Poll: 64% of adults want federal government to defer to state marijuana laws; Update: So does Mitch Daniels

posted at 1:38 pm on December 10, 2012 by Allahpundit

The obligatory follow-up to Friday’s post wondering why Obama would want to sic the DOJ on weed users in Washington and Colorado when both states just voted to legalize it. Per Gallup, most Americans are wondering that too. On the underlying legalization question:

My point on Friday was that the federalism angle gives the GOP a way of ingratiating itself with younger voters and minorities on this issue without backing full legalization. You don’t have to be pro-weed to be pro-democracy, a lesson borne out here by Gallup’s numbers. Adults are actually ever so slightly opposed to legalizing marijuana (48/50) but decisively in favor of leaving the matter to the states to decide (64/34). In fact, even among people who want weed banned, fully 43 percent say the feds shouldn’t meddle if a state decides to legalize it. That’s the opening for Republicans in trying to sell this to reluctant seniors. The party can remain officially anti-pot at the state level, but at the federal level, it’s hands off.

Just for funsies, compare the numbers on marijuana above to the numbers on gay marriage compiled by Gallup in a different poll taken last week:

Younger voters and Democrats generally are a bit more sold on SSM than they are on legalizing marijuana but you’ve got similar feelings on both issues among each group. The whole question for Republicans, obviously, is whether taking a federalist line on weed will win them more young votes than it’ll lose them old ones. Will huge numbers of seniors stay home in 2014 if the GOP adopts a “let the people decide” line on pot? I’m skeptical. Plus, given how dramatically the numbers have moved towards legalization in the past few years — it was 36/60 as recently as 2006 — prominent pols will feel increasingly safe in speaking out in favor and that itself will start to move votes among the public. (We’ve already seen this to some extent with rising support among black voters for SSM after Obama changed his mind.) Here’s one notable example from the new documentary “Breaking the Taboo.”

Update: A pitch-perfect pitch:

Anyways, I talked to Governor Mitch Daniels about this issue about a week ago at a Buckley event at Yale, and he had some interesting thoughts. “I hope that people will be consistent,” he told me, referring to conservatives who support states’ rights. “I believe that federalism is, first and foremost, a protection of liberty. And I would just hope that people who say they believe that would be consistent.”

He continued to say that regardless of his personal opinion on decriminalization, states should be able to make their own choices on the issue.

“Without endorsing what they [Colorado and Washington] did, I think they had, under our system, a right to do it,” he said. “A lot of the worst problems we’ve got in this country, and some of the worst divisions we have, came when the right of citizens in community and in polities, like their state, had those rights usurped by the federal government. And having disagreed with it when it happened on other occasions, I sure wouldn’t call for it here.”

Grandma’s not staying home on election day in indignation over that approach, is she?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

To be fair, we do have two chains of command. My question was more about who pays.

M240H on December 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Competing parts of US Code. But using military forces under Title Ten (instead of other agencies) to crack down on illegal pot grows on federal land would be stretching the definition of Posse Comitatus.

Happy Nomad on December 10, 2012 at 2:57 PM

He’s point out the absurdity that promoting weed legalization is more esteemed than promoting pro-life legislation. Misplacement of priorities, me thinks.

22044 on December 10, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Where in the Federal constitution is the abortion clause? I’ll help you out, it isn’t there.

Murder isn’t even a federal issue with a few exceptions. Neither is marriage. Got to love people picking and choosing what they think the role of the federal government is simply based on their own belief system. Solipsism at its finest.

CorporatePiggy on December 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Archivarix on December 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Without endorsing your specific suggestion or otherwise breaking the law…if we need choices in health care, home remedies &/or reasoned experimentation might be the order of the day.

22044 on December 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

CorporatePiggy on December 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Not interested in this debate. I will just say this: if lives outside the womb deserve protection, then so do lives inside the womb. The latter is verified by the scientific record.

22044 on December 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM

issues of morality trump individual freedom

ironmarshal on December 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM
this, ladies and gents, is why the GOP is dead

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM

And yet…

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams

Nutstuyu on December 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Yeah. Ethics, values, and morality are sooo outdated, aren’t they?/

Gimme a break.

kingsjester on December 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM

legislating morality? yes, it’s outdated. Until you and your precious GOP learn that, you’re doomed.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Not interested in this debate. I will just say this: if lives outside the womb deserve protection, then so do lives inside the womb. The latter is verified by the scientific record.

22044 on December 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Libs: la la la deny science la la la la!

