2.22.2009

Americans Growing Kinder to Bud

We all know that Michael Phelps was on something. But perhaps he was also onto something. Three recent polls show that Americans are more sympathetic to the idea of legalizing marijuana than ever before.

The first poll, conducted last week by Rasmussen Reports, has 40 percent of Americans in support of legalizing the drug and 46 percent opposed. The second, conducted in January by CBS News, has 41 percent in favor of legalization and 52 percent against. And a third poll, conducted by Zogby on behalf of the marijuana-rights advocacy group NORML, has 44 percent of Americans in support of legalized pot and 52 percent opposed.

That all three polls show support for legalization passing through the 40 percent barrier may be significant. I compiled a database of every past poll I could find on this subject, including a series of Gallup polls and results from the General Social Survey, and could never before find more than 36 percent of the population (Gallup in October, 2005) stating a position in favor of legalization:



Several cautions and caveats apply, however. Firstly, although support for legalization has grown, it remains the minority position. Secondly, although there has been a long, slow-moving upward trend in favor of legalization since roughly 1992, there is no guarantee that public sentiment will continue to move in that direction: support for legalization had grown to about 30 percent in the mid 1970s before dropping significantly during the Just Say No years of the 1980s.

Still, the position no longer holds the stigma that it once did. About as many Americans now support legalizing marijuana as do de-legalizing abortion. The past three Presidents have admitted, more or less, to marijuana use. Thirteen states have some form of decriminalization on the books, while fourteen permit medical use of the drug, although it is not clear how robust those provisions are as they are superseded by federal law.

The pro-legalization position may have some generational momentum as well. According to an AARP poll conducted several years ago, while just 8 percent of Americans aged 70 or older had ever tried pot, lifetime usage rates grow to 58 percent among 45-49 year olds.

This is probably not one of those issues, however, where Washington is liable to be on the vanguard. When Barney Frank introduced a bill last year to decriminalize pot, it got only eight co-sponsors, one of whom subsequently withdrew her name. And President Obama has steered clear of any suggestion that he might move to legalize or decriminalize pot, in spite of some earlier statements on his record to the contrary.

My guess is that we'll need to see a supermajority of Americans in favor of decriminalizing pot before the federal government would dare to take action on it. If the upward trend since 1990 holds (and recall my earlier caution: it might not), then legalization would achieve 60 percent support at some point in 2022 or 2023. About then is when things might get interesting. But I'd guess we'll see other some other once-unthinkable things like legalized gay marriage first.

142 comments

STepper said...

Yes. Part of the supposed moral decline of America. (Though where we were when Coca Cola had cocaine in it is a question the wingnuts never answer.)

fred said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Matthew said...

It also seems that, generally, support for legalization goes up when Democrats are in the White House and declines when Republicans are in the White House.

Paul said...

The benefits of decriminalization of marijuana are greater than the benefits of ending gay marriage. The costs of law enforcement and the money to criminal organizations associated with marijuana could move people towards decriminalizing even if they are morally opposed to the use of drugs.

Lucas said...

in terms of the near future our eyes should be on places like Canada, Jamaica etc. They would probably make the first moves towards full legalization, one major problem for some nations is that legalizing would hurt relations with the US and violate international treaty obligations. Once the US becomes more moderate on the issue, those nations might be more willing to take bold steps.

Wa - 7th said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Opus 132 said...

the benefits of ending gay marriage.

Are there any?

Nat said...

KINDer to Bud. Nice!

Andrew said...

couldnt this post have waited until april 20th?

Kevin L. Hoover said...

Maybe now we can have a rational cannabis policy.

Up till now the Feds have been stuck in a woefully ignorant Reefer Madness mentally, the implementation of which amounts to nothing more than a price support policy for cannabis.

This incentivizes faux "clinics," armed and dangerous grow houses, criminalization of entrepreneurs, waste of law enforcement resources etc. etc.

Legalize it and let's get on with important things.

kjvd00 said...

Very interesting. Current drug policy makes no sense, and it's good to see confirmation that the public opinion is moving toward sanity on this issue. Here's a good article by a policeman who argues for decriminalization based on his career experiences:

A Police Officer's View on Drugs

Rebecca said...

The benefits of decriminalization of marijuana are greater than the benefits of ending gay marriage

I assume you mean 'allowing same-sex marriage', since it would be the comparable thing, rather than telling the 2 of 50 of US states that allow it to cut it out.

Jon said...

Legalizing marijuana and then taxing the shit out of it would do two things: (1) it would cut the price of marijuana by a lot; and (2) it would generate billions in tax revenue. Since there is no convincing evidence that the stuff is bad for you...certainly in comparison to cigarettes and alcohol, it seems like a no-brainer to me!

loner said...

One day, someday, this idiotic prohibition will come to a long overdue end.

Off-topic:

It looks like sport might provide Nate with a sweep tonight.

Pragmatus said...

Yes, not to mention the vast network of crime associated with gay marriage. Once you let that stuff in the door then a huge mafia-style organization springs up to recruit youngsters to become gay then force them into the hellhole of marriage. The streets of Massachusetts are strewn with the bodies of the innocents who resisted...

jonathan said...

I'm strongly in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. I also believe it will happen (it would be nice if it would happen in time to help pay for the great expense of current stimuli, frankly).

However, it's important to take Zogby polling on this subject with a grain of salt. I believe strongly that Zogby's own libertarian beliefs are subconsciously coloring their results.

Make a substantial house adjustment to any legalization number you see from a Zogby poll.

Nicholas Warino said...

I think if any politician seriously tried to move to legalize pot, it would unlikely to be damaging at all to his career. There would be plenty of far-right, family values types screaming on TV about it, but all that would do would be to highlight the ridiculousness of their arguments. This subject never gets talked about seriously on TV and such, so I don’t think a lot of the public is actually thinking about the issue seriously. There really isn’t a very good argument for our current policy on marijuana or any policy that resembles it.

I’m a big liberal/lefty type for the most part, but unless there’s a clear and large social harm by an activity (not merely individual harm), then the government should allow it. The government can heavily tax it (while avoiding creating a black market), and regulate its sales to be limited adults, and can even regulate its advertisement, but I think that should be the limit of the government’s role.

Sure, heavy or irresponsible use of marijuana is unhealthy, but so are a lot of things: television, videogames, food, the internet, sex, not to mention alcohol and cigarettes. As an example, I had a friend who became addicted to World of Warcraft. He lost his job and put on a couple hundred pounds. His weight is eventually going to cost the state a lot of money. Any social harms from marijuana use is pretty limited and certainly would be far from the worst thing that’s currently legal and would be more than offset by tax revenue, as well as the real amusement it provides to a lot of responsible people.

I’d also argue that marijuana as an illegal substance is MORE of a social harm than as a legal substance. We spend a lot of money on enforcing its illegality, we use up a lot of jail space, and it’s a nice revenue stream for criminals.

Our current policy on marijuana is clearly irrational and arbitrary. If we deem that marijuana is harmful enough for it to be illegal, that we should have a much bigger nanny state, and I think most people agree that such a thing is wrong. Not only is it fundamentally wrong, but it’s also ineffective.

starvingpundits.com

publius said...

But if we legalize marijuana, sales of military hardware to domestic police organizations would plummet!

We can't afford to de-militarize our cops when the economy is so fragile.

Sure, the occasional grandmother is shot by accident, and the occasional cancer victim starves to death because they can't smoke marijuana to dull the torment of acute nausea, but any right-thinking American would surely agree that these are minor prices to pay to keep us free from Demon Weed.

Dave Barnes said...

I think it is a huge mistake to assume that trend curves will remain linear.
Tipping point.
Just the thoughts of a 60-year old who smoked dope in college.

calibansfolly said...

Can't disagree with the need to reach a "super-majority" before there is political movement. Any thoughts about the difference in support amongst generations? Does your estimate of 2022 take into account the idea that the opposition is being replaced by supporters simply by a new generation replacing an older one?

MopedRacer said...

What happens to all of those locked up for petty marijuana crimes once it becomes legal?

Jack said...

Given the direction the comments have gone, Barney Frank's words on internet gambling might be appropriate.

