” on scripts.

Plus there’s the added problem of doctors chasing symptoms and reactions with more drugs. Try a drug, test and repeat or try a different drug. See you next week. What’s a senior to do? Give up driving when you get a prescription? I don’t think that problem is going to be solved real soon.

rhombus on December 5, 2012 at 5:19 PM

I’m not holding his agricultural journal’s in front of me, but feel free to look it up.

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 5:18 PM

I have looked it up, and I haven’t found it. That’s why I asked you to provide a source. Since you first ignored my request, and now you’re pulling this BS, I’ll take that to mean that it’s total crap, cooked up by legalization advocates and promoted by fools like you.

JannyMae on December 5, 2012 at 5:20 PM

blink on December 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM

I guess you don’t know as much as you think.

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDLE-LaborLaws/CDLE/1248095305330

In Colorado it’s employment-at-will. Ok, so I just said “employment laws in an at will state” So sue me.

I’ll give you the second point – I worded poorly. Of course firing someone for racial or other discrimination is illegal – but race, religion, age, and sexual orientation are not the relevant points of this thread.

And I stand by the point that it is not a legal issue if you get fired because the boss thought you were impaired by alcohol or pot – or just because he decided you’re not doing the job well enough. If you try to sue over that, you will lose in an “employment-at-will” state.

Again, if alcohol stayed on one’s breath for days at a time, people would not be getting fired if it was smelled on them.

blink on December 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM

This is downright ridiculous. IF IF IF…. Sorry, but I deal in the real world. In the real world alcohol does not stay on your breath for multiple days. IF it did the entire history of alcohol in our society would be different. Try to stick with what really is.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 5:20 PM

JannyMae on December 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Here, you can do some of your own research…here’s the date of his journal

In his farm journal of August 7, 1765, Washington notes that he “began to separate the male from the female hemp… rather too late.”

Any second thoughts on your “ancient Chinese” comment?

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 5:24 PM

If a person drives under the influence, whether pot or alcohol or some other drug – throw him in jail for violating the laws of motor vehicle operation.

Any problem ganja could cause with DUI’s could be no worse than the ones we’ve been living with that are associated with alcohol.

I personally favor DECRIMINALIZATION instead of Legalization. Legalization implies regulation – and more tax payer dollars spent trying to regulate it. And – it’ll be our “buddies” at BATF who get to do the regulating on this – because they’ll make the argument that they already have a “stellar” track record of alcohol regulation enforcement.

What matter is it to anyone what a person smokes? Make a law that says you can’t sell it to kids – but beyond that … people should be able to grow it in their backyard without hassle if you ask me.

HondaV65 on December 5, 2012 at 5:27 PM

I take it you don’t have a source for the so-called regret of Washington over the female/male plants?

JannyMae on December 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM

I can’t seem to access them at the moment (LoC site seems to be not responding), but the Library of Congress has his journals online. Look for the August 17, 1765 entry. “Began to separate the Male from the Female hemp … rather too late.”

Whether or not he wanted to separate them for the purpose of developing for smoking is certainly a claim not really backed by any fact, but he did indicate regret at not separating them sooner. There are other reasons than smoking to separate them to develop certain properties of the male and female plants. Primary among the reasons for the farmers, according to Thomas Jefferson’s journal (also a hemp farmer), would be that the females produced the seeds for the next planting while the males were used for the fibers to produce paper, rope, etc. Jefferson’s journals indicate that a bushel of seeds could plant an acre of hemp crop.

gravityman on December 5, 2012 at 5:36 PM

You’re not making any sense or you’re not reading what I’m actually saying.
If there are legal pot cafes, just as there are bars serving alcohol, you can’t say pot is not legal there.
As I previously said, people were selling some drugs on the street. Pot may or may not have been one of them – but then nobody was selling beer or liquor shots on the street either – but that doesn’t make liquor illegal.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Then there probably is a misunderstanding in what you meant.
Drugs are not legal in the Netherlands. They are more tolerated.
What is being proposed here is legalization. A step beyond the Netherlands, so I see a difference when someone uses that as a comparison in favor of how and why “it” would work..

