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

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:39 PM

The alternative to enabling that culture, is to enable an even worse culture. That of a police state that runs roughshod over our freedoms.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 12:42 PM

The alternative to enabling that culture, is to enable an even worse culture. That of a police state that runs roughshod over our freedoms.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 12:42 PM

I’m not a drug user……so I have nothing to fear when it comes to “police” state.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Funny, but I thought we were discussing pot legalization. Are you afraid of your neighbors potted plant exploding too?

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Funny, I thought the topic also concerned being able to do what we want in our own houses-I’m not hurting anyone-get out of my life, MAN!

Why are attempting to restrict the freedom of some dude who just wants to brew-up a quick bucket of meth? Nazi!

Bishop on January 7, 2014 at 12:43 PM

libfreeordie on January 7, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Also, what percentage of those figures are for people under 21? Because that isn’t going to change at all.

Rocks on January 7, 2014 at 12:45 PM

I am willing to look at the legalization of marijuana – but only AFTER the elimination of the welfare state. Once we return charity to its proper venue (private hands), THEN we can talk about pot legalization in my state.

As to states legalizing it? I’m all for federalism. And, I’m all for the federal government prohibiting the transportation of the drug across state lines. Fifty laboratories of democracy and all that.

This, though, is a good piece of evidence supporting the premise that a democratic republic is only a workable form of government with a moral people.

GWB on January 7, 2014 at 12:45 PM

My fear is that we enabling a disgusting drug culture we have in the U.S.

I get your logic but I don’t want to be an enabler.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Then I would jump on a new prohibition band wagon as soon as you can.

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 12:46 PM

I’m not a drug user……so I have nothing to fear when it comes to “police” state.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:43 PM

WOW. I really hope that’s sarcasm.

GWB on January 7, 2014 at 12:47 PM

I’m not a drug user……so I have nothing to fear when it comes to “police” state.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Famous last words.

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 12:47 PM

I’m not a drug user……so I have nothing to fear when it comes to “police” state.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:43 PM

^ That is a new low in comments.

Panther on January 7, 2014 at 12:49 PM

WOW. I really hope that’s sarcasm.

GWB on January 7, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Oh I get I’m sure get all “First, they came for the drug users. Then they came for me.”

Pfft. Whatever.

If you don’t use drug….you don’t have to worry about getting arrested. Simple as that.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:49 PM

I’m the WWII generation fought for our freedom to get high all day.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:51 PM

So if I don’t support your freedom to get high all day I must be a Nazi.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Oh I get I’m sure get all “First, they came for the drug users. Then they came for me.”

Pfft. Whatever.

If you don’t use drug….you don’t have to worry about getting arrested. Simple as that.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:49 PM

You don’t… in Colorado.

Do you drink alcohol?

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 12:53 PM

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:43 PM

So you’re OK with having your car torn apart and your privates searched because when you got pulled over for speeding a dog indicates you were guilty of possession. So you don’t think that the police will break down your door without a warrant and kill you dog by mistake, to name just one example. And if not you, you don’t mind that some other innocent person in this country suffers from the above.

And you’re OK with the gang wars and innocent deaths from futile enforcement efforts. And you’re OK with the millions of non-violent offenders who are jailed under MANDATORY sentences for selling pot.

I think that you’re being awfully short sighted.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 12:53 PM

^ That is a new low in comments.

Panther on January 7, 2014 at 12:49 PM

She really doesnt though. The police state will tell her the boot on her throat is for her own good, and she’ll obediently accept it. So long as she has her cats — that’s all the liberty terryannonline needs.

Jeddite on January 7, 2014 at 12:54 PM

So if I don’t support your freedom to get high all day I must be a Nazi.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Nazi, no. Willing enabler of a police state, oh yes.

Jeddite on January 7, 2014 at 12:55 PM

An interesting and worthwhile study would be to look at the use of meth, oxy, mollys, and heroin in Colorado over the last five years. You could use overdose, hospital and rehab statistics, for example. Then use the same metrics to measure the next five years.