Carol (Aquariusmoon) Duhart said...

I think that now the first pot smokers are passing sixty, the evidence is clear that all of the scare stuff about pot is just that: scare stuff. If it wasn't the long-term bad effects would be showing up in the first wave of boomer senior citizens. Not only that, but behind them are us Jonesers (born in 50's and early 60's) who smoked weed in college and did not graduate to heroin instantly on smoking pot. (That was one of the things they used to tell us, was that pot would have you infinitely craving for stronger and stronger stuff. A lot of people stuck to pot and beer).

Nor have the collateral damage from pot addiction shown up, unlike tobacco and liquor. No increase in domestic violence, no damaged livers, no increased violence from anyone other than dealer on dealer.

And with cutbacks in policing due to this economic downturn, people are beginning to question the value of locking up nonviolent pot smokers who pose no threat to anyone.

Lucas said...

one more important point i think is that how you phrase the questions affects the results.

more people would agree to "taxing and regulating like alcohol" than to "making marjuana legal" and even fewer would agree to "legalizing marjuana" . . . this is true although the 3 phrases mean essentially the same thing.

Daniel said...
This post has been removed by the author.
juvanya said...

I'd definitely vote for Undecided in such a poll because I have not been convinced either way and am sort of annoyed at both sides of the debate.

I DO support decriminalization.

The main thing that annoys me among supporters is when they say it's "harmless". It absolutely is NOT harmless. It causes cancer in the brain and lungs and other problems. That doesn't mean it needs to be banned, but supporters need to accept that it does have negative effects.

Figglet said...

here's several law enforcement officers say on it.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
http://www.leap.cc

sherifffruitfly said...

I hate x/1-x graphs. The ultimate in redundancy.

Prospero said...

I suspect the spike in anti-marijuana sentiment in the late 90's had a LOT to do with the big crack cocaine scare that, in large part, motivated the "Just Say No" Reagan programs.

I'd also say, because of this, that the fact that we haven't seen another spike in anti-marijuana sentiment due to the modern crystal meth epidemic/scare is a very positive sign for the decriminalization/legalization movement.

Prospero said...

juvanya

I've never seen any credible study linking marijuana use to brain cancer. In fact, various extracts from it have been successfully used to fight brain cancer/tumors.

But yeah, lung cancer is certainly an issue. I haven't personally ever met a legalized marijuana supporter who actively denied it had harmful effects when smoked (vs using a vaporizer, which is recommended for medicinal marijuana use because it eliminates the harmful effects that occur when you smoke, well, pretty much anything), but I can understand how you could be annoyed by the rhetoric of the pro-pot crusaders. It's often over the top and misinformed.

I just find the rhetoric of the anti-pot crusaders to be much, MUCH more misinformed and even deliberately misleading.

But I'm really not entirely sure what the proven negative effects are for vaporizer use. Some people talk about increased chances of schizophrenia, but that's been overblown as well, and has more to do with the underlying mental stability of the marijuana user than it does with direct harm derived from use.

I'd certainly say that anyone who has any sort of chronic neurotic behavior should stay away from any sort of mind-altering substance altogether. Beyond that, I just don't know enough about it.

Prospero said...

Oops, my previous comment should read "...late 80's..." not "...late 90's..."

loomisnews said...

To put your points in another context:

Marijuana Legalization More Popular than Key Conservative Leaders


See their chart for a visual

And to Matthew:
support for legalization goes up when Democrats are in the White House and declines when Republicans are in the White House.

Logic would have it reversed, IMHO -- when there's a Republican in the WH, we definitely have far more need for legalized pot

Alpha.dk said...

@juvanya:
Can you provide a (credible) source linking marijuana use with brain cancer with a positive correlation? The only studies I've heard about are the ones Prospero is talking about where a feed of THC shrunk brain tumors; I can't recall hearing about a study that showed a correlation between marijuana use and brain tumors.

Paul said...

Sorry I meant "legalizing same sex unions" not "outlawing gay marriage". I am for equal rights for all partners, but there isn't broad economic and criminal impact resulting from current marriage law. There are many pragmatic reasons supporting the legalization of pot, while same sex unions is a matter of justice.

Statler N Waldorf said...
This post has been removed by the author.
AML said...

I still remain on the other side of the issue. I saw enough pot use in college to say that it can be both harmful and beneficial, depending on the person. I wouldn't want to see it legalized, but I would definitely be in favor of eliminating some of the insane penalties (including jail time) that some states impose for first-time offenders. That said, driving while stoned, just like driving drunk, should be mandatory jail time.

Ryan said...

Removing the ban on marijuana is one issue, but what about other harder drugs, like hallucinogens, amphetamines, or one of the many types of anxiolytics (anti-anxiety drugs)?

Mixing atenolol, Verapamil, and alcohol can easily be lethal from slowing respiration too far. Crushing Xanax and trying to shoot it up a vein will badly injure your veins, Xanax is not soluble in water and insoluble materials are very bad to have in your blood stream. Going through Benzodiazepine withdrawal is not by any means a walk in the park either. Especially if one has developed tolerance or immunity to the benzodiazepine in question and can only partially funtion at all with the drug and are unable to function at all without it. Try kicking a habit like that. Do you expect your health insurance to pay for inpatient drug treatment it didn't need to pay for? It would have been your choice after all.

Hallucinogens and other drugs can cause serious long term brain damage, have you heard any recent audio Tommy Chong interviews? Then there are methamphetamines, will they be produced in warehouse without any safety controls and using Lithium instead of Sodium. Who wants a nearly fatal Lithium overdose (doesn't take much Lithium), inconsistent batch strengths, or the popular amphetamine psychosis? I'm sure that amphetamine psychosis is real fun for the subject, and even more so for any hallucinations (people) he shoots with his legally carried concealed firearm?

Legalizing drugs to me almost sounds like a campaign to deregulate automobile standards, except it involves no safety equipment, no emissions controls, and no rules regulating much of anything. Who would want to drive on highways with abrupt changes from freeway to residential street, semis had unsecured loads, no railroad crossing gates and other motorists in potentially automatically piloted, but not controllable vehicles running along at 200mph?

If drug legalization is to work we need a tested framework for it. How ever it is to work, it must address the issues that have come up in other drug legalization programs around the world. It must also must be tested in small areas, in the US, to see how different programs perform. You can't expect all drug laws to go out the window without any explanation on how drugs will work after that.

To me it sounds too much like: if we eliminated drug laws, then a utopia will form, we don't know what kind, but it will be better. Hoping for the best, but having no further plans, is not how any functional society works.

Lucas said...

bottom line is not the fact that MJ is harmless, its the fact that the illegality of MJ causes more harm than the substance itself. A random example is that almost half of drug related violence in Mexico is related to marijuana.

Legalizing MJ would reduce illegal profits and thus reduce the incentive for unnecessary violence. Thats exactly what happened to crack cocaine. The reason its not in the news anymore has more to do with reduction in crack cocaine related violence than with reduction of use itself.

Justifying a war on MJ that leads to violence, incarceration, and economic costs just because it might make a few middle class american teenagers a bit lazy, and cause minor side effects is a poor argument

Wouter said...

Could you make the same graph for gay-marriage support?

markymark said...

I would caution against legalization of marajuana. There are many reasons, but foremost in my mind is the neurological damage it can do to those under around 15 (there are a lot of studies into this worth looking).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081014111156.htm

Also it is true that the strength of marijuana is increasing as well.

All that being said, I would support moves to legalise its use for medical purposes.

[Takes stick out of butt!]

RufusRules said...

Well, here's a view from southern California (and obviously we're a bit liberal on these kinds of things):

I'm a cyclist who rides in urban areas early on weekday mornings and midday on weekends. At traffic intersections and along the road, I encounter folks in cars smoking weed (it's hard to miss). When I walk out into the pedestrian plaza outside my office on weekdays, folks are smoking weed. At my local pub, people light up joints (cigarettes not allowed). And I live in a pretty conservative part of southern California. So if weed appears to have become a such non-issue here, I can only hope that old saw "as California goes,







so goes the nation" holds true.