Mimzey on December 5, 2012 at 5:38 PM

And with that being said; where are the statistics showing this ouragous problem with stoned drivers…since they can so easily get away with it.

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 5:16 PM

The point being there really isn’t a big problem with people driving while under the influence of mj, even though people do it all the time. I can’t remember the last time I heard of an accedent involving someone who was high on weed. My wife had an employee who hurt someone pretty badly while driving high on perscripion pills, even though there is no test that i’m aware of to prove she was high, and was sent away for a while.

steel guy on December 5, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Those aren’t the only issues, and the issues are growing all the time. The list of case-law is constantly growing – even if employment-at-will states.

Can you give some examples?

cptacek on December 5, 2012 at 5:50 PM

blink on December 5, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Now you’re just making up crap to try to justify your shaky position – and you’re acting like spoiled little kid yourself.
There is no such title anywhere in Colorado statutes of “employment-at-will UNLESS termination is illegal” – so again – try to stick to the real world.

And hey – @sshole – if the entire human race was blue, we wouldn’t have racial issues. IF IF IF…
Pull your speculative “what if” head out of your @ss and stick with the real world of what is and is not a valid factor with respect to the differences and similarities of pot and alcohol.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 5:51 PM

2. If there was no test, then why was she sent away? How did they know? Did she verbally admit to the use? What if she hadn’t?

blink on December 5, 2012 at 5:47 PM

It was quite a while ago and I don’t know what kind of pills she was on, but as I recall the police said she was obviously high, could not pass a field soberiaty test. They found some of the pills in her possesion, and no alcohol in her system.

steel guy on December 5, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Some guy I work with just killed someone driving under the influence of alcohol about a month ago. I can’t count the amount of people I know in my 51 years who’ve either been killed or have hurt someone drunk driving. I just have never heard of anyone I know who’s hurt anyone or who’s been hurt due to marijuana.

steel guy on December 5, 2012 at 6:00 PM

If the police investgting an accident find the person at fault with a bag of weed on his possesion, Has red or glassy eyes, reaks of marijuana smoke, can’t pass a sobriety test, I’d say they have a pretty good case against them. I’ve just never heard of this happening. In any case it must be such a rare occurance that it really isn’t much of a problem in my opinion.

steel guy on December 5, 2012 at 6:07 PM

This is why it’s silly for legalization supporters to claim that they also support strict rules against driving, working, etc. under-the-influence.

blink on December 5, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I support what laws each state sees fit to pass, assuming they comport with the US Constitution.

Including allowing audio and video recordings to be introduced to allow a jury to see if an accused driver was, in fact, impaired.

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2012 at 6:11 PM

If the police investgting an accident find the person at fault with a bag of weed on his possesion, Has red or glassy eyes, reaks of marijuana smoke, can’t pass a sobriety test, I’d say they have a pretty good case against them. I’ve just never heard of this happening. In any case it must be such a rare occurance that it really isn’t much of a problem in my opinion.

steel guy on December 5, 2012 at 6:07 PM

I’d be surprised if someone that stoned would actually want to get off the couch and drive somewhere – unless he had a REALLY bad case of the munchies and no food in the house…..

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 6:12 PM

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

This is my age group. Maybe all of my generation who had so much experience with the drug are the ones to be listening to. If we all thought it was pretty harmless, why turn against its legalization? Hmmm…maybe we know better.

lynncgb on December 5, 2012 at 6:14 PM

This is my age group. Maybe all of my generation who had so much experience with the drug are the ones to be listening to. If we all thought it was pretty harmless, why turn against its legalization? Hmmm…maybe we know better.

lynncgb on December 5, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Mine too. I know people who smoked some pot, some who smoked a lot, some who stopped, some (like myself) who never touched it. All have various levels of “success” in their lives. All I can say is those I’ve known who were very heavy pot smokers are generally not very successful – or complete losers. All very similar range of outcomes to my observations of people who drink.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 6:20 PM

blink on December 5, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Wow – you are really a total idiot of an @sshole. Anyone can interpret anything they want in terms of “what it really means” – but that doesn’t make what you’re saying accurate. You’re a moron making up crap to justify your BS.