Anyone think the numbers won’t increase? And if they do (they will), then is legalization still okay? Is it okay to let someone die because they’ve established an addiction? (And for those who say yes, change “someone” to “your child” and look at it again.) Is it okay for everyone else to subsidize hospital stays and rehabilitation centers?

Seems almost… not libertarian.

Also, if you’re an enterprising young free-marketeer and have a line on some decent H, wouldn’t it behoove you to set up shop in a state where they just legalized a once illegal drug? What if you’re a large distributor of heroin in another part of the country -say, Chicago, or Baltimore- wouldn’t it seem like a lucrative setting? All the frustrated teens unable to obtain weed (yeah, right) and all of the potheads who find the price with tax is just a little too expensive after missing the last two electric payments. For a $20 bag of H here in Maryland, you can get high for three days. Teens could almost afford that, huh?

Besides, in a year or two, pot will be boring.

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 12:56 PM

You don’t… in Colorado.

Do you drink alcohol?

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 12:53 PM

No alcohol isn’t next on being prohibited and I don’t support Prohibition of alcohol.

Alcohol and weed are not the same.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Nazi, no. Willing enabler of a police state, oh yes.

Jeddite on January 7, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Exactly. She/he just can’t extrapolate.

Panther on January 7, 2014 at 12:57 PM

…I may as well get high for the next three years!
…probably better…not knowing what’s going on!

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Anyone think the numbers won’t increase?

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 12:56 PM

I don’t think the numbers will increase.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Nazi, no. Willing enabler of a police state, oh yes.

Jeddite on January 7, 2014 at 12:55 PM

I’m actually for loosening the drug laws by the way. I’m just not for legalization.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Alcohol and weed are not the same.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Coca cola and alcohol are not the same. Both can be bad for you in excess for entirely different reasons. Both are still legal. One wonders what is unique about pot that it can’t be another legal substance that is bad if consumed in excess…..

libfreeordie on January 7, 2014 at 12:59 PM

No alcohol isn’t next on being prohibited and I don’t support Prohibition of alcohol.

Alcohol and weed are not the same.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:56 PM

No they are not the same. But I’m sure you are aware of all the problems that alcohol has created. Is one problem not as valid as the other problem? Why don’t you support the prohibition of alcohol?

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 12:59 PM

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Then you know nothing of addiction.

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 1:00 PM

A small piece of sky just fell on my head.

Panther on January 7, 2014 at 12:32 PM

If only. That would likely lead to a drastic improvement in your ability to argue or discuss anything. Alas I think you’re lying because there is no apparent improvement.

NotCoach on January 7, 2014 at 1:01 PM

What you libertarians don’t understand is that our socially liberal culture (including drug use) is what enabling Big Government.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:01 PM

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 1:00 PM

I have been 9 months now without a cigarette. I know something about it.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:02 PM

What you libertarians don’t understand is that our socially liberal culture (including drug use) is what enabling Big Government.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Explain how?

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 1:02 PM

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:01 PM

The “War on Drugs” is as textbook a case of government expansion and abuse of our Constitution as anything in our history.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:04 PM

What you libertarians don’t understand is that our socially liberal culture (including drug use) is what enabling Big Government.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Yeah, the libertarians dont understand Big Government. Not Madame I’m-Not-Worried-About-A-Police-State, no, no.

Jeddite on January 7, 2014 at 1:07 PM

I have been 9 months now without a cigarette. I know something about it.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Congratulations! I’ve been tobacco free a little over 3 years. Thank goodness the government declared them illegal, that jail time really helped me kick the habit.

Panther on January 7, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Explain how?

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Abortion, drug use, etc promotes irresponsibility and lack of self control.

Do you really think a society that keep their pants on and tokes up on a regular basis have the self control to stop spending money?