Nutstuyu on December 10, 2012 at 3:01 PM

this, ladies and gents, is why the GOP is dead

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Working societies are not just free-for-alls. If there is no cultural underpinning, then such a society will die. The government is a reflection of the underlying society and its morals – not some disembodied, unattached entity that just exists and keeps an order that isn’t defined in any way. The formalization of society’s morality is what makes the government. Our Founders were smart enough to place ultimate limits on the powers of those created governments (feral, state and local – along with limits on the whims of the citizenry) but don’t kid yourself into thinking that morality has no place in fashioning governance. Quite the opposite.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:02 PM

legislating morality? yes, it’s outdated. Until you and your precious GOP learn that, you’re doomed.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM

All legislation is borne of a society’s collective morality. Sure, moralities shift over time, but no legislation is completely devoid of someone’s morality though the stages of being crafted, voted on, and signed into law.

Nutstuyu on December 10, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM

My precious GOP? You’ve never read any of Blogs. Put down the bong and take some time to look around.

kingsjester on December 10, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Libs: la la la deny science la la la la!

Nutstuyu on December 10, 2012 at 3:01 PM

:)

I think…

22044 on December 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

You made a silly argument that cigarette smoke is really bad for you because of the spooky chemicals. That’s just untrue. Cigarette smoke is dangerous as smoking anything is dangerous – though pot smoke is much thicker than cigarette smoke and people hold it in their lungs, intentionally. There are carcinogens generated from burning anything. I have the right to take that risk if I want just as I have the right to rock climb if I want.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM

As I said before, both cigarette and weed smoke is harmful, and it can be argued whether one or another is worse. However, while no such solution exists for cigarettes, using bong perfectly negates all soot effects.

Disclaimer: I never smoked or doped in my life.

Archivarix on December 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

those created governments (feral, state and local – along with limits on the whims of the citizenry) but don’t kid yourself into thinking that morality has no place in fashioning governance. Quite the opposite.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Freudian slip?

Nutstuyu on December 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

No KingsJester, I don’t read your insufferable SoCon blog

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Self diagnose and, when you need a simple antibiotic, buy one for aquarium fish. amazingly, it’s exactly same as the human brand. No need to beg doctors or pay hundreds for pointless visits, and you can buy as much as you want so it’s a prepper’s bonanza.

However, make triple – nay, quadruple – sure that 1) you’re not allergic to regular antibiotics, and 2) antibiotic is what you actually need, and not antiviral or anti-inflammatory.

PS: Please do not see this recommendation as a medical advice. Caveat emptor.

Archivarix on December 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I was given dog allergy medicine once to combat “Asian glow” that I sometimes get when consuming adult beverages. Woofed Worked like a charm.

antisense on December 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

No KingsJester, I don’t read your insufferable SoCon blog

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Why not? We read your insufferable comments here.

Nutstuyu on December 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

using bong perfectly negates all soot effects.

No, it certainly does NOT.

Disclaimer: I never smoked or doped in my life.

Archivarix on December 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Anti-Disclaimer: I have. Tons.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:05 PM

I was given dog allergy medicine once to combat “Asian glow” that I sometimes get when consuming adult beverages. Woofed Worked like a charm.

antisense on December 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Why are trying to sniff my butt? Is this the ghey marriage thread again?

Nutstuyu on December 10, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Why not? We read your insufferable comments here.

Nutstuyu on December 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

22044 on December 10, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Freudian slip?

Nutstuyu on December 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Poetic license. I’ve been using it for a long time. Once the federal government broke free of the domesticating influence of the Constitution, it went feral.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Why not? We read your insufferable comments here.

Nutstuyu on December 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

heh. thanks!

I read one of them. It was insufferable. Like a middle school bible dissertation.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM

onlineanalyst on December 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Simple. Continued federal enforcement of MJ leaves the Mexican cartels in charge of suppply. The ensuing chaos in Mexico causes more Mexicans to flee to the U.S., where they will eventually become Democratic voters.

rockmom on December 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Where in the bible does Hay-Seuss say herb is illegal? Duderonimus 13:84?

I’ll be here all week; try the veal.

antisense on December 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM

As I said before, both cigarette and weed smoke is harmful, and it can be argued whether one or another is worse. However, while no such solution exists for cigarettes, using bong perfectly negates all soot effects.

A vaporizer does an even better job.

mazer9 on December 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM

It’s simple. Many of you conservatives claim to support a small limited federal government, but the reality is you don’t. You obviously believe that you need the “all knowing, all powerful” federal government to take care of you. They need to save you from yourselves is what it appears you believe. You are weak minded, full of fear, like little animals.