And what I said about being terminated for either alcohol or drug use is absolutely true. Go to work drunk someday and see if I’m wrong.

Ya know – if we didn’t have gravity, people could fly.
If alcohol didn’t make us drunk we could use it like water.
If cars were made of sponges, they wouldn’t kill people.
You’re showing yourself to be a complete moron with your “IF alcohol stayed on your breath for days” crap. It doesn’t. Get over it. Pull your head out of your @ss.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 6:27 PM

I haven’t heard of this happening with any other substance which is federally illegal. I’m not sure this is an indication of what occurrences would be if such substance was legalized.

blink on December 5, 2012 at 6:20 PM

My point is that for whatever reason people on alcohol are far more dangerous on the road than people on pot. I don’t belive it is because there are a lot more drunks getting behind the wheel than stoners. I don’t believe it is because there are ways to do blood alcohol tests but no way to determine weather or not someone is high on mj. I belive it is because people intoxicated on alcohol are simple worse drivers than people who smoke pot.

steel guy on December 5, 2012 at 6:28 PM

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Yep, sounds to me like there are alot of people in our generation who are saying they don’t want anyone to make it easy for their kids to do what they did. Pretty good advice.

lynncgb on December 5, 2012 at 6:43 PM

The point being there really isn’t a big problem with people driving while under the influence of mj, even though people do it all the time. I can’t remember the last time I heard of an accedent involving someone who was high on weed. My wife had an employee who hurt someone pretty badly while driving high on perscripion pills, even though there is no test that i’m aware of to prove she was high, and was sent away for a while.

steel guy on December 5, 2012 at 5:40 PM

I think we agree on the matter

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Are you somehow under the impression that audio and video recordings of a suspect are currently illegal?

blink on December 5, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Not at all. I just mention them to suggest that most cases of DUI can be handled without bio-assay evidence…

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2012 at 7:30 PM

I have looked it up, and I haven’t found it. That’s why I asked you to provide a source. Since you first ignored my request, and now you’re pulling this BS, I’ll take that to mean that it’s total crap, cooked up by legalization advocates and promoted by fools like you.

JannyMae on December 5, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Here you go you lazy fool; since you were incapable. Straight from the Library of Congress:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw1&fileName=mgw1b/gwpage651.db&recNum=22

Maybe next time you criticize somebody and call them names you’ll actually know what the hell you’re talking about….because now you just look silly. So there, I proved you wrong twice…Apologies?

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 7:44 PM

JannyMae on December 5, 2012 at 5:20 PM

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw1&fileName=mgw1b/gwpage651.db&recNum=22

right next to Line 7…incase you’re still to lazy to actually read it yourself.

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Repealing prohibition was a big mistake.
Legalizing pot will be a big mistake.

nazo311 on December 5, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Are you somehow saying that a majority of DUI convictions don’t need BAC tests at all?

blink on December 5, 2012 at 7:43 PM

I suspect that were you to outlaw BAC evidence being introduced as evidence, most arrests for DUI would still lead to conviction, based on audio and video recordings, officer testimony, and other physical evidence. BAC just makes it a lot easier for the State…

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Why do people care so much about keeping it illegal? I mean, its not like weed is turning this country into a commie hell hole like other, actually important, issues. And keeping it illegal sure gives the state a lot of power that I’d rather it didn’t have. If someone commits a crime or tort while high (or drunk), they can be held accountable under applicable law. Even DUI laws give the police state too much power – DUI checkpoints where you have to agree to a search? How is that a good idea?

besser tot als rot on December 5, 2012 at 7:58 PM

I suspect that were you to outlaw BAC evidence being introduced as evidence, most arrests for DUI would still lead to conviction, based on audio and video recordings, officer testimony, and other physical evidence. BAC just makes it a lot easier for the State…

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Let me change that just a bit…

The majority of DUI arrests would be adjudicated with some sort of plea or conviction.

