CNN poll on legalizing marijuana: We’re all in the Choom Gang now

posted at 11:21 am on January 7, 2014 by Allahpundit

Well, not quite all. But most.

There’s nothing unusual about the topline numbers here, although the timeliness of the poll vis-a-vis Colorado’s experimentation with legalization will attract more attention than similar findings from Pew, Quinnipiac, and Gallup. The mind-boggling trendline isn’t news either: It’s on page 2 here if you want the hard numbers, but if you’ve seen one of these polls before, you already know how much things have changed since the early 90s. What makes CNN’s poll interesting is the extensive crosstabs. Most pollsters are usually content with a few basic questions about legalization but CNN went deeper. For instance:

danger

That tells you a lot more about why attitudes are changing than most barebones polls on this topic do. Decades of effort from pro-legalization forces (and personal observation of illegal use) have convinced a majority that weed’s just not that harmful. And that’s not all:

moral

There’s a double-digit difference in the number who see porn as immoral versus pot, to the point where marijuana use is now roughly as acceptable as living with someone without being married. Which, actually, should give you a sense of which demographic is driving most of the opposition. It is indeed grandma and grandpa:

age

That’s the age split on the basic question of whether using marijuana should or shouldn’t be illegal. The 65+ demographic is not only the sole group to say no, there’s roughly 20 points’ difference between them and the next closest age demographic. That pattern repeats on a slew of weed-related questions. The 50-64 group is usually fairly evenly divided but seniors give the drug thumbs down overwhelmingly. To take one example, when asked whether marijuana use in America is a “very serious” problem, a plurality of seniors (38 percent) say that it is. No other group drew more than 18 percent for that answer. Big, biiiig age gap here, which of course explains the trendlines over the last few decades. As older anti-legalization voters die, they’re replaced in the population by younger pro-legalization ones. David Brooks described “aging out” of pot use in his op-ed last week, but ironically, the country at large is aging out of its opposition to prohibition.

But why? It boils down, I think, to experimentation. Fifty-two percent overall told CNN that they’d tried marijuana in the past. Even among the 50-64 age group, 56 percent copped to having tried it. Among seniors, just 21 percent did. That’s not surprising but it is revealing. The taboo against weed was much stronger before the 1960s, when seniors came of age. They didn’t try it, they accepted that it was banned for a good reason, and those opinions stuck. For just that reason, I’d be curious to see an even deeper subsample showing the split on this issue between younger and older Republicans specifically. GOP voters remain opposed to weed on balance but I suspect that’s more a function of the party skewing older than some firm ideological principle that Republicans of every age adhere to. In fact, when asked whether smoking weed is morally wrong, Republicans now split at a razor-thin 50/49. Given that seniors tilt heavily towards the “immoral” view, it can only mean that younger Republicans disagree.

By the way, lest you think that views of marijuana are part and parcel of lax social views generally, here are two more interesting data points among different age groups from CNN. The first table reflects people’s views on whether having an abortion is moral, the second reflects their views on the morality of homosexuality:

abortion

gay

Seniors aren’t always all by their lonesome on “values” issues. It’s young adults who are the outlier in accepting homosexuality as moral on balance. And there’s no significant disparity on abortion at all: You might expect seniors to be adamantly opposed and millennials to be much more permissive, but everyone’s within 10 points of each other. A majority of every age group thinks abortion is immoral, which of course is why even Democratic leaders take care to say that the practice should be “safe, legal — and rare.” They may not believe that last part but most Americans do.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Pot destroys no more lives than sugar does. How many people become obese, develop diabetes and other life threatening conditions due their appetites for sweets? Ditto for cigarettes? Ditto for alcohol. All of which are legal. The latter 2 are proven to be chemically addictive, unlike pot.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 5:30 PM

For someone who only wants to talk about pot, you sure bring up a lot of unrelated trash.

Here’s the difference between every one of the things on your list and pot: they are all currently legal. There are other issues as well, but let’s focus on one thing at a time.

A primary argument against the legalization of pot is that it it makes one more bad thing legal. The fact that other bad things are out there doesn’t make pot any less bad, and bringing sugar up over and over doesn’t lessen the fact that making pot legal means more people smoking pot.