RufusRules said...

and apparently my comment decided to take a giant bong hit before the parting shot...

markymark said...

Ohhh I would further add to my comments, I don't quite now what the penalties for Marijuana use are, but I would make them as minor as possible.

Tony C. said...

Congress and the Senate pretty much have generational delays built in. The average age in the Senate is like 66 or so; while the average age in the country is in the 40's somewhere. Most people form their adult cultural outlook from 16-22, so our congressional leaders are from 1959, while the average voter is from 1979.

This disparity is one of wealth, experience and gravitas; which tend to favor the previous generation in elections. People are more likely to elect someone that looks like their father than someone that looks like their college roommate.

When the people that were 16 in 1979 are all in charge, circa 2029, then you will see an average of 1979 cultural values turned into law.

Currently, Congressional sentiment reflects the views of people that formed their adult cultural outlook between 1959 and 1965. This is barely into the realm of civil rights for blacks.

Of course those attitudes aren't photocopied from 1965, they are usually smart enough to spout the politically correct lingo (with some exceptions). But when push comes to shove, remember when and where they were raised.

Randy Cox said...

I wonder how much support there would be for keeping tobacco smoking legal or alcohol. I bet if the question were "Should tobacco smoking (or alcohol sales) remain legal?" there would be a significant number of people ready for prohibition. Probably greater than 40%. In other words, my guess is that marijuana has at least as much support as those other vices. Anyone done a survey along those lines, so we can compare apples to apples (or at least giraffes)?

lojasmo said...

@ juyavana: There is NO credible evidence that marijuana causes cancer. In fact, Pot has a protective benefit from Cancer in several studies.

Tom Angell said...

Find out why more and more cops, judges, and prosecutors who have fought on the front lines of the "war on drugs" are standing up and saying we need to legalize and regulate all drugs to solve our economic, crime, and public health problems: http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com

harold said...

Ryan -

You have been severely misinformed on a number of issues, and advance a large number of irrelevant arguments.

The discussion here is about cannabis/THC.

The question is not whether cannabis is harmless (which I don't think it is), or beneficial (as it can be in some circumstances), but how it should be regulated

Removing the ban on marijuana is one issue, but what about other harder drugs, like hallucinogens, amphetamines, or one of the many types of anxiolytics (anti-anxiety drugs)?

There is no logical connection.

There is no reason why we cannot legalize or decriminalize cannabis/THC, without changing the regulation of other substances.

Ethanol and tobacco are already individually legal, as are the benzodiazepines that you oddly seem to think are illegal (they are, of course, strongly regulated). Benzodiazepines have many legitimate medical uses, not just for psychological anxiety and agitation, which is itself a legitimate medical use. But that's not the point here.

Mixing atenolol, Verapamil, and alcohol can easily be lethal from slowing respiration too far.

Although this is totally irrelevant to the discussion, and although mixing ethanol with benzodiazepines is a terrible idea, I must point out that this is misleading. Benzodiazepines have a very, very high lethal dosage, even when ethanol is on board. Like many ill-informed lay people, you confuse benzodiazepines with barbiturates.

Crushing Xanax and trying to shoot it up a vein will badly injure your veins, Xanax is not soluble in water and insoluble materials are very bad to have in your blood stream. Going through Benzodiazepine withdrawal is not by any means a walk in the park either. Especially if one has developed tolerance or immunity to the benzodiazepine in question and can only partially funtion at all with the drug and are unable to function at all without it. Try kicking a habit like that.

All of this is utterly and obviously irrelevant.

Why did you even include this? I'll be charitable and assume that it's intended to draw attention to the effects of abusing any psychoactive drug. You could have easily used ethanol as an example.

Misuse of benzodiazepines is an important problem, but this thread is about cannabis/THC legalization/decriminalization.

Do you expect your health insurance to pay for inpatient drug treatment it didn't need to pay for? It would have been your choice after all.

Again, this is NOT the topic.

But YES, the evidence is overwhelming that it is cheaper and more effective for everyone if substance abuse is TREATED rather than punished with incarceration.

Some make a "moral hazard" argument here, which I don't accept, but at any rate, YES, I support treatment.

Hallucinogens and other drugs can cause serious long term brain damage, have you heard any recent audio Tommy Chong interviews?

This is simply not true, and any honest person can review the extensive literature and see that it is not true. (There is a considerable body of literature on MDMA, usually classed as a hallucinogen, and the brain, but there is little epidemiologic evidence that even MDMA users have behavioral or social problems in the long run.

Tommy Chong is an irrelevant anecdote, but actually, his example works strongly against your argument anyway. He's a healthy, active, and productive 70 year old, despite decades of heavy cannabis use.

Anyway, the issue here is not whether cannabis causes brain damage (although again, if it does, it must be quite mild, late-onset, and related only to heavy doses). The issue here is how cannabis should be regulated.

Ethanol can cause brain damage when very severely abused. Cigarettes increase the risk for strokes. Both are more associated with brain damage than cannabis.

Then there are methamphetamines, will they be produced in warehouse without any safety controls and using Lithium instead of Sodium. Who wants a nearly fatal Lithium overdose (doesn't take much Lithium), inconsistent batch strengths, or the popular amphetamine psychosis? I'm sure that amphetamine psychosis is real fun for the subject, and even more so for any hallucinations (people) he shoots with his legally carried concealed firearm?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Legalizing drugs

No-one is talking about legalizing "drugs".

seems to me almost sounds like a campaign to deregulate automobile standards, except it involves no safety equipment, no emissions controls, and no rules regulating much of anything.

This is a direct misrepresentation of the tone and content of the posts above; it has already been stated that cannabis should be regulated and restricted to adults, etc.

Who would want to drive on highways with abrupt changes from freeway to residential street, semis had unsecured loads, no railroad crossing gates and other motorists in potentially automatically piloted, but not controllable vehicles running along at 200mph?

Utterly, totally, idiotically irrelevant.

If drug legalization is to work we need a tested framework for it. How ever it is to work, it must address the issues that have come up in other drug legalization programs around the world.

Although this is an attempt by you to erect a "catch-22", cannabis is already decriminalized or legal in many parts of the developed world, and in fact, the US.

It must also must be tested in small areas, in the US, to see how different programs perform. You can't expect all drug laws to go out the window without any explanation on how drugs will work after that.

No-one has remotely suggested anything resembling "all drug laws out the window".

To me it sounds too much like: if we eliminated drug laws, then a utopia will form, we don't know what kind, but it will be better.

Bull, no-one said anything that sounded remotely like that.

Hoping for the best, but having no further plans, is not how any functional society works.

True. This is not remotely an argument against changing cannabis regulation.

jopa123 said...

Being in the survey business, I like seeing that data is substantiated across several polls.

This reduces the implication that any one poll is slanted by any particular interest group.

Nice article.

NBRI

Tony C. said...

@Harold:

Hurrah for Harold! Unfortunately you argue against an ideologue intent on conflating the use of marijuana with harder drug use, despite any proof or statistics to the contrary.

My drug use is limited to Advil, but looked at scientifically I see less harm in cannabis than in alcohol or tobacco. All addictive substances exploit the same brain structures, and if any drug is a gateway drug they pretty much all are.

WriterWriter said...

People need badly to educate themselves about pot, why it is illegal in the US and Canada, who benefits from it being illegal and what it's actually all about.

Imagine if you're big pharma and this little weed is a cure for the biggies? Legalisation would kill your business. If you're a police department and TONS of your funding comes from "fighting pot"? Your department would fold... If you're a private prison and 80% of your population is there for a joint? Yeah, say goodbye to your jobs....

Go find
THE UNION; THE BUSINESS BEHIND GETTING HIGH.

IN POT WE TRUST

Woody Harelson's GRASS.

EDUCATE YOURSELVES. YOU'RE BEING LIED TO ON A 5-TIMES DAILY BASIS.

markymark said...