MoreLiberty on December 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM

As others have already written, just where do you think that the basis for our nations laws is? It’s the same as the basis for our Founding Documents…a Judeo-Christian belief system.

Immorality doesn’t work. It just makes a culture weak. Ask the Greeks and Romans. Anarchy sure doesn’t work. You keep killing off leader after leader.

That whole “responsibility to others” is a pain in the butt, isn’t it?

kingsjester on December 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM

antisense on December 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I like veal.
Mmmm…veal.
Maybe with some bacon.

22044 on December 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM

I read one of them. It was insufferable. Like a middle school bible dissertation.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Ooh, I’d love to see you debate a middle schooler on the Bible. BTW, do you un-capitalize the Koran too? You know, just to be consistent–seeing as how all religions are founded by murdering, lying, raping, pillaging pedophiles…

Nutstuyu on December 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM

who can seriously see prohibition and think “gee, what a swell flukeing idea”?

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM

No KingsJester, I don’t read your insufferable SoCon blog

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

No enough pictures for you…or, are the words too big?

kingsjester on December 10, 2012 at 3:11 PM

That whole “responsibility to others” is a pain in the butt, isn’t it?

kingsjester on December 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM

I’m sorry. Was my weed smoking bothering you? Cause I was so sure we’d never met and I have no idea who you are.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:11 PM

legislating morality? yes, it’s outdated. Until you and your precious GOP learn that, you’re doomed.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM

But it’s cool to legislate what people eat and drink? What they can drive? Where they can smoke? Where they can live? How they heat and cool their homes? If they can protect themselves with firearms?

darwin on December 10, 2012 at 3:12 PM

No enough pictures for you…or, are the words too big?

kingsjester on December 10, 2012 at 3:11 PM

too much narrow moralizing and judgement

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:12 PM

But it’s cool to legislate what people eat and drink? What they can drive? Where they can smoke? Where they can live? How they heat and cool their homes? If they can protect themselves with firearms?

darwin on December 10, 2012 at 3:12 PM

no, it’s not. Where did that come from?

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM

who can seriously see prohibition and think “gee, what a swell flukeing idea”?

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Book authors, screenplay writers, movie directors, museum directors, gun manufacturers, automobile manufacturers, jazz musicians, race car drivers, Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, and on and on and on…

Nutstuyu on December 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM

did you think I was Bob Costas?

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM

did you think I was Bob Costas?

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Kind of smell like him.

Nutstuyu on December 10, 2012 at 3:15 PM

A vaporizer does an even better job.

mazer9 on December 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM

People can just eat weed/hash to negate any smoke effects, at all. It’s even a better and longer high – for those pursuing such. But that’s not the point. The point is that people have been convinced, somehow, that cigarette smoke is death, incarnate, while pot smoke is fuzzy and cool and might even help with respiration. It is this transparent hypocrisy by the left (that so many have been convinced of, for some reason) that is the issue.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I’ll take that as a compliment as Bob Costas smells like morning dew on a fresh spring leaf.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:16 PM

no, it’s not. Where did that come from?

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Just asking. You’re so against legislating “morality” I wondered how you felt about other issues.

darwin on December 10, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM

If you don’t read it, then how do you know it is “insufferable”?

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Medical pot is a joke. There is no real medical use for it. It’s a recreational drug, which is fine. If a state wants to legalize it, then I think that is up to them, but they can’t turn around and infringe on people’s rights to then defend the roadways or workplaces against those they just unleashed on them. If there is no non-invasive test of intoxication then one has to think long and hard about the consequences of legalization.

My main objection, of course, is the hypocrisy of the cigarette bans and the near idolization of pot smoke – inclduing the silliness of the “cigarette smoke is bad because of all the evil chemicals used to manufacture them” argument that makes no sense, whatsoever and is intellectually offensive.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM

What medical research are you citing about marijuana having no real medical use? There are volumes of evidence and research showing a multitude of medical uses.

Also, what does the legal status of a substance have to do with the need for a non-invasive test of intoxication? You can show up to work on any number of legal or illegal substances that affect your performance. The bottom line is if you can’t perform your job, you should have to face the consequences.

Smoking is but one way to ingest marijuana. As evidenced by the places that have already legalized it, edibles gain a lot of traction once marijuana is federally legalized.

jonknee on December 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Just asking. You’re so against legislating “morality” I wondered how you felt about other issues.

darwin on December 10, 2012 at 3:16 PM

My theory is simple. The Government should stay out of everything. Except maybe prosecuting child rapists. I do have standards.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I wondered if it is a quantity as apposed to a quality issue?