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Whether or not pot should be legalized is the wrong debate. The better debate is on the role our federal government plays in all of this. I have zero interest in seeing a national debate on pot legalization, I’d much rather see a national debate on getting the federal government out of the drug enforcement business entirely. Let the states settle the issue for themselves, and relegate the federal government to controlling only international drug issues.

NotCoach on January 7, 2014 at 1:09 PM

The Saudi Arabia version of terryannonline is perfectly OK with the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, because, let’s face it, if women stopped associating with males not related to them by blood, they wouldnt need to worry about a public flogging.

Jeddite on January 7, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Abortion, drug use, etc promotes irresponsibility and lack of self control.

Do you really think a society that keep their pants on and tokes up on a regular basis have the self control to stop spending money?

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Then why are you not for alcohol prohibition?

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 1:11 PM

Congratulations! I’ve been tobacco free a little over 3 years. Thank goodness the government declared them illegal, that jail time really helped me kick the habit.

Panther on January 7, 2014 at 1:08 PM

I still have my moments when I want one. I just keep thinking about how I would feel afterwards if I gave in and that is what keeps me good :-)

Yeah, if it weren’t for that time on the state farm I don’t know how I would have gotten the motivation to quit. The good news is that I learned how to make a shank out of a few sheets of toilet paper, so there’s that.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Put the potheads… in prison! /

Few say that pot is harmless. Maybe even it’s pretty damn harmful for some people. Yet you know what is orders of magnitude more harmful? That’s being put in chains and carted away and given full body cavity searches (as Mark Steyn calls it: anal rape) and spending several years in the Big House where…

Each year in the United States about 750,000 people are arrested and prosecuted for simple possession of marijuana. And while most cases end in sentences of probation, it’s not a slam dunk that one will be able to not violate the conditions of probation, so a large fraction of those convicted of possession of small amounts of pot end up in prison. We are not going to stop people from smoking pot. And they are going to harm themselves somewhat in smoking it. But the real harm is done by putting these harmless people in horrible prison. If they are real criminals, go ahead and put them in prison, even though one could argue that that’s cruel and unusual punishment for even the real villains. If someone gets “caught” with a few leaves of grass, let them be. And quit busting into people’s houses and rummaging through people’s things and electronically eavesdropping on people’s private communications in order to protect us from ourselves. Ron Paul, despite his problems in other areas, has the right idea about the DEA: get rid of it.

anotherJoe on January 7, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Yeah, if it weren’t for that time on the state farm I don’t know how I would have gotten the motivation to quit. The good news is that I learned how to make a shank out of a few sheets of toilet paper, so there’s that.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Bwahahaha.

Panther on January 7, 2014 at 1:13 PM

The Saudi Arabia version of terryannonline is perfectly OK with the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, because, let’s face it, if women stopped associating with males not related to them by blood, they wouldnt need to worry about a public flogging.

Jeddite on January 7, 2014 at 1:10 PM

So now because I don’t support pot legalization I’m like a repressive Middle Eastern country?

Terrific.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:14 PM

BKeyser on January 7, 2014 at 12:56 PM

I agree. This is straight out of a dystopian novel. All that’s needed to put the final nail in the coffin and become a nation in chains is for Americans to become members of the Choom Gang.

INC on January 7, 2014 at 1:15 PM

I’m the WWII generation fought for our freedom to get high all day. terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:51 PM

They fought to ensure that if you grew a certain kind of plant in your attic you could be locked up.

Just think of how it would be had they not done so – our prisons would be half empty!

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:17 PM

So now because I don’t support pot legalization I’m like a repressive Middle Eastern country?

Terrific.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:14 PM

If the burka fits…

Panther on January 7, 2014 at 1:18 PM

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:14 PM

I would say that when you say things like this:

Abortion, drug use, etc promotes irresponsibility and lack of self control.

you come closer to it. Do you really think that it is the job of government to force us to do responsible things and exercise control over our wants and desires? Does that sound like freedom to you?

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:19 PM

you come closer to it. Do you really think that it is the job of government to force us to do responsible things and exercise control over our wants and desires? Does that sound like freedom to you?