Perhaps you think smoking pot is good, and makes you a better person, and gives you whiter teeth. Great! Let us know! Let us know how being baked contributes to society!

Or, maybe you think you should just be left alone to smoke your doobage without interference by the big bad nanny state. Great again! Just so long as the junkies and pill-poppers get the same treatment.

It’s consistency that we look for here, and you’re just not providing it. But please, continue. You’re definitely helping me make my case to AJ.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 5:42 PM

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 5:42 PM

I say that it would make 1 more good thing legal. But that is not my justification. I bring up those legal substances to demonstrate that we should talk about pot, if we are talking about pot. Let’s not talk about heroin or sugar, OK?

No, I don’t think pot improves me, it just makes me happy to get stoned now and then.

Again, I won’t talk about donuts if you quit talking about pill poppers or whatever.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 5:47 PM

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 5:30 PM

For some reason I was thinking it was AJsDaddie who had the heroin addict son, my mistake (faulty short term memory these days).

However, I still argue, as has GWB, that those charges and restrictions are tacked on because they are also illegal, and let’s face it, many in the government and specifically the court system / law enforcement view drug and alcohol abuse as contributing factors to the other illegal activities – a point I don’t necessarily disagree with.
It quite often is the drug or alcohol abuse that causes a person to lose their legitimate job and then have to resort to illegal activities to live and fund their habit – I’ve seen it in my family as well. And if a person’s documented history is such that some form of drug abuse led to the deterioration of that person’s life, then it’s logical to try to stop the abuse in order to stop the other criminal activity.
All I’m saying is robbery should stand on it’s own as a crime and be punished appropriately – regardless of what the proceeds of the crime are used for.
Also – there’s personal responsibility required in not allowing even legal pot use to interfere with the rest of your life. Just because pot is legal in Colorado, does NOT mean I can start using it. I’m a DoD contractor with a federal security clearance, which I would lose if I ever used pot – whether it’s legal or not. But add to that, even though I drink, and drinking is perfectly legal if I drank on the job or came to work under the influence I would also lose my job – all no different than many other companies.

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 5:48 PM

Some snippets from the ne:

Marijuana prohibition has failed, it’s time to accept this. Anecdotal cases of unmotivated potheads do not demonstrate a threat to society, even when their problems go beyond drug use.

The drug war is one of the biggest assaults on personal liberty and public order there is in society; it has turned peace officers into soldiers, the Fourth Amendment into a dead letter, and generally wrecked havoc.

Thousands of lives have been lost or ruined and it’s devastating societies all across the globe. As the “war” escalates, illegal profits skyrocket, further increasing the motive to supply. I am daily stricken by the futility, absurdity and unfairness of this monumental blunder. Never in the field of human conflict have so many been jailed and had their lives ruined for so little positive result.

anotherJoe on January 7, 2014 at 5:49 PM

I say that it would make 1 more good thing legal. But that is not my justification. I bring up those legal substances to demonstrate that we should talk about pot, if we are talking about pot. Let’s not talk about heroin or sugar, OK?

No, I don’t think pot improves me, it just makes me happy to get stoned now and then.

Again, I won’t talk about donuts if you quit talking about pill poppers or whatever.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 5:47 PM

Yes, we are going to talk about heroin, because like pot, heroin is ILLEGAL. It’s illegal because it’s a drug. So is pot. If you want to change the legality of pot and not the legality of heroin you have to identify why pot is good to legalize and heroin is not. Any other discussion is inane. But seriously, I’ve said this eight ways and you just don’t get it.

Anyway, I’ve spent enough time on this. You want to get high, move to Colorado. In the meantime, we’ll see how their experiment goes. My guess? Not well. But we’ll see.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 5:50 PM

Common signs and symptoms of drug abuse

You’re neglecting your responsibilities at school, work, or home (e.g. flunking classes, skipping work, neglecting your children) because of your drug use.
You’re using drugs under dangerous conditions or taking risks while high, such as driving while on drugs, using dirty needles, or having unprotected sex.
Your drug use is getting you into legal trouble, such as arrests for disorderly conduct, driving under the influence, or stealing to support a drug habit.
Your drug use is causing problems in your relationships, such as fights with your partner or family members, an unhappy boss, or the loss of old friends.