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM

If you don’t read it, then how do you know it is “insufferable”?

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 3:17 PM

I don’t. Probably shouldn’t have said that. It was mean.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Self diagnose and, when you need a simple antibiotic, buy one for aquarium fish.

PS: Please do not see this recommendation as a medical advice. Caveat emptor.

Archivarix on December 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM

If anybody does something like that they should inform themselves first. One of the popular aquarium treatments is something-blue and something-green, (I don’t remember what it was called but the color is part of the name), and I’ve read that a person took it once and it turned them blue. I’m not sure if it ever went away, either.

FloatingRock on December 10, 2012 at 3:21 PM

My theory is simple. The Government should stay out of everything. Except maybe prosecuting child rapists. I do have standards.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM

I think along the same lines. Society should police itself, as it has for centuries. The government should stay out of dictating it’s beliefs to society.

darwin on December 10, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Gosh, the media pushing Gay marriage and now legal pot…..what next? Legal cocaine? Meth? Legalize and tax prostitution like Nevada?

….and since enforcement of drug laws isn’t working and according to the Progressives we should just forget doing anything about it…..how about we forget about National defense? That’s hard, right? What if we all just go down to a government approved “Life Termination Center” and have them give us a lethal drug injection because……Hells Bells…..Life is hard.


TEATERMERICA……..The last days of the Republic.

Someday these blog posts may be like the Diary of Anne Frank.

PappyD61 on December 10, 2012 at 3:24 PM

What possible justification does the feds have to say otherwise if voters of a particular state determine that they want to be right-to-life?

Happy Nomad on December 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Actually, it shouldn’t. If you ask a serious pro-choice people such as Justice Ginsburg if they wish that the abortion issue had been settled in a different way, many will tell you that they do. More and more states were actually moving toward making abortion legal when the Court handed down Roe, which provoked a cultural war and backlash that surprised even abortion’s most strident proponents at the time. Further, Roe is one of the most constitutionally-suspect and poorly-reasoned major legal decisions ever written. In hindsight, even Justice Blackmum, its author, and Prog const scholars like Laurence Tribe, have written/spoken about its uncomfortable and eerily similarity with Dred Scott.

The same fear that pro-aborts had back then is held today with some pro-SSM proponents at the ACLU and GLAAD, who were actually hoping that the Court would not grant cert on the Prop 8 case. They hope that, if the Court does strike down DOMA and uphold the 9th cir’s decision on Prop 8, it will do so on very narrow grounds and not a sweeping decision overturning all bans on SSM. Up until the Obamacare decision, I would have said that the Court would strike down all bans on SSM, but now, having seen how far Kennedy has come in his defence of Federalism, I am not so sure even though he wrote the majority opinions in Romer v Evans and Lawrence v Texas.

BBL

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM

If anybody does something like that they should inform themselves first. One of the popular aquarium treatments is something-blue and something-green, (I don’t remember what it was called but the color is part of the name), and I’ve read that a person took it once and it turned them blue. I’m not sure if it ever went away, either.

FloatingRock on December 10, 2012 at 3:21 PM

If one cannot tell an antibiotic from an aquarium-cleaning chemical, one shouldn’t be in the business of purchasing stuff over the Internet.

Archivarix on December 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM

People can just eat weed/hash to negate any smoke effects, at all. It’s even a better and longer high – for those pursuing such. But that’s not the point. The point is that people have been convinced, somehow, that cigarette smoke is death, incarnate, while pot smoke is fuzzy and cool and might even help with respiration. It is this transparent hypocrisy by the left (that so many have been convinced of, for some reason) that is the issue.

Smoking anything is unhealthy. That said, as a former smoker and occasional pot smoker/vaporizer, I can’t say I ever smoked weed with the same frequency or amounts that I did cigarettes. Perhaps that’s why in the long run smoking cigs is worse for you (that and all the additional toxic additives). That, and I found cigs to be physically addictive and a lot more difficult to shake than about any bad habit I ever had. Whenever I had to quit smoking pot, I just did.

mazer9 on December 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:20 PM

I won’t call you mean, but kingjester is good people. Even when you disagree.

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 3:26 PM

I wondered if it is a quantity as apposed to a quality issue?

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Not really. The method of ingestion makes a difference in how the effects are felt. Eating takes more quantity, for sure, but the nature of the high is different, much longer lasting and very even – if one then ups the quantity. Hours, even. Of course, it takes much longer to occur, as the trade-off. Smoking is a fast rush and quick down, in comparison. It’s pretty much the same with these ingestion methods for many drugs.