Tony C said
My drug use is limited to Advil, but looked at scientifically I see less harm in cannabis than in alcohol or tobacco. All addictive substances exploit the same brain structures, and if any drug is a gateway drug they pretty much all are.
----------------------------

I am not a believer in the 'gateway' drug argument. But at the same time, as I have earlier suggested, there are some very severe problems caused with using cannabis under about the age of 15. I think the message that some give, that there is little damage caused by cannabis is just flat out wrong. (Though I would add that the medical effects of alcohol and tobacco should never be underplayed either.)

My problem isn't that individual will move on from cannabis use to other harder drugs, more that the state will, and will continue to liberalise drug laws betond what is sensible.

(I ought to point out that I live in the UK were cannabis was decriminalised a few years back, and there is a growing movement to reclassify it again, back to be criminalised. As I said basically my view is that cannabis should be illegal but with relatively minor penalties, but legalised for medical use.)

mhz said...

Inhaling any kind of smoke is going to be unhealthy to some extent-

If pot were as addictive as alcohol, coffee, or tobacco it would be legal. It is way too easy for companies to make loads of money off of addictive low-grade drugs for them to pass up the opportunity.

Having seen personal relationships suffer because of excessive pot use I hope that legalization does not increased overuse.

xshare said...

@markymark: Decriminalization like in the UK is a bad model to follow. All that does is take away individual penalties without regulating the drug and moving it from the crime realm to the corporate/government realm. All the bad effects, none of the policing. With a well-regulated drug policy, marijuana would be treated much like alcohol. You would have to be 18 (or 21) to buy or possess weed. Think about it more like the legalization of alcohol from prohibition. Taking the distribution out of the hands of Al Capone and giving it to Budweiser and Coors.

harold said...

Tony C -

Thank you. I agree that you are probably right about that poster, but it never hurts.

Markymark -

I am not a believer in the 'gateway' drug argument.

As you should not be. First of all, the data "supporting" that argument consists of demonstrations that people who are already using hard drugs have also used marijuana. Of course, it would be remarkable and astounding in users of hard drugs had NOT used common mild drugs, so this is not evidence of a "gateway" effect at all.

The vast majority of cannabis users do not become addicted to hard drugs.

Is social drinking a "gateway" to hard core alcoholism?

But at the same time, as I have earlier suggested, there are some very severe problems caused with using cannabis under about the age of 15.

Well, that's a reasonable thought. I wish you had provided a link to a study, as I don't know of one in that age group.

At any rate, ethanol and tobacco are illegal for children, and no-one has proposed making cannabis/THC legal for children. Of course it should always be legal only for adults.

I think the message that some give, that there is little damage caused by cannabis is just flat out wrong. (Though I would add that the medical effects of alcohol and tobacco should never be underplayed either.)

Actually, the message is not "flat out wrong", but an oversimplification.

There is some weak (but unsurprising) evidence from New Zealand that heavy marijuana smoking may be a risk factor for lung cancer. More work is needed.

However, I think it is fair to say that, after decades of cannabis use being common in all Anglophone societies, very little definitive cannabis-related pathology has been observed. A major caveat is that the first generation among whom use was widespread is just now becoming elderly.

Personally, I think it's foolish to try to ban everything that is potentially bad for health.

My problem isn't that individual will move on from cannabis use to other harder drugs, more that the state will, and will continue to liberalise drug laws betond what is sensible.

Again, I completely fail to see the logic in this argument.

All drugs are regulated individually.

Very few people support legalizing cocaine, except for philosophical reasons, and almost everyone recognizes that cocaine is a very harmful drug. Yet many people support legalizing cannabis, because of the common observation that, although it may be mildly harmful, it isn't very socially disruptive and the harmfulness appears to be limited in most cases.

(I ought to point out that I live in the UK were cannabis was decriminalised a few years back, and there is a growing movement to reclassify it again, back to be criminalised.

There will always, always, always be those who favor obsessive and brutal anti-cannabis laws. There are also people who want to re-introduce ethanol prohibition, and there are people who want to make caffeine illegal.

As I said basically my view is that cannabis should be illegal but with relatively minor penalties, but legalised for medical use.)

That's a very reasonable view. I think that if we added "legalize it" to "keep it illegal but basically ignore it and don't punish it", we'd see a super-majority of the US population.

The reason I take a somewhat different view is that I don't see the point of having seldom-enforced laws with trivial legal consequences on the books at all.

I'm not talking about laws against things that impact on others, like littering or even jay-walking, which need to be on the books because some few may indulge in those activities to the extent that others are harmed. But why bother with a law against something like using cannabis privately?

markymark said...

harold
I posted one report about the affect of marijuana use on the teenage brain, here is another
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9488-why-teenagers-should-steer-clear-of-cannabis.html

Xshare
I worry about the effects of large 'corporations' taking control of the cannabis trade. I wonder if what would happen is essentially the legalisation of the erm undesirable types who currently run the cannabis trade?

mhz,
at least in the UK, underage drinking is a pretty big problem. I don't know the situation at the moment in the US, but I thnk at least in the UK, an increasingly libveral stance on cannabis usage has and will lead to a ballooning of 'underage' drug use.

Tony C. said...

@Harold:

I don't see the point of having seldom-enforced laws with trivial legal consequences on the books at all.

There is a basic principled argument against non-uniformity in enforcement; whether the penalties are trivial or not: Giving law enforcement (either the police or D.A.) a choice of enforcement leads to oppression of the poorer classes in society.

What might be intended to provide law enforcement with the ability to use common-sense discretion actually gives them the ability to discriminate, usually in favor of the rich, influential, other officers or members of the community they regard as on their side.

It is the desperate poor that commit the majority of common crime (i.e. non-white-collar crime) and that puts them firmly on the "other side", and thus law enforcement discretion enforces laws against them that get enforced very lightly against the middle and upper class. Discretion leads to discrimination and oppression, and if the poor are disproportionately of one race or religion, this quickly morphs into racist or bigoted discrimination and oppression.

I wish when we passed a law we had to fund uniform enforcement of it as well, that would produce fewer laws, but would also produce fewer crimes and a simpler law enforcement structure, by simply removing choices from law enforcement. Discretion should be left for trained judges and juries, not line officers and D.A.s that don't want to sully their record of successful prosecutions.

harold said...

I just realized I gave Ryan too much credit.

It didn't even initially register that he uses atenolol and verapamil as examples of drugs of abuse.

Those are mainly cardiology drugs. Neither has relevant abuse potential. Of course they're both dangerous; almost all cardiology drugs are by definition dangerous - they must have a strong effect on the cardiovascular system, or they wouldn't be cardiology drugs.

Atenolol is a beta blocker; some beta blockers have been used for cheating in competitive target shooting (where preventing a racing heart can be a competitive advantage); I'm not sure if atenolol has been used this way. Verapamil has a minor psychiatric use.

Again, both are potentially dangerous drugs but neither is associated with euphoria, restricted, or considered a drug of abuse.

Len Rubin said...

*Sigh* This site has definitely jumped the shark since Election Day. Removing it from my bookmarks now...I'll be back in 2010.

harold said...

Markymark -

Thanks for the link; obviously, as I noted above, everyone here strongly agrees with you that cannabis should be illegal except for adults. No-one supports allowing it for children (a category which includes teenagers). I also very strongly oppose tobacco, ethanol, and full strength caffeinated beverages for children, and I oppose allowing children to drive, use firearms unsupervised, gamble in casinos, etc, etc, etc.

For clarity, though, I'll note that this was an animal study in rats.

Lay people can be confused because there are numerous different types of scientific studies, including but not limited to -

1) "Test tube" studies, which may, for example, note that product X contains or can be associated with the formation of compound Y. These are valuable starting points, but often misleading, and unfortunately, the lay press tends to exaggerate their conclusions.

2) Animal studies, in which animal models are used. These are very important and often very strong, since other mammals are similar in many ways to humans, and mice and rats are very well characterized. They also allow one to do things like, in this case, administer marijuana to developing individuals, which could not be done, obviously, to humans.

3) Epidemiologic studies, in which outcomes can be studied in actual human populations. Although these studies are observational, they are often the most powerful by far when it comes to actually determining the health impact of human behaviors. For example, the health impacts of smoking, hypercholesterolemia, hypertesion, omega-3 fatty acid intake, moderate ethanol intake, tea intake, etc, were discovered this way.