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 5:36 PM

Just a thought to tack onto this – with a slight bit of wordsmithing, those signs and symptons also apply to identifying spies in the DoD world.

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Also, how could our children be safer if pot (and etc) was legal. From the net:

There are no age limits in a black market. Neither is there any other form of control. Prohibition is not control, and should not be equated as such. It is the abrogation of control leading to the unregulated peddling of adulterated substances outside the reach of the law. Apart from not beginning to achieve its aims, prohibition makes drugs artificially expensive and spawns an avalanche of acquisitive criminal behavior. We cannot absolve ourselves of our complicity in abandoning our children to dangerous, unregulated markets.

anotherJoe on January 7, 2014 at 5:53 PM

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 5:50 PM

While I certainly do not find it worth the effort to move to CO I am pleased that we now have that option. I hope that more states in the union will come to their senses.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 5:53 PM

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Maybe, try… Google.

And pot’s main gateway effect -to the extent that it is- is cultural. Somehow you keep ignoring these issues.

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 5:53 PM

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 5:53 PM

How many people have used heroin who have not smoked cigarettes first?

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 5:57 PM

Yes, we are going to talk about heroin, because like pot, heroin is ILLEGAL. It’s illegal because it’s a drug. So is pot. If you want to change the legality of pot and not the legality of heroin you have to identify why pot is good to legalize and heroin is not. Any other discussion is inane. But seriously, I’ve said this eight ways and you just don’t get it.

Anyway, I’ve spent enough time on this. You want to get high, move to Colorado. In the meantime, we’ll see how their experiment goes. My guess? Not well. But we’ll see.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 5:50 PM

In case you missed it. You don’t have to do any of those things. You get it on a ballot, the people vote and it’s legal. That’s the way our government works. And that’s the way it worked in Colorado.

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 5:58 PM

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 5:53 PM

How many people have used heroin who have not smoked cigarettes first?

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 5:57 PM

A lot.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 6:04 PM

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 5:48 PM

However, I still argue, as has GWB, that those charges and restrictions are tacked on because they are also illegal, and let’s face it, many in the government and specifically the court system / law enforcement view drug and alcohol abuse as contributing factors to the other illegal activities – a point I don’t necessarily disagree with.

My son stole $4000 in cash from his grandmother and shot it into his arm or smoked it in a two weeks. How was drug use not a contributing factor?

He’s backing up 14 years in Drug Court. 10 for false check-writing. The $1700+ from those exploits all went for drugs. Two for theft of items pawned for drug money. How was his drug use not a contributing factor?

If a man walked into a bar (heh, no joke forthcoming), got drunk, attempted to drive home and crashed into an unoccupied parked vehicle in someone’s driveway, would alcohol have been a contributing factor and wouldn’t it be prudent for a judge to order an abstention from alcohol for that person?

I don’t understand why you’re arguing that motive is not an element of the crime. Am I confused about this?

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:05 PM

In case you missed it. You don’t have to do any of those things. You get it on a ballot, the people vote and it’s legal. That’s the way our government works. And that’s the way it worked in Colorado.

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 5:58 PM

We weren’t discussing whether you COULD legalize pot, but whether you SHOULD. Convincing a majority of the people to vote for something is in no way proof that it’s a good idea. You’ve got a whole lot of examples of that in this country right now.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 6:06 PM

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Very specific. Do you deny that tobacco is a “gateway drug?”

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 6:06 PM

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 5:57 PM

Now the causation burden falls to you.

At some point we could argue that birth leads to addiction, but we’d be bordering on the ridiculous.

It’s cultural. Cultural. Say it with me.

cul·tur·al
ˈkəlCHərəl/

adjective: cultural

1. of or relating to the ideas, customs, and social behavior of a society.

;)

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:08 PM

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Very specific. Do you deny that tobacco is a “gateway drug?”

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Yes. But what’s your point? You still haven’t answered whether or not heroin should be legal. Until you do, this is all deflection.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Good luck with this folks. The moderate voices from the dope side are pretty much gone, and there’s not much of a productive conversation going on here.