People don’t tend to eat pot because you have to cook it, somewhat (unlike hash, that you can just pop in your mouth or drop into your coffee) and it takes a while to come on and does take more quantity. Also, some recreational pot users don’t want the hours long high of eating (on top of the 40 minutes to start) but prefer a quicker smoke high.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:26 PM

My theory is simple. The Government should stay out of everything. Except maybe prosecuting child rapists. I do have standards.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Except that “child” is a subjectively age-based term determined by someone’s morality, and “rape” is a choice of activity based on someone’s morality.

Nutstuyu on December 10, 2012 at 3:28 PM

That, and I found cigs to be physically addictive and a lot more difficult to shake than about any bad habit I ever had. Whenever I had to quit smoking pot, I just did.

mazer9 on December 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Yes. This is the main difference (though I would just call cigarettes “extremely habituating” rather than “physically addictive”). Pot is not difficult to stop whereas smoking is very difficult for most people to stop. Of course, when pot becomes more available, legal and cheaper, it will also become harder to quit (not that it’s hard to get, now, but it’s still a bit of a chore and it IS still illegal).

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Not really. The method of ingestion makes a difference in how the effects are felt. Eating takes more quantity, for sure, but the nature of the high is different, much longer lasting and very even – if one then ups the quantity. Hours, even. Of course, it takes much longer to occur, as the trade-off. Smoking is a fast rush and quick down, in comparison. It’s pretty much the same with these ingestion methods for many drugs.

People don’t tend to eat pot because you have to cook it, somewhat (unlike hash, that you can just pop in your mouth or drop into your coffee) and it takes a while to come on and does take more quantity. Also, some recreational pot users don’t want the hours long high of eating (on top of the 40 minutes to start) but prefer a quicker smoke high.

I find that vaping has a very similar high as does ingesting it.

mazer9 on December 10, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Maybe the R/Cs can promise the voters free weed for 2014/16.

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

I have no problem paying for my stash, and I expect other Americans to be willing to do the same…

JohnGalt23 on December 10, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Except that “child” is a subjectively age-based term determined by someone’s morality, and “rape” is a choice of activity based on someone’s morality.

Nutstuyu on December 10, 2012 at 3:28 PM

uh oh! I’m back in Freshman Philosophy

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Two points:

1. Since our Constitution is silent on dope and SSM our Feds should stay the he11 out of both.

2. Morality is a legit basis of law. Certainly at the state level where most “moral” laws are appropriately drafted. From the polls above it is clear the SSM and dope use are increasingly seen as morally acceptable by the people of this nation overall. And in many states, certainly by the majority. from that I conclude that the Feds have no business imposing a national morality on the states.

MJBrutus on December 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:26 PM

That makes sense but don’t you think people who smoke cigarettes smoke more of them than those who smoke pot, thereby neutralizing the normally intrusive liberal’s concerns?

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Yes. This is the main difference (though I would just call cigarettes “extremely habituating” rather than “physically addictive”). Pot is not difficult to stop whereas smoking is very difficult for most people to stop. Of course, when pot becomes more available, legal and cheaper, it will also become harder to quit (not that it’s hard to get, now, but it’s still a bit of a chore and it IS still illega

Nicotine is a physically addictive drug.

mazer9 on December 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM

I find that vaping has a very similar high as does ingesting it.

mazer9 on December 10, 2012 at 3:30 PM

I was never impressed with vaping, other than the fact that it was more efficient and smoother than smoking. But it never came close to eating it, in my experience.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Sorry KingsJester, I haven’t read your blog so ignore my petty insults. It’s the result of pent up rage against the Church, ie. Man’s corrupt adaptation of God’s Will.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Gosh, the media pushing Gay marriage and now legal pot…..what next? Legal cocaine? Meth? Legalize and tax prostitution like Nevada?

PappyD61 on December 10, 2012 at 3:24 PM

There are damn few Nevadans who would have it any other way.

But since you bring it up, why should we be treating cannabis any different than prostitution?

JohnGalt23 on December 10, 2012 at 3:35 PM

But it never came close to eating it, in my experience.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Eating it is the best. Once I discovered that, I rarely smoked it.

tom daschle concerned on December 10, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Apology accpted. Why do you consider the church corrupt?

kingsjester on December 10, 2012 at 3:37 PM

2. Morality is a legit basis of law. Certainly at the state level where most “moral” laws are appropriately drafted. From the polls above it is clear the SSM and dope use are increasingly seen as morally acceptable by the people of this nation overall. And in many states, certainly by the majority. from that I conclude that the Feds have no business imposing a national morality on the states.