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Again the he11 I’m advocating FORCE when I just freaking said I think our drug laws should be relaxed?

But I’m a Nazi and a terrorist!

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:20 PM

I have been 9 months now without a cigarette. I know something about it. MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:02 PM

So you were addicted to a legal substance and got off it without it being made illegal.

None of that computes.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:22 PM

But I’m a Nazi and a terrorist!

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:20 PM

I think that you are nothing of the sort.

I do think, however, that you are in favor of some authoritarian policies. Policies that are damaging to our freedom and that are even counterproductive to producing the kind of society you desire.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:24 PM

NotCoach on January 7, 2014 at 1:09 PM

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Maybe it would be insightful to asked those self identified Constitutional Conservatives put there why was it necessary for a Constitutional Amendment to be enacted in order for the Federal government to have the authority to enforce a prohibition on alcohol but it isn’t necessary for a Constitutional Amendment to be enacted for the Feds to have the authority to enforce a prohibition on narcotics?

antifederalist on January 7, 2014 at 1:24 PM

I’m actually for loosening the drug laws by the way. I’m just not for legalization.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:59 PM

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:24 PM

I’m actually for loosening the drug laws by the way. I’m just not for legalization.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:59 PM

She would back private hanging vs. public.

Panther on January 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM

antifederalist on January 7, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Back when we had prohibition we also had this thing called the 10th Amendment. I don’t know where we placed that feller, but he hasn’t been heard from in a long time.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:27 PM

I’m actually for loosening the drug laws by the way. I’m just not for legalization.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:59 PM

You are just like the repressive Saudia Arabia!

POLICE STATE!

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Abortion, drug use, etc promotes irresponsibility and lack of self control.

Do you really think a society that keep their pants on and tokes up on a regular basis have the self control to stop spending money?

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Then why are you not for alcohol prohibition?

You still haven’t answered this question?

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:22 PM

It was an rebuttal to a specific point about me. See above.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:28 PM

What you libertarians don’t understand is that our socially liberal culture (including drug use) is what enabling Big Government.
terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:01 PM

In the 1800s there existed a much smaller Federal government when cocaine, heroine, and marijuana were not illegal substances.

antifederalist on January 7, 2014 at 1:28 PM

She would back private hanging vs. public.

Panther on January 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Go back to smoking your big fat joint.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Go back to smoking your big fat joint.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:28 PM

If only I could :-)

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:29 PM

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Says who?

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:30 PM

In the 1800s there existed a much smaller Federal government when cocaine, heroine, and marijuana were not illegal substances.

antifederalist on January 7, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Our nation wasn’t full of a bunch of drug addicts in the 1800s.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Go back to smoking your big fat joint.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:28 PM

That statement is a clever way to try to get out of the debate but you have not answered anyone’s questions with any logic or seasoned reasoning.

You don’t have a case. Personal opinion but personal opinion doesn’t necessarily make good law.

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 1:30 PM

“Your order, sir?”

-Yes, I’ll have the mushroom *wink wink* and swiss burger.

“Got it. One MUSHROOM and swiss burger. And I’ll turn down the lights.”

Bishop on January 7, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Maybe it would be insightful to asked those self identified Constitutional Conservatives put there why was it necessary for a Constitutional Amendment to be enacted in order for the Federal government to have the authority to enforce a prohibition on alcohol but it isn’t necessary for a Constitutional Amendment to be enacted for the Feds to have the authority to enforce a prohibition on narcotics?

antifederalist on January 7, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Because, Commerce Clause. A clause that has been abused to the point of breaking.

NotCoach on January 7, 2014 at 1:31 PM

It was an rebuttal to a specific point about me. See above. MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Please visualize a sarc tag.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Gotcha :-)

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Go back to smoking your big fat joint.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Can’t, the coercive power of government makes it illegal. Besides I’m more of an alcohol man

Speaking of that, why won’t you answer MJBrutus’s question? Why aren’t you in favor of prohibition for alcohol. They called them the “Drys” during the day. You would make a perfect Dry in my opinion.