This clarification should not be misconstrued as disagreement with your point, as I very strongly agree with you that children must not use cannabis products for intoxication.

John M. said...

A couple of numbers worth thinking about in this debate:

Regarding addiction: in the last study I saw, marijuana had an addiction rate of 9%. Alcohol had an addiction rate of 15%. I don't recall the number for tobacco, but it was astronomical.

Regarding marijuana being bad for teenagers: 50% of high school students recently reported easy access to marijuana. 49% of high school students recently reported easy access to alcohol. Prohibition ain't working, folks.

Several hundred people overdose every year on alcohol. To my knowledge, nobody has ever been recorded as having died from a marijuana overdose.

***

I have never seen a good argument that marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol. Personally I'd like to see marijuana legalized and usage of harder drugs punished by rehab for a first offense.

Josh said...

Unfortunately I agree that it will probably not be until the 2020s (or later) that marijuana is finally legalized in America. Although I do have some hope that this economic crisis may knock some sense into people. I think the argument is quite strong that legalizing marijuana would significantly help the economy.

dave said...

juvanya ... cannabis use doesn't cause brain cancer. Where on earth did you hear that? Actually, cannabis *cures* several different kinds of cancer; it also spurs your brain to create new neurons (brain cells).

Read tinyurl.com/gov74 because Uncle Sam ran tests to find out exactly what cannabis did and then tried to destroy the results after they showed the exact opposite of what they were trying to prove.

Reefer Jello said...

I have smoked weed since 1959. During all those years I was employed and paid taxes. I have always remained a responsible citizen. I have always thumbed my nose at pot laws. I'm too old to smoke much these days but I still enjoy a Saturday night toke, now and then. It has gotten much harder for me to get quality product these days. All my suppliers have died from old age. The laws against weed are what shows us that we are still living in the Dark Ages. Don't look for any change in the near future but please continue to smoke as much GOOD weed as you can. It is good for your mind and your soul.

zelduh said...

Frankly, I think the chart demonstrates that as the older generations die off, the younger generation's opinion is to legalize pot. I am in my late 50s. I think that as the people 20 years older than me start to die off over time, the polls will show ever higher support for pot legalization.

We all know that pot is not nearly as harmful as alcohol, even though studies have tried to uncover something negative about it since the 1960s. (I have an extremely rare allergy to it and cannot enjoy it. I am also allergic to cinnamon, nutmeg, and a few other totally legal, natural substances...)

I agree that pot should be legalized, regulated and taxed. (The US could really use the money right now.) I think it is a shame that some members of the prison population are there simply for pot. What a waste of government resources!

GD said...

Hey Nate I think a serious demographic study of imprisoned drug offenders would be very insightful. The numbers in for pot vs. cocaine, meth etc. The severity of the punishment for 1,2,3 ounces of pot vs. kilos / truckloads, any correlations with violent crime etc. A quantitative estimate of how much it costs to imprison all these guys, how much governments seize in the way of cash, property etc. Love your site.

WriterWriter said...

Pot is NOT addictive. It MAY be habit forming but no one who ceases use will have withdrawal - not even the withdrawal that one would have giving up coffee.

Pot is NOT a gateway drug.

Pot is the cure for some diseases and an excellent management drug for many, many others.

Drunk people drink and drive and fight and basically cause a ton of problems. Stoned people eat and chill.

There is not one single reported death due to pot. There are millions recorded due to alcohol and coffee and over the counter 'cold' medications and prescription drugs.

Go get a video copy of
THE UNION; THE BUSINESS BEHIND GETTING HIGH

or

IN POT WE TRUST

or

GRASS

WriterWriter said...

@juvanya
Pot categorically does NOT cause brain cancer and there are no reliable studies that show it causes lung ailments or cancer. On the issue of lung damage, the study often cited was one where the animals used were deprived of oxygen until their brains fell apart. It was NOT the pot in the study that caused the damage, it was the oxygen deprivation.

SERIOUSLY People, you all need to bone up on this subject.

Stop spouting what you think you've heard and start reading up. Read the studies, watch the documentaries. EDUCATE yourselves. You're being lIED TO.

senorelfuego said...

The legalization of marijuana would end this recession, cut down on small crime, and doom the cigarette companies. The only reason marijuana is not legalized is not because of the unknown long term effects but because of the cigarette lobbyists in Washington. Once marijuana is legalized I would not be surprised if the amount of cigarettes sold decreased significantly. I know if I were able to go to the gas station and buy a pack of 20 pre-rolled joints for 10 bucks I would rather smoke those than cigarettes and I know plenty more people that feel the same way.

Evans said...

Not only would legalizing marijuana end a decades old racist law (watch a history channel special, or just wikipedia the history preceding the 1970 drug law), end irresponsible spending pursuing MJ "criminals", end the costs of putting non-violent offenders in jail (which we do at twice the rate of any other civilized nation), AND create tax revenue.

Oh, and did I forget to mention that the original law explicitly states a factual untruth recognized by 14 states, that MJ has "no medicinal purpose". Turns out we have concrete evidence to the contrary and, perhaps surprisingly to kids like me who were indoctrinated by D.A.R.E. to lie, little evidence that it is any worse for you than (or even as bad as) smoking cigarettes. And it isn't addictive!

Johnnemann said...

And, cue California:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/23/BAO416354C.DTL&tsp=1

(A bill was just introduced by Tom Ammiano to legalize marijuana in California).

GROG said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Mike in Maryland said...

On a fairly regular basis, the History Channel runs a series titled "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way" (unfortunately, the History Channel schedule doesn't show it running in the next two weeks as of this date).

One of the things I remember from previous viewings is that the original strongest support for making marijuana illegal came in the American Southwest (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona especially), when the populace sought to make examples of the 'lazy, shiftless Mexicans' who used marijuana, and who incidentally 'stole, raped, and committed mayhem' 'because of marijuana use'.

In other words, it was an attempt to round up the 'suspects' (Mexicans) to ship them back over the border from where they came - one of the first vestiges of the anti-Latino/a immigrant wars some are trying to fight now in the first decade of the 21st century.

The program is quite an eye opener as to the how and why of the present-day laws on marijuana.

ronnie said...

how do the polls look in California -- since that might actually matter soon:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/California_lawmaker_introduces_pot_legalization_bill_0223.html

RufusRules said...

Ammiano's probably going to have a hard time getting any political traction with that bill, but it does reinforce my earlier comment that weed is becoming de facto legal in California. Medical marijuana is booming and the local cops could care less if you're hanging out on the beach smoking a doobie on Saturday afternoon. The authorities seem to take notice only when huge quantities are involved, i.e., the power company calls them because someone is growing 5000 plants in their basement, or someone gets pulled over for speeding with 100 pounds in the trunk. That and DEA raids on medical marijuana vendors (which the Obama administration is apparently considering stopping, according to a recent Al Giordano blog post that I'm too lazy to link to right now). Really, I wouldn't be surprised if weed is legalized before gay marriage, just because weed doesn't light the same fire under the religious fundies as does the gay marriage issue.

RS Davis said...

http://freedomphiles.blogspot.com/2009/02/just-say-yes.html

Paolo said...

I guess this means there's a change in the air.

http://www.rooftopcomedy.com/watch/ChangeIsInTheAir

blake said...

An interesting treatment of the issue at the national level.

I wonder if you have any thought on when individual state attempts (see Ammiano's recent proposal in CA) at legalization will gain some traction.

Blame said...

Hate to say it but MJ IS a gateway drug. At a guess it is responcible for the death of tens of thousands.

No, not hard drugs. The problem is tobaco. MJ is simply non-adictive but sadly it is usualy spiked with tobaco, and then passed around. The victim eventualy drifts away from MJ (it just takes up too much time), but the tobaco adiction remains.

This is a good argument for full legalisation and control. It should be sold as pre-prepared joints with no adictive adulterants.

OzoneTom said...

The private sector prison industry will fight any decriminalization effort since they get paid a fortune to supervise a lot of low-maintenance prisoners thanks to this prohibition.