MJBrutus on December 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM

^^THIS.

For a perfect morality example look at age of consent laws. Who would be in favor of a federal age of consent?

I for one would much rather be able to hold my local state rep and governor accountable for votes on the age of consent.

weaselyone on December 10, 2012 at 3:37 PM

I was never impressed with vaping, other than the fact that it was more efficient and smoother than smoking. But it never came close to eating it, in my experience.

Only in the since that it is not as much a head buzz than when smoking it. It’s more subtle. I think what I love the most is the efficiency. Your grass last much longer than when burning or cooking it.

mazer9 on December 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM

using bong perfectly negates all soot effects.
No, it certainly does NOT.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Gotta go with TPOP on this one. Bongs help, but not perfectly.

Vaporizers, OTOH…

JohnGalt23 on December 10, 2012 at 3:39 PM

JohnGalt23 on December 10, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I’m firmly among those who think that both should be legal. However, I accept that the morality of the people is a very legitimate basis for law, provided civil liberties are not infringed upon. I simply hope that people will wake up and recognize that sex, whether in exchange for protestations of love, companionship or for money is not immoral provided both parties are capable of consent and freely give their consent.

MJBrutus on December 10, 2012 at 3:39 PM

kingsjester on December 10, 2012 at 3:37 PM

I could be wrong (won’t be the first time) but usually when people capitalize The Church, they are speaking of the Catholic church.

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 3:42 PM

That makes sense but don’t you think people who smoke cigarettes smoke more of them than those who smoke pot, thereby neutralizing the normally intrusive liberal’s concerns?

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM

I used to smoke lots of pot and the people I hung with smoked, too. Not unlike cigarettes. One joint is worse for you than half a pack of cigarettes so it’s hard to make comparisons on amounts smoked. Now, I’m only speaking about obvious respiratory effects that anyone can feel (as the whole carcinogen argument is a medical issue that specific research must be done to determine).

But still, it’s a person’s choice to smoke cigarettes and people know that cigarettes are hard to quit. People have known this for centuries, literally. But people know that rock climbing is inherently dangerous (and contributes nothing to that person or society) and still choose to do that, too. And to bring this back around, cigarette smoking doesn’t impair ones ability to function – just the opposite, as was pointed out by an earlier commenter. Cigarettes are extremely habituating precisely because the effects are heightened alertness combined with calm – something that no other drug does.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:42 PM

MJBrutus on December 10, 2012 at 3:39 PM

I am always very reticent of accepting laws simply on the basis of some ill-defined “morality”. I believe we should be passing laws on some sort of utilitarian basis.

That said, the question of this blog post is who is the appropriate agency to apply laws to this morality. And unless there is some sort of moral aspect of Congress’ Article I Sec 8 authorities, it isn;t the US Government…

JohnGalt23 on December 10, 2012 at 3:42 PM

issues of morality trump individual freedom

ironmarshal on December 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM
this, ladies and gents, is why the GOP is dead

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM

+1

not quite dead, but incapable of winning a national election

burserker on December 10, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Apology accpted. Why do you consider the church corrupt?

kingsjester on December 10, 2012 at 3:37 PM

well, I was dragged to Church by my parents my whole life. I didn’t always hate it, but I noticed a lot of falsity. Fake Sunday Christians. It seemed more like a business, especially the big churches.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:44 PM

MJBrutus on December 10, 2012 at 3:39 PM

As long as folks exchanging sex for whatever reason don’t become another minority voting block that we have to give inordinate homage.

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 3:45 PM

There are limits to Federalism and issues of morality trump individual freedom when they threaten society and the culture…those who are willing to take the next step and suggest all drugs, same sex marriage and abortion are fair game, all under the ruse of Federalism are misguided.

ironmarshal on December 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

I’m still not convinced that same-sex marriage is going to collapse society. Let’s see… looking up Iowa… checking webcams… nope, still there. Everything looks normal. Even after three years with legalized gay marriage.

Federalism is the best way to deal with these controversial social stances. Let the states be the laborotories of good ideas and the isolator of bad ideas. (I forget who said that.)