Panther on January 7, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Our nation wasn’t full of a bunch of drug addicts in the 1800s. terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Laudanum addiction was widespread.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Panther on January 7, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Not my question. I have tried to avoid analogies.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Says who?

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:30 PM

I think it pretty common knowledge that drug abuse wasn’t as pervasive in the 1800s.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Laudanum addiction was widespread.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:34 PM

As was snuff (cocaine). Also peyote among others.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:36 PM

antifederalist on January 7, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Excellent point. I saw a thing on History Channel or whatever on the criminalization of pot. The guy given the job walked along the Potomac after work that day and saw pot plants along both banks as far as the eye could see in both directions.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:37 PM

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:35 PM

I don’t think that’s true. They didn’t have synthesized drugs which are so prevalent today, but a great many people used natural intoxicants regularly.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Not my question. I have tried to avoid analogies.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Whoops – attribution apologies.

Panther on January 7, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Laudanum addiction was widespread.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Alright I will take your word for it….in the 1800s most teenagers would gather at parties and take some Laudanum.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:38 PM

I think it pretty common knowledge that drug abuse wasn’t as pervasive in the 1800s.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:35

Per capita? What is your source for that? Link please. Or is that just your opinion?

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 1:39 PM

MORPHINE-ADDICTED DOCTORS, THE ENGLISH OPIUM-EATER, AND EMBATTLED MEDICAL AUTHORITY

IN 1883, the American physician J. B. Mattison made the startling announcement that the majority of American morphine habitues were doctors and suggested that between thirty and forty percent of medical professionals were addicted.

By 1909, an English addiction specialist had broadened the context and seemingly raised the ante, claiming “that the proportion of medical addicts to the total of cases is in some statistics as high as ninety per cent., and that one-fifth of the mortality in the profession is said to be caused by morphinism” (Jennings, The Morphia Habit v). Looking back in 1924, the German psychopharmacologist Louis Lewin referred to a “statistical table of [morphine] addicts, including all countries of the world,” which “gave 40.4 per cent doctors, 10.0 per cent doctors’ wives.”

Of course, all these data are somewhat questionable since reliable measures would have been all but impossible to obtain and the proportions surely varied over the periods and areas in question. But we can reasonably deduce at least this much: medical professionals were consistently the most prominent demographic group among morphine addicts in the developed western world after the middle of the nineteenth century.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Alright I will take your word for it….in the 1800s most teenagers would gather at parties and take some Laudanum. terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:38 PM

No, mainly doctors.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM

As was snuff (cocaine). Also peyote among others.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:36 PM

My Great-Grandmother (yes, caps) used snuff but it was the tobacco type…at least that’s what she told us. There was also a spittoon…kisses were a messy and frightening ordeal.

Panther on January 7, 2014 at 1:43 PM

What we didn’t do in the 1800′s was lock up people with medical problems.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Per capita? What is your source for that? Link please. Or is that just your opinion?

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 1:39 PM

I’m sorry….you are right. When I read American history and it gets to the 1800s it says “Crack and meth houses were common in the 1800s.”

I apologize.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:43 PM

kisses were a messy and frightening ordeal.

Panther on January 7, 2014 at 1:43 PM

LMAO!

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:44 PM

What we didn’t do in the 1800′s was lock up people with medical problems.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Bwahaha.

We must have a bunch of American teenagers with “medical” problems. Maybe those crazy environmentalists are right…..the environment is making us all sick. Quick get me some weed!

LOL!