However I am hoping that budget shortfalls will make repeal more appealing as a means to cut spending on prisons and as a source of tax revenue.

Good things could come out of these tough times.

Mike in Maryland said...

Blame said...
Hate to say it but MJ IS a gateway drug.

And next you're going to say that masturbation is a gateway to child molestation. After all, how many child molesters have NEVER jacked off? Ergo, masturbation is the gateway to child molestation.

Mike in Maryland said...

OzoneTom said...
The private sector prison industry will fight any decriminalization effort since they get paid a fortune to supervise a lot of low-maintenance prisoners thanks to this prohibition.

The recent court ruling in California on prison overcrowding, and requiring the release of 10s of thousands of those prisoners, might be one way to eventually break the back of the private sector prison industry.

See also:
http://www.examiner.com/x-4106-California-Statehouse-Examiner~y2009m2d23-California-tax-A-buck-a-joint

Kris said...

In the "last study I've seen" parents who don't intervene when their kids under fifteen are smoking weed are not very good parents.

But I think that is the point -- it is not the not the harm or crime issues, it's people feeling that if it were legal, middle schoolers would smoke weed. Which of course they do now... fairly circular really. And but paste a link to those "neurological studies," please. A lot of brain scan-based "research" can be fairly characterized as junk science.

V Montanus said...

A fascinating well-informed thread! However I can't believe no one has touched on the root cause of why marijuana is illegal and alcohol is not. The state of mind created by marijuana intoxication leads to anti-authoritarian thought patterns; the state of mind due to alcohol intoxication, although less inhibited, is NOT biased toward anti-authoritarian thoughts.

Alcohol intoxication is generally conducive to a herd mentality, if not outright favoring of authority. Large groups of people demonstrating fanatical support of a sports franchise for no particularly rational reason is quite often associated with alcohol intoxication. Historically the decision to enlist in the military is often reached after a night of drinking. If one is interested in rounding up a lynch mob, the best place to start is a drinking establishment. I concede that alcohol abuse often leads to anti-social behavior, but I hope most will agree that is only tangentially related to an anti-authoritarian mindset.

Marijuana on the other hand often knocks the stream of conscious out of well-established patterns. This of course can lead to questioning authority. It is not an historical accident that Marijuana is a counter-culture drug.

So it should not be surprising that the authorities would be less likely to support legalization of marijuana and more likely to support legal alcohol. Authorities in general prefer not to be questioned.

PublicServiceMessage said...

These polls should not consider those over 50-60, who have been brain-washed by the false reports on marijuana. In the 1920-30's, CA, TX, NM and AZ complained to the gov't about the mexican nationals. After the NFA in 1937, the wording for tommygun stamps(tax) was used for marijuana tax stamps, thus creating the marijuana tax act and illegalization. To keep the mexicans out of CA, AZ, NM and TX. Alcohol is more dangerous - everyone should really be educated properly. Don't drink and drive - Don't smoke and drive. Don't smoke in public, family venues etc. Rules ok, but lies to keep it illegal, that's wrong. More than just two presidents have smoked, it's not just for the unemployed or those with their name on their shirt, it's an alternate to alcohol, with less lethal affects/results. Counter-culture drug? Some don't want to be alcoholics.

PublicServiceMessage said...

PS. I am self employed and have held management positions in fortune 100/500 companies. I have earned over $100,000 yr and am over 40. I am not a drug-dealer either. Gateway drug ... Alcohol is the gateway, cigarettes are the gateway - parents, brothers, sisters, friends, fostercare, orphans, music, tv, movies, internet, stress - anything can be blamed. Marijuana is nothing like cocaine, heroine, PCP or Acid and should not be compared or clasified with them.

PJ said...

One of my biggest disappoints with our flower power generation is that we still don't have a logical drug policy on the federal level. We still lie to school children, just as they lied to us, a recipe for failure we keep repeating.

Adding another 'sin tax' for the government to profit from our vices would not affect the many who would just grow their own.

Blame said...

" Mike in Maryland said...

Blame said...
Hate to say it but MJ IS a gateway drug.

And next you're going to say that masturbation is a gateway to child molestation. After all, how many child molesters have NEVER jacked off? Ergo, masturbation is the gateway to child molestation."

Mike. Did you even bother to read my whole post? It wasn't very long.

I argued that MJ was mixed with tobaco in joints. Your counter argument is silly, unless you are asuming that masturbation is mixed with child molestation.

Masturbation with children present? Can't say I have tried it myself. How about you?

John said...

Blame, the point Mike was making was that you were misapplying the term "gateway drug" in that sentence. A gateway drug is any drug that leads people to try progressively harder drugs. Marijuana, alone, is not a gateway drug, because it doesn't lead people to try anything in particular. Your example, marijuana mixed with tobacco, is also not a gateway drug, because the marijuana isn't what's causing the increased later drug use: it's the tobacco, and more specifically the nicotine.

To change his example, it's like saying that beer is a gateway drug for whiskey because you know people who had a shot and a beer one day, and now they're drinking a fifth of whiskey a night. Beer is clearly not a gateway drug, because there are myriad examples of people drinking beer without ever moving on to something harder than beer, but that's roughly the comparison you're attempting to make.

Rhayader said...

@John: I think "Blame" was being sarcastic about the gateway thing. He/she was just facetiously pointing out the fallacy of the gateway argument rather than stating it bluntly, as you did.

@Blame: I don't put tobacco in my joints. Screw that Euro crap, we smoke our sticky straight-up.

Rhayader said...

OK now that I go read Blame's original post, it appears that he/she was not being sarcastic. My bad, John.

@Blame: I don't think the amount of tobacco in joints and the frequency with which joints are smoked would be enough to lead to a nicotine addiction. Many people even smoke straight-up cigarettes occasionally without ever becoming dependent nicotine users.

Beyond that, the idea of a "gateway" drug does not imply the formation of addiction to a substance already being used. It implies the escalation from a given substance to a more intense, "harder" one. It has little to do with addiction.

blankstate said...

I have to say that I am a staunch republican and I always vote republican. But I think that if there is anything anything stupid that the republicans have done, it is drug reform. We need to legalize it. Marijuana is about as potent and addictive as cough medicine. It should have never been illegal to begin with. If it is legal it will no longer be the gateway drug. There will be no crime associated with it except tax fraud. If the government legalizes it, they can tax it, and still cut the street price in half. If Obama does anything in his presidency worth anything it will be the legalization on a federal level of a plant which is far less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. People that have smoked more than 10 times know exactly how powerful this drug is. Not very. But it is very relaxing. It relieves all kinds of pain. It help for ADHD (I can personally attest to that). It helps people with mood disorders. It can very easily be used responsibly. More people will use it, but that is not such a bad thing. We need to start emailing our senators about this. This will bail our economy out.

africaunite said...

nice chart... hopefully by 2023 it will be at LEAST 60%.... this chart is perfect evidence that as the old, ignorant "reeefer maddness" people die out, the truth is starting to rise.

as sad as it will be to see my grandmothers generation die out, the "reefer maddness" fallacy will go with her.

GOD BLESS!

Evans said...

Any polls coming on this subject?

BureauCat said...

Marijuana has a long and colorful history in the USA before 1960. It was produced mostly within a few miles of where it was smoked, and you might well know your grower, like asking a neighbor for some of his extra zucchini. Note that the government encouraged a lot of Midwestern farmers to plant hemp for WW2, and it became a weed alongside fields, ditches, and creeks right up until the time when farmers were told to eradicate it or else. It was largely a special interest, like a hobby, or perhaps a paying hobby. It took less organization and investment than moonshining. What happened in the Sixties was that it became popular on campuses, and people like J. Edgar Hoover exploited parental fears to justify a law-and-order regime. Meanwhile, as consumption moved into urban and campus settings, and farmers were threatened into eradicating the odd patch of feral hemp, the haphazard distribution methods would no longer do. That's when marijuana distribution became a big, sophisticated, and violent business; and I believe that the "hard drugs" piggybacked onto the newly-created marijuana distribution channels. We might not have so much trouble with cocaine etc. if the government had simply continued to ignore marijuana; but now that genie is out of the bottle forever.