TMOverbeck on December 10, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Wait until enough states shift from legalized medicinal weed to legalizing it for recreational use–and it’s mostly in libturd states right now–and when enough idiots are hooked on it the states and the feds will suddenly implement ways to regulate, market and tax it up the wazoo to create the massive new revenue streams they’re in dire need of. It’ll be a whole new industry with endless varieties of weed cigs just like tobacco cigs and ancillary products that’ll get taxed the same way until a new black market of illegal smuggling crops up and we’ll be right back where we started from.

stukinIL4now on December 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I’m in a weird lonely group, I have never been a smoker but I can’t bring myself to vilify them. I kind of miss the smoking section in restaurants, it was a great place to insure no squalling children during a dinner out. I’m sure the if and when I become a grandparent, I will think that it is adorable, especially if it is mine.

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 3:51 PM

bho is now in Detroit …. Wonder if while he is there he will see to it the ‘bacon’ gets to that gal who demanded it for her vote?
L

letget on December 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM

I think anything to do with bacon is against his ….well you know.

mechkiller_k on December 10, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Sorry, Cindy. I sort of drifted on my last response to you. No, I’m not high :) I stopped smoking weed a while ago.

But, you made a good point (I think) about the left usually arguing in favor of “addicts” being given their drugs, as a matter of policy. Of course, with cigarettes, they seem to take the exact opposite view. This is mostly because, to the left, cigarettes represent their parents (their fathers, really) whom they hate and do everything to destroy, so the left goes out of its way to demonize every aspect of cigarette smoking and won’t even allow their own “addiction” argument to be used in favor of letting smokers smoke (as they love to let heroin addicts shoot up). Lefties want to see smokers live in pain, as they wish for their fathers. Of course, that’s why they’re Western lefties.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I’m sorry. Was my weed smoking bothering you? Cause I was so sure we’d never met and I have no idea who you are.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Weed causing paranoia already?

portlandon on December 10, 2012 at 3:54 PM

JohnGalt23 on December 10, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I look at it this way. A free people are entitled to create laws that they deem will help create the kind of society that they want for themselves. I share your libertarian leanings and prefer fewer laws and more freedom.

Consider the case of laws against abuse of pets. I would not want to live in a society where a person may torture his pet, even though it is his property with no legal rights. It is purely a moral objection to cruelty that places me in favor of such laws.

MJBrutus on December 10, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Weed causing paranoia already?

portlandon on December 10, 2012 at 3:54 PM

no, that’s the crack. Red Balls, it gives you wings

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:58 PM

no, that’s the crack. Red Balls, it gives you wings

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 3:58 PM

LOL!

portlandon on December 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM

A lot of folks commenting on this thread have mentioned that this should be a state issue. Since I fully agree with that assessment, I won’t belabor that point.

However, I would like to also throw in the fact that there is also a moral and cultural aspect to it. Like it or not, societies will always try to code some sort of morality in its laws – if for nothing then at least to encourage a certain form of behavior. It is the change in zeitgeist that we have been experiencing with certain hot button topics of the day like marijuana legalization, gay marriage, etc. Once the popular perception of these issues change, it is only a matter of time it gets codified into law and becomes completely acceptable behavior. Hence the need for detractors to be completely engaged in the political process when this change of perception is taking place.

peter_griffin on December 10, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Poll: 64% of adults want federal government to defer to state marijuana laws

That’s fine, but don’t come to the Feds for subsidized treatment programs.

BKeyser on December 10, 2012 at 4:09 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Now that’s a very interesting theory. We get screwed whether liberals are rebelling against Daddy or feel the need to get the eternal approval of the Daddy that didn’t give a flip, in the case of our beloved president, Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr..

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 4:09 PM

issues of morality trump individual freedom ironmarshal on December 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

this, ladies and gents, is why the GOP is dead
Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Yeah that 2% landslide was all about social issues.

The Dems are all about immorality, otherwise known as leftist social issues, and they seem to be doing alright.

The GOP should:

A. Go neutral on social issues

B. Adopt the Dems’ positions whole hog

C. Maintain conservative positions on social issues

If there are other choices, please explain.

Akzed on December 10, 2012 at 4:10 PM

BKeyser on December 10, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Treatment programs? They won’t go that small, we’ll probably have to pay some kind of large settlement to them for all the years of discrimination and jail time.

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 4:11 PM

morality comes with personal responsibility. Personal responsibility flourishes under small government. Legislating morality is not small government.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Akzed on December 10, 2012 at 4:10 PM

go neutral on some Social Issues. Gay Marriage and MJ legalization among them. Keep idiots like Akin quiet on rape and abortion.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Maintain conservative positions on social issues

If there are other choices, please explain.

Akzed on December 10, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Maintaining conservative positions on social issues would entail respecting the Constitution and Federalism.