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:46 PM

FWIW to throw into the mix here – something I posted earlier on the Bill O’Reilly pot thread regarding the Colorado situation:

Amadeus on January 7, 2014 at 10:00 AM
njrob on January 7, 2014 at 12:29 PM

I live in Colorado, and I have not seen any indication that the state is “sanctioning” pot use.
It was a statewide ballot issue that legalized pot – as opposed to the legislature voting in the law change. In general, the Dem politicians support it and the Republicans are against it. From what I’ve seen, more cities/towns and counties are NOT allowing legal recreational pot sales than ARE allowing it. The new law just says possession of small quantities and use of same in private are allowed to be legal – it did not mandate that sales of pot be allowed everywhere – so local government entities can say no for their jurisdictions – and many are saying just that.

I personally voted against the legalization, but I am somewhat torn on the issue overall – I almost went the other way. I don’t like pot, never used it myself, and most people I’ve known who have been pot users are not the brightest bulbs in the box – and many have spent their lives on welfare and other handouts. I’m not making a direct cause/effect statement there – just my observation that most of the pot users I’ve known aren’t too bright or motivated to do much. Which came first? I don’t know.
However, in my view, prohibition was a failure, as has been the war on drugs so far. So I see a lot of logic in legalizing and taxing pot – and treating it as we do tobacco (which I also don’t like) and alcohol (which I DO like).
I’m just not ready to say that for harder drugs yet, as I do see a difference in their direct effect on people – far more mind-altering than alcohol.
We’ll just have to see what the societal impacts will be in Colorado.
BTW – we’ve had a LOT of burglaries and even some armed robberies of pot shops lately…..

Just my 2 cents worth of thoughts and opinions.

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 1:47 PM

I’m sorry….you are right. When I read American history and it gets to the 1800s it says “Crack and meth houses were common in the 1800s.” I apologize. terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:43 PM

If you’re going to make jokes, keep in mind that they should be funny.

Opium dens were in many cities, laudanum (morphine and alcohol) was available over the counter, marijuana was legal, peyote and mescaline were legal, cocaine was in soft drinks, of course alcohol was legal, etc.

But you’re right, there was no meth and crack so you win the Internet. Please use it safely.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:48 PM

I’m sorry….you are right. When I read American history and it gets to the 1800s it says “Crack and meth houses were common in the 1800s.”

I apologize.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:43 PM

So your saying you don’t have a valid source, this “I think it pretty common knowledge that drug abuse wasn’t as pervasive in the 1800s” it’s was just your opinion?

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 1:51 PM

If you’re going to make jokes, keep in mind that they should be funny.

Opium dens were in many cities, laudanum (morphine and alcohol) was available over the counter, marijuana was legal, peyote and mescaline were legal, cocaine was in soft drinks, of course alcohol was legal, etc.

But you’re right, there was no meth and crack so you win the Internet. Please use it safely.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Give me a percentage of people marijuana and opium users in the 1800s? I bet it doesn’t even come close to what we have today.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Wow. What an amazing country we are.

For example, Americans were four times more likely to report using cocaine in their lifetime than the next closest country, New Zealand (16% vs. 4%),

Marijuana use was more widely reported worldwide, and the U.S. also had the highest rate of use at 42.4% compared with 41.9% of New Zealanders.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:56 PM

We should be disgusted by our drug culture society:

For example, Americans were four times more likely to report using cocaine in their lifetime than the next closest country, New Zealand (16% vs. 4%),

Marijuana use was more widely reported worldwide, and the U.S. also had the highest rate of use at 42.4% compared with 41.9% of New Zealanders.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:59 PM

We should be disgusted by our drug culture society:

For example, Americans were four times more likely to report using cocaine in their lifetime than the next closest country, New Zealand (16% vs. 4%),

Marijuana use was more widely reported worldwide, and the U.S. also had the highest rate of use at 42.4% compared with 41.9% of New Zealanders.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:59 PM

No… you should be. “We” and at what level “We” may consider the drug culture disgusting is our opinion. Not yours to foster on us.

But thanks for playing.

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 2:02 PM

No… you should be. “We” and at what level “We” may consider the drug culture disgusting is our opinion. Not yours to foster on us.

But thanks for playing.

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 2:02 PM

Do you know have many families have been torn apart by drugs? How many children who don’t know their parents sober? How many people have wasted their youth because they were high?