Doug said...

I would be for the legalization of pot IF it remains a controlled substance in regards to where it can be used. The problem with pot is that when you use it, so do your neighbours (especially if you live in an apartment building). Nobody likes second hand cigarette smoke, but one does not get high off of it, either.

And for those who scoff at this argument - you've obviously never lived near a pothead.

WriterWriter said...

@Doug: it's pretty hard to get a high off second hand smoke so even if everyone in a building was smoking all the time, you'd be ok.

As for regulating it, of course it would be regulated, just like alcohol, which kills over 400,000 people a year in the US alone, or cigarettes, which also kill hundreds of thousands and damages the health of hundreds of thousands more.

As for living with a pothead, that's a choice. Move out.

WriterWriter said...

THE UNION: THE BUSINESS BEHIND GETTING HIGH.

Will be released to video in April in Canada and I hope also in the US. Has been released to video in the UK.

It is available on line, but please pay per use, OK?

BIGBEN said...

Its all a bunch of garbage. Weed, Alcohol, Narcotics, Cigs.. Its for the weak. Whatever happened to the natural aleviation u feel at times..? Like after u masturbate, or have sex with whatever you have sex with.I just have a problem with these idiots who smoke pot around kids and think there is not a problem with that. or these girls who smoke pot and cigs during pregnancy. I just think legalizing this crap will make people think its ok to smoke it anywhere.. I dont care what antone sais, it makes u stupid and looking like an idiot, why bother?

Jeff said...

i think the worst stale argument we've been hearing is wahhh, society cannot have ONE more legal substance with which to alter their state of mind. just because some stupid/greedy people in the 30s convinced the masses of lemmings that alcohol, tobacco, and whatever invention big farma comes up with are the only ones that will fly in society...and we should do as we are told.

well bullshit, the marijuana movement isn't gonna take it RIGHT NOW in the present. we don't need some supermajority to get this policy changed nationally...especially since the marijuana movement is no doubt moving towards supermajority status among rational right minded citizens across earth.

we need to keep conveying to our dear leader senor Obama....that cannabis and hemp policy need to change right now...and it will be for the betterment of our society.

legalizing marijuana = less alcohol consumption, less tobacco consumption, and less popping of pills = many lives & dollars SAVED

legalizing cannabis = legalizing hemp = healitier people, less need for deforestation and cotton

legalizing cannabis = 700,000+ less lives and families not dramatically changed by an overreaching government every year for merely wanting to smoke some grass.

WriterWriter said...

@Jeff: Absolutely!

WriterWriter said...

@BigBen: If you're going to make comments about idiots and stupid people, you might want to edit your comments for grammar and spelling so you're not confused with the subjects of your post....

The majority of cannabis users are regular folks, some of whom probably live across the street from you... We don't look like hairy idiots. In my case, we look like photojournalists/writers....

BIGBEN said...

U got it JEFFY JEFF..U are the Grand Inquisitor, but I worded it wrong. I didnt mean to pick on the pot cult. I just wanted to voice my opinion about these selfish assholes who put children in danger..Please dont twll me you are one of them..

BIGBEN said...

OHHH, sorry for the typo..Its the contact buzz getting me again..

slothdog said...

2022 or 2023 should be about right if you use the cosby theory as your model (but insted of cosby, substitute taht 70s show).

dragonfly said...

marijuana is a god created plant intended to be used as natural medicine,weaved into material,oils and to grow to show off it's beauty.let it be legal as gon intended it to be -it is just a plant.

bejoda1225 said...

So are poppy plants and cocoa plants. and payote..Did you ever see some poppy plants and how pretty some of them are...

dragonfly said...

you are so right -sounds like you appreciate beauty of plants like i do and i am eager to get to see the marijuana plant get it's chance to grow like any other plant as god intended.i love gardening and would love to put all kinds of plants including the marajuana plant as many gardeners would and would love to see it grow wild for everyone to see!!!!!!!i am not a user but would like to see it's beauty in real life!!!!!

Randi said...

Before I start let me say I have never used weed. Further let me say that I HATE the harder drugs like Cocaine, Meth and Heroin. I've seen firsthand the damage they do.

But I hate even more the war on drugs. If we legalized and regulated all drugs we could reduce the damage drugs do by ensuring that drugs aren't mixed with some more dangerous substance. We reduce crime by reducing the cost of drugs so the addict would be less likely to commit crimes to get his or her drug. We'd reduced crime by taking the criminal out of drug production, transportation and sales. We would increase income by taxation.

Finally, and most importantly for me, we'd have a lot more $ to spend on treatment. Countries that have legalized drugs do NOT have an increase in addiction with harder drugs.

I'd say addiction would actually go down because young people would be getting their weed without being exposed to criminals who also want to get them addicted to harder drugs.

I don't like what alcohol addiction does to people, but I don't want to outlaw it; that didn't work. I seriously believe that the benefits of legalization of all drugs but regulation included would out weigh the costs. This is from an anti drug person.

Jules said...

***Is anyone interested in doing a cost benefit analysis for just a state like CA on the potential savings/revenue for the more open or full legalization in that state?

--There is already real data on licenses, permits, and classic tax revenue for growers, sellers, etc. in CA

All the basic coupled with some genius insights from fivethrityeight or anyone else could be very helpful.

1)Current revenue, potential scaled revenue. All the "income/revenue" aspects.
2)All the offsetting legal, police, prison related cost savings
3)Any ability to capture potential additional state revenue in consumption. Lets be honest, increased MJ use correlates to food, entertainment, and conspicuous non-durable goods consumption. I don't think anyone can overlook that if you were to legalize soda, the increased sales of cups, ice cub trays, parties, etc. would go up. Not a great example, but one off hand.

---The obstacles to legalization are:
1)popular opinion which in the next 1-4 years will trend in favor
2)a new fresh and fair medical study done by states or the fed. govt. - Not since Nixon's bias attempt has anything been done in a study on MJ
3)The catalyst would clearly be the overwhelming gain in overall revenue for this product. **48Bil** deficit for CA could be reduced substantially with legalization. I think it's important to take a look at that amount, is it 5, 10, 20, 40bil in savings for CA if they were to regulate and legalize it?

daiqianwen said...

Edward said...

daiqianwen said...

風 卻 依 舊 輕 撫 著 我 的 臉 你 卻 已 經 離 開 了 我 的 世 界

Google Translate interprets this:

Wind still stroking my face but you had left my world

I don't get it.

Anyway, I'm for legalizing and taxing. I would be even more for it if we could dedicate some of that tax money to treatment of alcohol, nicotine, and harder drug problems, rather than wasting police time and building and staffing even more prisons. See Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect, for another set of reasons.

Alcohol, nicotine, and THC don't do anything for me that I like (just lucky, I guess), but Prohibition is a dud. (My grandfather was an honest beer and wine maker before and after, and a bootlegger during that time.)

RiledUp! said...

I believe that if we legalize pot youth will again look for something illegal that could be more worst than pot. If it is then legalized there will be no trill on it anymore. In my opinion, youths seem to be always wanting to have their own dirtbag so legalizing it is not really a solution.

CityBrokers said...

@RiledUp!
That is about the stupidest comment ever made. You have an adversarial relationship with youths... Stupid.

You need seriously to educate yourself. This isn't an issue of kids just wanting to piss off adults - and I suspect in your case, you forget you were ever a kid and that you don't like kids.

This is an issue of a very useful plant being illegal because it brings sooo much benefit to corporations, investors and police forces, to name a few things.

GROW UP and read something.

Go find a copy of "The Union: The Business Behind Getting High." (it's a DVD....so you won't have to read anything)

Dood said...

I think the out of control Mexican cartels may force this issue to the forefront a lot earlier than many expect. It is the one surefire way to weaken the Mexican cartels. They'd still have coke and heroin sales, but at least 50% of their profits would go away really quickly.

Hu Chi said...

Good point, Dood.

Also, the sooner marijuana is legalized, the sooner the public can have some confidence that it hasn't had pesticides sprayed on it. IMHO, that's the likeliest way to be physically harmed by marijuana, and illegal Mexican growing operations are notable for their carelessness with chemicals.