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2012 at 8:03 PM

This is an excellent website to visit for anybody interested in this topic. It’s called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. It has a ton of really good info and could possibly change or strengthen your current view on the matter.

http://www.leap.cc/

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Potheads, ubiquitous abortion, graphic sex, irresponsibility, sloth, envy …

Isn’t Leftist culture great? As we can tell from all the metrics, this is all leading to great success and halcyon days!

JeffB. on December 5, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Q-poll shows majority favor marijuana legalization

The same goes for homosexual marriage and, maybe, infanticide.And yet people wonder why Obama was re-elected.

MaiDee on December 5, 2012 at 8:45 PM

JeffB. on December 5, 2012 at 8:41 PM

…and I’m sure you think of yourself as a “small government” conservative.

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Funny. It seems to be a matter of fairness. Drunks don’t think it’s fair that mj users might be able to get away with driving while stoned. Even though I think it’s pretty well documented that weed doesn’t impair your ability to drive a car. Unless, of course, you drop a lit roach in your lap while on the interstate.

mike_NC9 on December 5, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I have a question. Is smoking pot less dangerous than cigarettes because of the difference in the number smoked or the difference in the stuff being smoked? I read that DARE is no longer going to teach the evils of Pot so are they going to suggest it be cooked in food?

Cindy Munford on December 5, 2012 at 9:11 PM

I’d be surprised if someone that stoned would actually want to get off the couch and drive somewhere – unless he had a REALLY bad case of the munchies and no food in the house…..

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 6:12 PM

I don’t know if you’re just trying to be funny but we used to drive around tokin’. Now it’s no problem for me to look around at other drivers and tell who’s sparking up.

JohnBrown on December 5, 2012 at 9:24 PM

blink on December 5, 2012 at 9:24 PM

A police officer only needs probable cause to make an arrest…so yes, they would make the arrest. Does he care about a conviction? I highly doubt it, they let the prosecutors worry about that. If an officer believes somebody is intoxicated and driving and probable cause exists, then I can guarentee you the arrest will be made. No officer is going to take the personal risk of being sued for letting someone intoxicated continue to drive because they were concerned about a conviction. Who do you think is blamed after an intoxicated driver is let go and goes on to kill somebody? The cop. Whats the cop gunna say, “Well yeah, probable cause was there to determine he was intoxicated but I let him continue driving because I didnt think there would be a conviction?

Lets use some common sense

dom89031 on December 5, 2012 at 9:40 PM

ITT: The line between True Conservatives and Year of Love hippies grows ever more blurred.

pauljc on December 5, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Yeah, but the majority also want’s to punitively tax anyone with more money than they have.

The majority is an ass.
(to paraphrase some famous or semi-famous person.)

LegendHasIt on December 5, 2012 at 11:52 PM

ITT: The line between True Conservatives and Year of Love hippies grows ever more blurred.

pauljc on December 5, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Kainotophobia.

powerfactor on December 6, 2012 at 12:13 AM

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.

The most draconian anti-marijuana laws, and drug laws in general, are on the state level.

libfreeordie on December 6, 2012 at 6:29 AM

libfreeordie on December 6, 2012 at 6:29 AM

I agree; but this is mostly due to states either being bribed with federal funding to do so or threatened with the loss of federal funding for failure to do so.

dom89031 on December 6, 2012 at 6:38 AM

Well whatever happens on this issue it will be the ruling of our Democrat overlords in the federal government. I trust them to do whatever guarantees their retention of power and our loss of freedom.

Dork B. on December 6, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Would there be the same number of arrests?

blink on December 5, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Well, that would certainly depend on local law enforcement prioritization, wouldn’t it?

Of course, with less resources being pumped into the drug war, there would be more resources for available for DUI enforcement. If that was, indeed, the priority of local law enforcement…

JohnGalt23 on December 6, 2012 at 10:40 AM

blink on December 6, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Police use field breath breathalzyer in order to develop probable cause. There would be far fewer arrests without it.

You say that, and yet there is no evidence of that.