If that doesn’t disgust you…..I don’t know what will.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 2:04 PM

But I’m a Nazi and a terrorist!

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:20 PM

I think that you are nothing of the sort.

I do think, however, that you are in favor of some authoritarian policies. Policies that are damaging to our freedom and that are even counterproductive to producing the kind of society you desire.

MJBrutus on January 7, 2014 at 1:24 PM

So far as I can tell, terryannonline, nobody called you a Nazi or a terrorist. You branded yourself with those labels to make yourself out to be a victim.

Did you, or did you not, say that you dont fear the encroachment of a police state, specifically because you dont partake of marijuana?

The comparison to Saudi Arabia is apt, because just as you are here poo-pooing a police state, there are assuredly females in Saudi Arabia who poo-poo the Virtue Police because they dont associate with males not related to them. Ergo, the terryannonline in Saudi Arabia would remind women that if they dont want a public flogging, they should just avoid associating with males not related to them. Freedom of association be damned (which, of course, Saudi Arabians dont have).

Jeddite on January 7, 2014 at 2:05 PM

I hate to say it but I have lost faith in my country. All I can do is pray for our nation.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 2:06 PM

If you don’t use drug….you don’t have to worry about getting arrested. Simple as that.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 12:49 PM

I don’t have to be pro-legalization to see how lacking in critical thinking that statement is.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 1:43 PM

You’re right. Opium dens on the other hand…………….

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 1:47 PM

Always good to hear a voice of reason, Arthur, though we might disagree.

For those of you arguing that the police state comes from the drug war: the drug war is only an excuse. The police state WILL NOT GO AWAY with the legalization of pot. To remove the police state, we must first end the massive, unconstitutional behemoth that is the current ‘federal’ government, and restore it to its proper bounds. We must also fight within the states to remove the pernicious statist mentality. Yes, it is possible decriminalization of pot will help in that endeavor; but don’t be fooled – it will not be the cause of our salvation from the police state!

GWB on January 7, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Do you know have many families have been torn apart by drugs? How many children who don’t know their parents sober? How many people have wasted their youth because they were high?

If that doesn’t disgust you…..I don’t know what will.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 2:04 PM

I may be disgusted by many things. And you have no clue to how many things may disgust me. But your implicit “We should be disgusted” assumesa you know better.

Talk for yourself, not me.

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 2:09 PM

Miley Cyrus: What the future of America looks like.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Have fun America!

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Miley Cyrus: What the future of America looks like.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Now you’re trying to change the subject even before you finished addressing some of the questions put to you up thread.

Walter L. Newton on January 7, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Do you know have many families have been torn apart by drugs? How many children who don’t know their parents sober? How many people have wasted their youth because they were high?

terryannonline

How many?

xblade on January 7, 2014 at 2:13 PM

How many?

xblade on January 7, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Way too many.

terryannonline on January 7, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Always good to hear a voice of reason, Arthur, though we might disagree.
GWB on January 7, 2014 at 2:08 PM

That’s ok – I disagree with myself back and forth on this issue – so you’re only potentially disagreeing with one side of me….

I fully agree with you about the police state. The drug war is only one piece of that. How about the NPS gestapo during the shutdown? That had NOTHING to do with drugs, but was most definitely police state type activities.

dentarthurdent on January 7, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Opium dens were in many cities, laudanum (morphine and alcohol) was available over the counter, marijuana was legal, peyote and mescaline were legal, cocaine was in soft drinks, of course alcohol was legal, etc.

Akzed on January 7, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Mind you, that isn’t a good argument for legalization. The cities (or parts thereof) where those things were pervasive were horrid hellholes. A somewhat accurate portrayal of the situation in the second half of the 1800s is in the BBC series Copper. I haven’t seen the second season yet, but the first was an adequately gruesome portrait of parts of 1864 New York City and the first of the ‘professional’ police forces.

GWB on January 7, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4