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 6:16 PM

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:08 PM

I am not asserting that tobacco is a gateway drug. Just using it tear down the pot is a gateway canard since you presumably don’t object to tobacco being legal.

I am arguing 2 things:

1. Prohibition of pot is more harmful than use of pot.

2. In a free society we should err on the side of liberty over authority in the name of safety. Especially where authority has proven to not accomplish its stated goals.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 6:17 PM

AJsDaddie on January 7, 2014 at 6:09 PM

My point is that other things may just as readily be called gateways. I call BS on the singling out of pot.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 6:18 PM

At some point we could argue that birth leads to addiction, but we’d be bordering on the ridiculous.

It’s cultural. Cultural. Say it with me.

cul·tur·al
ˈkəlCHərəl/

adjective: cultural

1. of or relating to the ideas, customs, and social behavior of a society.

;)

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Yep. I believe culture is major player in drug use. (Not the only one but a significant one). That is what most concerns me. Forget the legal or illegal.

What kind of society/culture are we living in?

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 6:20 PM

anotherJoe on January 7, 2014 at 5:53 PM

That’s an interesting theory I’ve seen many times before. Unfortunately, it completely ignores capitalism. And addiction.

Pot in Colorado is definitely not cheaper now that it’s being regulated and taxed. And, since pot can be cultivated outside of Colorado, it can be sold in a black market and will likely be sold in Colorado for much cheaper, and to those who are either not of age or who have other restrictions on purchasing legal pot. There is absolutely no reason to think that illegal sales will vanish. There were prior to legalization, and certainly are today, illegal sales from legal pot shops.

Furthermore, some who sell pot on the black market in an area where pot is legal, will likely be replete with other goodies, those of the not legal variety, and be willing to sell them to those buyers for even less than the black market weed. I mean, you’re already breaking the law by illegally distributing a controlled substance, what difference does it make what substance it is?

Oddly enough, this isn’t a new phenomenon as it goes on on many street corners today. If you’re a distributor of illegal drugs, A), your morality isn’t something you lose sleep over, and B), an addict is your best customer.

And if you’re in the market for drugs that can’t be obtained legally, or are in the market for a cheap high, regulated and tax-stamped pot is not your bag, baby. (To paraphrase Austin Powers.)

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:22 PM

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:05 PM

First – you extracted part of what I said and ignored the rest – which is very relevant to what you just posted.

But, isn’t stealing $4000 a felony theft? I don’t care whether he smoked or injected that $4000 or bought a new car with it, the theft alone should be enough to put him behind bars for 10 years – which might also help clean up the drug habit.
I guess I don’t understand “Drug Court” vs criminal court. If he’s been stealing so much, why is he not in criminal court – and then directly to jail, do not pass go….

Contributing factors – yes. But the criminal activity should still stand on its own. Per the same logic, I’m against “hate crimes” as being worse than other similar crimes. If you kill someone – you go to jail for life or you get executed – I don’t necessarily care why you killed that person (excepting self-defense, and other mitigating factors – i.e. the differences in negligent homocide vs manslaughter vs 1st degree murder vs 2nd degree, etc). I don’t care if you’re sober, drunk or stooned when you commit a crime – you get punished for the crime.

I don’t see the relation of your drunk driver story to the rest. If that story was that someone was drinking, ran out of money and robbed a bank to get more money to keep drinking, I would see the relation. I also would say ordered abstention from alcohol – no. Take away his driver’s license for getting in a wreck while driving drunk – yes. I know lots of people who get drunk and don’t drive and don’t do anything else wrong and don’t lose their job and don’t resort to criminal activities as a result. But if you do – you pay for the crime.

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 6:23 PM

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 6:17 PM

If there was a way to limit drug use in this country to pot only, I wouldn’t disagree with you.

Also, see: BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:22 PM

This is how many pot users end up addicted to other drugs. And this avenue spans the ages.

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Pot in Colorado is definitely not cheaper now that it’s being regulated and taxed.