Many (if not most) DUI cases generate reasonable suspicion, and often probable cause, long before any breathalyzer is administered. People pulled over, that are later charged with DUI, have most often broken some other traffic ordinance, often in a criminal manner. Right there, reasonable suspicion. Upon being pulled over, DUI suspects often display behavior consistent with being intoxicated; e.g. slurred speech. That certainly meets the reasonable suspicion threshold, and in many cases and jurisdictions, the probable cause threshold.

Now, I’m sure there are many cases where, absent Breathalyzer or other bio-assay evidence, conviction would be impossible, and arrests not even effected. But your assertion that it is “most” is unproven, and likely unproveable.

JohnGalt23 on December 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM

blink on December 6, 2012 at 11:01 AM

People pulled over, that are later charged with DUI, have most often broken some other traffic ordinance, often in a criminal manner.

1. No, most often not for a criminal offense. Most often for a non-criminal traffic violation. Nice try though.

Which is exactly what I said in the first place. Reading comprehension was never one of your suits, though, was it.

The arresting officer still needs to establish probable cause for a DUI arrest. The field BAC test is one of the tools that an arresting officer uses to establish probable cause.

Even absent BAC tests, LEO’s observations can be enough for PC to effect an arrest. Slurred speech, dilated pupils, lack of balance, etc.

Or perhaps you’d like to explain how DUI arrests for substances other than alcohol are effected?

Please, enlighten us.

YOU were the one that claimed that “most” DUI cases don’t need any bio-assay evidence. Here’s what YOU wrote.

I just mention them to suggest that most cases of DUI can be handled without bio-assay evidence…

And once again, your lack of reading comprehension manifests itself. I didn’t state that as fact. I merely made a suggestion. It is certainly open to debate. But given you’ve presented no evidence to bolster your case, I have to assume you have none.

JohnGalt23 on December 6, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Same prioritization as now.

blink on December 6, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Given a whole array of law enforcement resources being opened up in the wake of legalization, and you assume there will be no reprioritization of law enforcement goals?

I’d say that is unexpectedly short-sighted of you. But, I sort of expected it…

JohnGalt23 on December 6, 2012 at 12:26 PM

I know people who smoked some pot, some who smoked a lot, some who stopped, some (like myself) who never touched it. All have various levels of “success” in their lives. All I can say is those I’ve known who were very heavy pot smokers are generally not very successful – or complete losers. All very similar range of outcomes to my observations of people who drink.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 6:20 PM

That’s how life and personal experience goes, right? We do stupid stuff in our youth, and we live and learn. Some people aren’t going to listen to the “get-high-on-life” types, they see their situation as too hopeless, and their only escape is in that dimebag. And if they fall into addiction, I’d rather have them in rehab than in jail. We’ll still have potheads – perhaps a few more of them in a legal-MJ state – but once they sober up, they may have a better shot at a better life now, without having to check “yes” on that “have you ever been convicted of a crime” spot in a job application.

TMOverbeck on December 6, 2012 at 12:59 PM

I’ve merely been trying to get you to admit that there would be fewer arrests if the police had one of their primary DUI tools taken away from them.

blink on December 6, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Odd because above you said, in matter-of-fact terms, that

Police use field breath breathalzyer in order to develop probable cause. There would be far fewer arrests without it.

blink on December 6, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Now, you say “far fewer” arrests, I think the number cut in half, at least. Actually, “far fewer” means a helluva bigger reduction than just half, to me. Maybe you mean 20% fewer? 30%? What constitutes “far fewer”?

Would there be fewer arrests for DUI cannabis than for alcohol? Who knows? Who knows what prosecutors will feel comfortable taking to a jury, given that a jury knows there is no field test for cannabis intoxication? Who knows what judges will expect in the way of PC, given the same facts?

But given people as high up the food chain as a son of a congressman and future POTUS were caught, arrested, and adjudicated for DUI prior to roadside sobriety tests, I think our society can muddle through.

JohnGalt23 on December 6, 2012 at 1:14 PM

blink on December 6, 2012 at 8:10 AM blink on December 6, 2012 at 8:10 AM

1. It’s interesting that you didn’t answer the question. Would there be the same number of arrests?

2. Police use field breath breathalzyer in order to develop probable cause. There would be far fewer arrests without it.

1).First of all, your question was a hypothetical one so it is impossible to answer it literally with a yes or no is simply impossible. I wouldn’t expect you to understant that. However, I did explain to you that nothing would change an officer’s decesion making as to whether or not he makes an arrest because they make their arrest’s based on probable cause.