If you want a Populist, Evangelicals only party, then feel free to form one. Just remove any pretense of upholding the Constitution, because it clearly is an obstacle to promoting social behaviors you want enforced.

antisense on December 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Legislating morality is not small government.
Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 4:12 PM

So making something illegal, or regulating something’s use, has no moral aspect…? Interesting.

So why can one be imprisoned for violating morally neutral laws?

Akzed on December 10, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Our Founders were smart enough to place ultimate limits on the powers of those created governments (feral, state and local – along with limits on the whims of the citizenry) but don’t kid yourself into thinking that morality has no place in fashioning governance. Quite the opposite.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 3:02 PM

The men whose morality you admire held other humans in bondage as property. Why, exactly, are we looking to them for “moral” guidance. I can understand looking to them for guidance in terms of governance, I can understand looking to them for principles of classical liberal philosophy. But morality? It is so utterly insane that you can see a slave society as moral.

libfreeordie on December 10, 2012 at 4:27 PM

no, I’m not saying that. I’m saying it does have a moral aspect, and it has no place in legislation. Much moral legislation comes from the left, but the right just loves to get in there and make this the United States of Jesus

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Working societies are not just free-for-alls. If there is no cultural underpinning, then such a society will die. The government is a reflection of the underlying society and its morals – not some disembodied, unattached entity that just exists and keeps an order that isn’t defined in any way. The formalization of society’s morality is what makes the government. Our Founders were smart enough to place ultimate limits on the powers of those created governments (feral, state and local – along with limits on the whims of the citizenry) but don’t kid yourself into thinking that morality has no place in fashioning governance. Quite the opposite.”

Morality has always had a place in fashioning laws and anyone, who believes otherwise, is ignorant of history and law-making, as well as being in a coma currently (The Left’s ENTIRE focus on tax “rates” and not “revenues” is driven by what they, erroneously, believe is the “immoral” situation where “Mitt Romney pays a lower effective rate than the middle class!!!” when he actually he has a higher effective rate than 97% of Americans even at 14%).

That said, there is no reason why the Federal government must legislate the “morality” of the entire country on every issue. Obscenity, since Miller for example, is determined by what a reasonable man, applying contemporary community standards, taken as a whole, finds to be lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value and is intended to appeal to prurient interests in a patently offencive manner under state law. Obviously, what is considered to be “obscene” in the Bible Belt is more than likely just “Meh, already” in San Francisco. That is the way that it should be.

Allowing states to decide whether to legalise drugs or have open carry with regard to guns would not necessarily translated into a drunken shootout at the OK Corral. States control licensure for physicians. They can require prescriptions for certain substances or ban them outright, as some states did relative to “bath salts” BEFORE the government acted. Yes, doctors have DEA dispensure identification numbers for controlled substances, but those only track the physician identities, substance types, recipient identities, and quantities of substances prescribed. The Feds can’t yank a physician’s licence to practise medicine. The Federal government can prosecute if there is a violation of some Federal law concerning distribution, etc. It can also report the doctor to the board(s) of the states that have issued her licence(s) to practise.

There is no reason to believe that allowing the citizens of each of the 57 states is going to lead to a nationwide version of Amsterdam. Hell, even San Francisco has had enough already with public nudity and open drug usage!

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 4:31 PM

morality comes with personal responsibility. Personal responsibility flourishes under small government. Legislating morality is not small government.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Why don’t we pass a law making it mandatory to attend Baptist church? After all, morality is the basis of some of our laws and a good society, no?

Obviously we cannot do that with the Constitution intact. I think even the most religious of HotAirians will agree that salvation is always available, and forgiveness always within our reach, if we need only ask for it.

But it has to be a personal choice. Personal choices are taken away by Big Government. You must all realize you cannot save everyone, and some people will not save themselves, as evidenced by that homeless man who again has no boots.

Let other people live as they please and you the same. Just don’t make me pay for terrible life choices of others. This is what is given to us by small government and Federalism.

antisense on December 10, 2012 at 4:32 PM

The men whose morality you admire held other humans in bondage as property. Why, exactly, are we looking to them for “moral” guidance. I can understand looking to them for guidance in terms of governance, I can understand looking to them for principles of classical liberal philosophy. But morality? It is so utterly insane that you can see a slave society as moral.

libfreeordie on December 10, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Why don’t you read the comment you replied to again and see if there’s anything in it that mentions looking to the founders for moral guidance. Plus, is it possible for you not to think of race whenever making any comment?

darwin on December 10, 2012 at 4:36 PM

It is so utterly insane that you can see a slave society as moral.

libfreeordie on December 10, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Physician heal thyself.

tom daschle concerned on December 10, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3