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:22 PM

OK, I have to stop you here. Of course pot is very expensive in CO at the moment. There are years of pent up demand. Imagine no smart phones were sold for a year (not just IPhones but any brand). Don’t you think that the day the return to the shelves demand will be extremely strong? Do you really think that demand will drop after the initial waves of buyers and prices subsequently fall?

What’s more, in CO people are now allowed to grow their own plants for personal use. It will take a few months for home grown to be available further reducing demand from stores and driving prices way down.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 6:27 PM

I don’t understand why you’re arguing that motive is not an element of the crime. Am I confused about this?

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Yes – I personally think you are confused about this.
As GWB stated earlier, motive is not an element of the crime of theft or robbery. The criminal acts stand on their own.
Motive is, or can be an element in proving murder, usually when there are no direct witnesses to the actual murder.
But if someone robs a bank, and is clearly identified by witnesses and/or on videotape, and they have the money, gun and getaway car when caught – motive never comes into play in the court case or sentencing.

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 6:28 PM

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:22 PM

This also from clipped from another site: In fact the Netherlands have recently passed laws that inadvertently drove the soft drug trade, including marijuana, underground and not surprisingly they have seen an increase in crime. CO may follow in the Netherlands’ footsteps if they put too many taxes and regulations on it.

Right, if it was completely legal and not taxed and regulated to death, the black market should pretty much go away. Otherwise, not. Mission unaccomplished.

anotherJoe on January 7, 2014 at 6:30 PM

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 6:28 PM

It’s taken liberalism to make motive a crime in and of itself. Welcome to the world of hate crimes. The thought police are on the job.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 6:30 PM

anotherJoe on January 7, 2014 at 6:30 PM

The ace in the hole in CO is home grown. As long as people can produce their own supply, prices should remain low. And with low prices, no room for a black market to profit.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 6:32 PM

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:22 PM

I have no argument against anything you said in that post – all perfectly valid – fully agree.

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 6:33 PM

OK, I have to stop you here. Of course pot is very expensive in CO at the moment. There are years of pent up demand. Imagine no smart phones were sold for a year (not just IPhones but any brand). Don’t you think that the day the return to the shelves demand will be extremely strong? Do you really think that demand will drop after the initial waves of buyers and prices subsequently fall?

What’s more, in CO people are now allowed to grow their own plants for personal use. It will take a few months for home grown to be available further reducing demand from stores and driving prices way down.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 6:27 PM

I don’t know about the years of pent up demand – perhaps from the people who wanted to smoke it, but didn’t want to break the law.
There has not been any lack of pot availability for awhile – lots of illegal pot available, and VERY easy to get a medical MJ prescription.

The current high prices and waiting lines (at the legal stores) are mainly because there are only 24 recreational pot stores in the entire state who have gone through the entire legal process to be able to open. Most pot users are still getting their pot from illegal dealers or through medical MJ dispensaries.

And many people have been growing it on their own for many years – they just no longer have to worry about getting busted for it.

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 6:41 PM

It’s taken liberalism to make motive a crime in and of itself. Welcome to the world of hate crimes. The thought police are on the job.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 6:30 PM

I agree. Pre-crime here we come….
In fact I think there was a recent court decision in Texas directly on that note.

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 6:42 PM

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Two things:

1. Time does not cure addiction. Not one year, ten years, or a hundred years. If your a drug addict, you remain one until the day you die. And in some cases, incarceration facilitates an early demise. Lots of addicts do time, and many can’t wait to get back on the street to use again. And many attempt to use at the same rate they used prior to detoxing. And that causes many to overdose and die. Almost killed my son that way and that’s exactly what happened to his friend (I mentioned earlier in the thread.)

2. Drug Court is an increasingly “popular” option created in many jurisdictions around the country to try to address the criminality associated with drug use. The intent in most cases is to not incarcerate; rather to allow the defendant the opportunity to seek treatment over an extended period of time and with extensive oversight. If you’re interested, here’s a writeup from my local paper on the program my son is in: http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/news/local/drug-court-established-in-wake-of-heroin-overdose-deaths/article_82157d67-baac-54f8-86af-d99833e8f7e0.html

And just to be clear, I’m not preaching here. I’ve made some comments and continue to engage those who are interactive, but in the end, my son’s problems are his alone and I’m offering them here as an example of what can happen, not what will happen. I’m just privy to some firsthand knowledge of what actually has happened to my only child and hope no one ever has to deal with the issues he’s had. It’s a terrible thing to see your child throwing his life away. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. The good news, however, is that he seems to have seen the light and is in a much better frame of mind than at any time since he started using. That’s the first step. I’m cautiously hopeful.