2). Not all states even use a field breathalyzer. I live in NJ; they are not used here. Police determine probable cause based on observation, which includes vehicle operation, the actions, appearance and odors of the driver as well as balance tests.

Wrong. Of course they do. Having a low percentage of convictions is a source of embarrassment for law enforcement officers.

Many current DUI arrests have nothing to do with the officer being concerned about something happening. Many current DUI arrests are simply because the officer thinks the person might be over the legal limit.

You just have no clue what you are talking about. A police officer can usually determine if a driver is above or below the legal limit based on observation. Again, in NJ there is no field breathylizer. The police don’t know the results of their BAC until AFTER they made the arrrest based on PROBABLE CAUSE.

Also, If you think a police officer does’nt think of the possiblity of being sued after releasing an intoxicated driver and that he does not think about this in his decision making; then you are just simply clueless. If a cop thinks somebody is drunk he, is not going to let them drive so they can go on to kill somebody and have that person’s family turn around and sue the pants off of him. Again, If the officer has probable cause to determine that a driver is intoxicated the arrest will be made.

Next time you try an make an argument, you should try to at least know what you are talking about.

dom89031 on December 6, 2012 at 4:04 PM

blink on December 6, 2012 at 8:10 AM blink on December 6, 2012 at 8:10 AM

I apologize for all the grammatical errors, I’m typing from a cell phone.

Also, I think we can get our points across without the insults; so I apologize for that as well.

dom89031 on December 6, 2012 at 4:48 PM

blink on December 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM

It’s almost not even worth arguing with you because you’re such a moron.

Police use field breath breathalzyer in order to develop probable cause. There would be far fewer arrests without it.

I keep stating the obvious because you are too stupid to comprehend the fact that the standard of probable cause, which is needed to make the arrest in the first place, is still the same…with or without chemical testing. You don’t need a chemical test to prove there was probable cause. I explained numerous ways of obtaining PC earlier but apparently you’re too much of a dim bulb to understand.

Field breathylizer’s are used to establish PROBABLE CAUSE. That’s it.

That’s it? So vehicle operation (such as swerving), driver actions (such as slow hand movement, fumbling of vehcile documents), driver characteristics (such as bloodshot, watery eyes, soiled clothing), driver statements (such as “only a few beers” or “came from bar”), or odor of alcohol beverage coming from driver’s breath, performance of balance tests and HGN tests do not establish PC?

So, if an arresting officer is limited in his tools to establish probable cause, then he will be less likely to arrest.

Yeah, a cop will ingore everything I wrote above because he does not have a field test. You are so clueless, It’s almost like I’m arguing with a child

NJ has one of the lowest DUI stops to conviction rates in the country. This isn’t a surprise.

No idea where you got this statistic from? Again…Clueless.

Actually, I know exactly what I’m talking about. It’s not even complicated stuff, so I’m not sure why you are so confused.

You have no idea what you are talking about because if you did then you would understand that if probable cause is there, then the officer will make the arrest. Period, end of debate. Not having chemical tests will not have a negative effect on the number of arrests made. Again, the standard to make the arrest in the first place has not changed.

Hypothetical questions can be answered all the time, and the answer to my question is obvious. But you are a dim bulb.

You’re demanding an answer to a hypothetical question. There is no right or wrong answer because it is a hypothetical. You MORON.

dom89031 on December 6, 2012 at 8:55 PM

A big concern in both Colorado and Washington is the perceived increase of marijuana use in the workplace as well as users driving while stoned. I don’t see this a big problem myself. Yes, there will be a few that will be stoned at work and there will be a few users stoned while driving. This happens with alcohol. So get over it if you object to legalization.