Legalization opens the door for rational anti-abuse education. The current policy is analogous to abstinence-only sex ed. It's stupid and puritannical.

North said...

It would be interesting to see if these numbers changed if the question was asked differently.

First, decriminalization might be more popular.

Next, supporters of changing the laws might want to focus on repealing the federal laws and leaving these decisions to the states. So it would be interesting to see how many Americans would support that.

normalice said...

this specific poll, because it involves the legal status of something, should also include those who 'do not vote' as in favor of legalization. Should someone be sentenced to time in prison because one member of the jury thought he was guilty, while the rest didn't care about the case? That's not justice.

Eric said...

These encouraging stats are the reason we must all "come out" and be counted. Not only that but lobby everyone we know. And be good examples of resposible adult ganja smokers.

dragonfly said...

there are so many uninformed people out there that do not even know that california legalized marijuana and do not even know then the other people in the rest of the united states that are wanting to legalize and decriminalize marijuana that are working on doing so-these uninformed people are finally learning how to join the rest of us just by people telling them about califonia and then how to find out more on the computer and how to be involved!

dragonfly said...

so many good hard working -tax paying -law abiding people have been having problems with police because of marijuana growing on their properties from seed being brought onto their properties by weather,birds,animals and who knows how -these people have police breaking into their homes cutting locks tearing and busting up these homes only to find nothing and to find out that these people are not druggies and have been passing 9 panel hair tests which do go way back-if you ask me these same police are hurting the good people instead of going after real criminals.what a horrible waste of tax money on court time,auto and aircraft fuel,manpower and the list goes on and on.let's decriminlize and legalize marijuana and the financial gains would be great for all of us instead of the selected few-gee the tax money from the marijuana could be used to help people instead of hurting people-that sure would be a wonderful change!!!!!!!!!!!!

dragonfly said...

now let's think aboout this-god created the marajuana plant along side of his other plants for us to use and not for just those selected greedy few and was to be growing along side of all other plants to show off the beauty that is to be seen by everyone and NOT just those selected few-god is probably wondering why tere are those tat are so hateful and greedy and also probablywondering why they would be so darn narrow minded to have a plant of his creation illegal! i say legalize and decriminalize this beautiful creation of a plant!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ariel said...

Large list of Usa Surveys,paid focus groups,money marking opportunities,big surveys companies you can find on site:

http://www.fullsurveysguide.com

Matt said...

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/53

I invite everyone to read this site with many, many facts on marijuana; nearly EVERY argument someone says against marijuana is disproven multiple times through various studies at this site.

Education is key here.

WriterWriter said...
This post has been removed by the author.
WriterWriter said...

@Matt: THAT was a GREAT link!
I hope everyone who's reading this post will read EVERY section of that page.

THANKS. You did the world a service today.

WriterWriter
Canada

Smokey said...

Pot is still illegal because of the "ALMIGHTY DOLLAR", I live in small town Kentucky, if you are just have roach clips on ya, you can get 10 days in the pokey, now you can get the work release program, where they let ya out to go to work, but the cost of that plan is about$30 bucks a day on the days you work and about 10 on the days you don't, so of course if you work a 5 day week, that's $150 and then another 20 for the 2 days you were off, so no wonder it's still illegal, and ya still got the court costs to top off the bill, along with a lawyer if you can afford it after the "system rapes you, so wonder no more, this is Smokey McPot and Happy 420 day ya'll

bejoda1225 said...

Yes, please legalize it already..i am soo sick of hearing people bitch about this..we got bigger things to move onto..i dont smoke, cause it does nothing for me, but make me tired and lazy..But i cant stand hearing people cry about it, including friends of mine..LEGALIZE IT ALREADY>>>..

carl said...

juvanya: Marijuana doesn't cause cancer, it actually fights it. Here is a link of a study by the British Journal of Cancer which was published in Nature showing that the cannibinoids in marijuana can be used to treat (in other words destroy) brain cancer. Nature is one of the most prestigious and respected scientific journals in the world. Here is the link:
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95/n2/full/6603236a.html

Julius The Jules said...

I bet the numbers for supporting legalization is higher, it's just that some people probably choose not to answer, or they feel they will be incriminated if they do answer, or are just paranoid... Either way, people need to realize legalization is the best thing for marijuana, all walks of life use it, and it is a spiritual sacrament and medicine for Christ-sake!

Ralph said...

Just unregulate it! It shouldn't be any different than growing your own parsley in your windowsill! It's just an herb, for crying out loud. If you don't like it, don't use it! How simple can it be??

dragonfly said...

yes ,ralph it is only an herb and it was meant to grow with any other plant-it is so ridiculous to not let it grow as god intended

Susan said...

There are 3 types of people.

Those that smoke
Those that don't
And those that sell it.
those that smoke, smoke weather it is legal or not.
Those that don't Probably are not going to start, if they wanted to they would.
Those that sell it DO NOT want it legal. Lets do the math. How many people would be freed from jail. Billions saved to put the sicko's away. Billions earned from taxes.

Susan said...

Does anyone remember when Herion was legal in the US? I saw a old Sears and Roebuck you could buy the dope and a syringe out of there.

WriterWriter said...

@Susan:
First of all, please edit your posts for correct spelling and grammar.

THEN, do some research. You are parroting garbage.

I am a generally non-consuming advocate, so where do I fit into your 3 types?

The sickos are the corporations and people who make a PROFIT from prisons. Yes, my dear, for-profit prisons. THAT is not ethical.

And yes, there are those who do NOT want cannabis to be legal: That would be every police department across north America, because they receive funding to 'fight' drugs - except that any cop will tell you they'd always - 100% of the time - rather deal with a stoner than a drunk.

Have a look at Woody Harellson's GRASS and after that, get a copy of The Union: The Business Behind Getting High.

If you're going to post something, at least make a stab at being intelligent.

haohaoduo said...

アダルトDVD
アダルトDVD
無料出会い
出会い系サイト
アダルトサイト
アダルト

haohaoduo said...

クレジットカード 現金化
キャッシング
インプラント
網頁設計
水 通販
会社設立
留学
コンタクトレンズ
アルカリイオン水
ダンボール

dragonfly said...

It looks like we may have to over throw the government and clean house to get things done and done right and that definately includes legalizing marijuana!!!!!!!!!

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,

ass said...

From cell phones users to see the specific situation of occupational segmentation in 2009, accounting for 19.5% of students dropped 21.2 percent over last year, other types of occupations than those last year, the proportion of Internet users cheap cell phones increase. White collar crowd from last year's 29.2% increase to 38.9% this year, accounting for 9.7 percentage points up to replace the student groups cellphone users as one of the biggest occupational hierarchy; blue-collar crowd from last year's 13.9% to 18.9% this year, accounting for rose by 5.0 percentage points, showing that mobile phones users by a group of students to the occupational groups a significant trend in the development. Ereli advice that, cheap cell phones and mobile phone users Internet users monthly income distribution of age, education, occupational distribution has strong correlation with high spending capacity of white-collar workers and some students in the crowd will be a huge cell phone china online potential consumer groups.

ass said...

By comparing the traditional Internet users, Internet users to iResearch found that the traditional white-collar-based, cell phones wholesale, corporate general staff accounted for 18.9%, higher than the 5.6% of the wholesale cell phones users accounting; and discount cell phones users in the years students and blue-collar workers accounted for significantly more than the traditional Internet users, respectively, accounting for 19.5% and 18.9%, higher than the traditional Internet users Students and blue-collar workers accounted for 7.8% and 5.1% respectively.

ass said...

The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china from the crowd of view, the buyer 25 to 40 years old mainly white-collar workers, accounting for about 40%, followed by consumer groups of students, accounting for about three into. According to statistics, 3G wholesale products in sales, compared with a 2G mobile phone sales are still a wide gap between, but since June has been, 3G mobile phones increase in the average monthly buy products for more than 50%, "11" period due to holiday business, the increase of more than 150%. Pk that the "11" after the peak sales of 3G handsets likely to usher in more stable growth.