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:44 PM

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Just curious… If pot sales increase and politicians -not just in Colorado, but all over the country- see a revenue stream that would potentially fund a lot of populist programs, do you think the price is going to go down? Or up?

As a former smoker (I am as well), do you remember cigarette prices ever going down for any appreciable length of time?

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:50 PM

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:44 PM

I think everyone is different regarding how they might “see the light” or even if they ever will.

My older half-brother was a pot smoker in HS (in the 60s), joined/drafted into the Navy during Vietnam, dishonorable discharge for narcotics possession, dishonorable discharge overturned by Carter – allowing him to spend 5 years in college on VA money and never going to class, at some point after the VA money ran out he joined a religious cult and cleaned up and got married and had some kids, fell off the wagon, got divorced and expelled from the cult, spent years in and out of VA rehab centers/hospitals, nearly lost his legs due to poor circulation from cocaine abuse – and that was apparently his “see the light” moment. He got cleaned up at a VA hospital, found religion again, and although he’s not making any big career moves he has apparently stayed clean and not been doing anything criminal – now 62 years old, no teeth, poor health, but surviving – and very outspokenly religious – which I find a bit irritating, just because of his life history – seems sort of hypocritical to me for him to be “preaching” to/at others.

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 7:00 PM

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:44 PM

Just wanted to say, best wishes to you and your son. I’ve enjoyed the debate with you and, FWIW, I think that you have comported yourself well.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 7:01 PM

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 6:50 PM

I think the ace in the hole is home grown. If people are allowed to produce even limited amounts, as they are in CO, then prices will never go very high. If they rise, that will provide users with more incentive to produce their who don’t already.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 7:04 PM

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 7:04 PM

To take this one step further, and more to where I think you wanted to go, let’s exclude home grown. In that case, government could create a black market by artificially inflating prices through taxation. They managed to do it for cigarettes. They could do it for donuts and Whoppers too, if they put their minds to it :-)

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 7:08 PM

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Thanks for the pick-me-up! ;)

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 7:11 PM

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Thanks MJ. There are no absolutes and I always try to debate this issue with that in mind.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Yes! That’s where I was going. So if you’re (and I don’t know if you are or not) staunch libertarian, and this is 2014 in America, why would you think legalization would have anything to do with freedom?

Most of the arguments for legalization are freedom-based but in the reality in which we live, the execution of legalization is entirely political… and big-government political, at that. The “police state” won’t be negated and Colorado’s government will not shrink as a result of legalization. This is a very progressive program.

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 7:18 PM

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 7:18 PM

I frequently lean Libertarian, but try to consider each issue on its own merits.

I can’t agree about the size and scope of government. I think that CO’s government will shrink as it will no longer need to enforce, prosecute and jail people for most former offenses related to pot.

I think that the home grown factor is critical wrt the argument you are making. Since people can respond to price increases by growing their own, the state cannot use weed as a revenue cash cow.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 7:24 PM

A primary argument against the legalization of pot is that it it makes one more bad thing legal. The fact that other bad things are out there doesn’t make pot any less bad, and bringing sugar up over and over doesn’t lessen the fact that making pot legal means more people smoking pot.

Before 1937 pot was Federally legal. So your argument is: once a thing is made illegal it must stay that way. What ever happened to alcohol prohibition?

MSimon on January 10, 2014 at 6:18 AM

The “police state” won’t be negated and Colorado’s government will not shrink as a result of legalization. This is a very progressive program.

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 7:18 PM

But the inception of prohibition was very progressive. Explain how that works again.

MSimon on January 10, 2014 at 6:21 AM

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 7:00 PM

PTSD can do all that to you. And the end of PTSD can be a religious experience.

MSimon on January 10, 2014 at 6:23 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4