Now I don’t know if these states have road and highway signs that encourage people to call 911 and report impaired drivers, but if they do, that would be an excellent method of helping to keep stoned drivers off the road. I know I use that method frequently when I am behind a texter weaving all over the highway. I can only assume they’re drunk, stoned on drugs, or seriously distracted and I am concerned about their safety as well as the safety of others on and off the road. I’ve never had law enforcement come back to me to discourage the use of 911…I really think they appreciate it.

If I’m working at a place of business and suspect someone is high on drugs, I certainly will report it. Again, all in the interest of safety to everyone. Bloodshot eyes and allergy excuses…a common tale-tale sign that a co-worker is probably high or stoned at work. That’s not good and I encourage all to report this kind of suspicion to your supervisor or the personnel department.

Those who are stoned while driving or at work need not ruin it for those who would like to relax in an indoor setting getting high on a joint. Remember, this is a big step for the country, a huge experiment, and we must not let a few ignorant stoners ruin it for the rest of us.

metroryder on December 6, 2012 at 10:38 PM

blink on December 7, 2012 at 1:07 AM

You are really a big Jack Ass.

You are obviously clueless about the litigation of DUIs.

Defense attorneys often attack probable cause.

THAT’S ONE THE REASONS THAT MANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES USE IT.

Here’s why you’re an idiot.

You pretend to agree that field breathalzyers aren’t used as evidence of DUI for convictions. They are merely used to support probable cause.

If they served no value, then nobody would spend the money and time on them.

You idiot.

You are such an idiot. I never said breath tests were not not useful in court or in securing a conviction. You posed a hypothetical question asking whether or not the number of police arrests would remain the same if you could not perform a breath test to help determine probable cause. As I have already explained to you, this is a reality for many police departments already. Many police departments DO NOT use the handheld breath tests because courts look at them as unreliable. The officer has to make the arrest based on his probable cause at the scene…i.e. his observations, THEN bring the “arrestee” back to the police station (AFTER AN ARREST HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE)and place him on the breathalyzer. The arrest has already been made. Your ranting about defense attorney’s attacking probable cause in court is completly irrelevant to the question you asked…but again, we’ve already established that you’re an idiot and have no idea what you are talking about.

dom89031 on December 7, 2012 at 2:23 AM

You are the only idiot in the world that claims that a hypothetical question can’t have a right or wrong answer.

Any second grader would have understood that I was refering to your hypothetical question….Moron

dom89031 on December 7, 2012 at 3:25 AM

No idea where you got this statistic from? Again…Clueless.

At least here you are admitting that you are clueless. I’m sorry that you are so clueless about DUI convictions.

So, now it’s obvious that your idiocy manifests itself in your inability to read.

I DIDN’T write, “I’m Clueless.”

It’s obvious to everyone beyond a third grade reading level that I was saying that YOU were clueless.

Reread this part again and again and again until you understand it. If you need to, take a remedial reading course and read it again afterwards.

dom89031 on December 7, 2012 at 3:26 AM

blink on December 7, 2012 at 1:07 AM

You are trying to argue the claim that I said those machines would not help in securing a CONVICTION. I NEVER said that, but you’re too stupid to understand that. I said they weren’t needed in securing probable cause to make an arrest and would not effect the number of arrests made if they were not available. You Moron.

dom89031 on December 7, 2012 at 3:30 AM

You must be the only idiot in history that thinks that probable cause isn’t attacked by defense teams.
Have you seriously NEVER heard of something being considered inadmissible as evidence because a law enforcement officer didn’t have proper probable cause?
Have you seriously NEVER heard of an officer getting caught lying (by internal affairs officers) about probable cause?
Have you ever even watched a law enforcement movie? Seriously, are you really this stupid?
Have you ever heard of a story about the drugs being found in a car being inadmissible as evidence because an officer didn’t have proper probable cause?
Do you seriously think that every judge everywhere trusts every law enforcement officer 100% about probable cause?
Are you seriously the most naive person on the entire planet, or are you just the biggest idiot?

Blink on December 7, 2012 at 1:07 AM

Absolutely NONE of this has anything to do with what I have said. You Sir…Are an IDIOT; and this entire rant proves it.

dom89031 on December 7, 2012 at 4:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4