Gallup poll: 66% of Americans support marijuana legalization, including 53% of Republicans

[jct74]

Two in Three Americans Now Support Legalizing Marijuana

BY JUSTIN MCCARTHY
OCTOBER 22, 2018

https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/1o2qtqypukk-li_-wury3w.png


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sixty-six percent of Americans now support legalizing marijuana, another new high in Gallup's trend over nearly half a century. The latest figure marks the third consecutive year that support on the measure has increased and established a new record.

Legalizing the use of pot was an unpopular idea when Gallup first asked Americans about it in 1969 -- just 12% at that time said it should be made legal. Support grew in the 1970s but stagnated in the 20% range until the new millennium, when momentum for legalization picked up again. Since 2000, support for legalizing marijuana has trended steeply upward, reaching majority support for the first time in 2013 -- a year after Colorado and Washington voters legalized recreational use of marijuana via ballot initiatives, making them the first states to do so. Marijuana use continues to be illegal at the federal level.

The Oct. 1-10 Gallup poll was conducted before Canada last week became the second country in the world to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. In the U.S., voters in four states are voting this year on measures to allow for recreational or medical use of marijuana.

...

read more:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/243908/two-three-americans-support-legalizing-marijuana.aspx



Republican support at 53%.

https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/atnixz8w2kguea_rrm-a7q.png



Also, support among seniors is now at 59%, up 9 points from last year.

https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ccc6nnq-0k6yx6epsfw4zw.png

[oyarde]

Who are the others ?

[kpitcher]

Michigan has it on the ballot and it's a step in the right direction. However the wording is silly. "Impose a 10-ounce limit for marijuana kept at residences and require amounts over 2.5 ounces be secured in locked containers"

Funny how you can grow tobacco plants without a problem but not a weed.

[osan]

FAIL.

I support decriminlization. Legalization keeps the "state's" nose in your business.

As is plain to see, many who proclaim liberty are really advocates of pretty slavery.

FAIL-plex.

[osan]

FAIL.

I support decriminlization. Legalization keeps the "state's" nose in your business.

As is plain to see, many who proclaim liberty are really advocates of pretty slavery.

FAIL-plex.

PS: 66% of Americans are idiots. And that's being REALLY generous in every sense you might want to raise.

[jmdrake]

Who are the others ?

These people.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwejQBIyjow

[jct74]

FAIL.

I support decriminlization. Legalization keeps the "state's" nose in your business.

As is plain to see, many who proclaim liberty are really advocates of pretty slavery.

FAIL-plex.

Decriminalization still means long jail sentences for people who cultivate more than a few plants or sell to others. The government's nose us much more up your business when you are sitting in jail, versus whatever the requirements are with a regulated system.

[Chester Copperpot]

FAIL.

I support decriminlization. Legalization keeps the "state's" nose in your business.

As is plain to see, many who proclaim liberty are really advocates of pretty slavery.

FAIL-plex.
i thought it was the reverse??

[oyarde]

At this point anything that keeps people out of jail and lets them retain property that belongs to them would be an improvement .

[osan]

i thought it was the reverse??

No. Decriminalization leaves the "state" with no position on a given issue. In West Virginia, for example, open carry of a firearm is a non-criminal act. The state has no position on the question, leaving us free to openly carry. Were the state to criminalize open carry, then decide it was a mistake, the avenues of correction left to them would be to decriminalize, which would return the state to its former position of neutrality on the issue, or to "legalize" it, which would leave the issue subject to state limitations and other conditions. Theye could, for example, declare movie theaters as no-go zones for open carry. In the case of decriminalization, the only party authorized to ban open carry of weapons would be the theater owners.

[osan]

At this point anything that keeps people out of jail and lets them retain property that belongs to them would be an improvement .

Not necessarily, all superficial appearances to that effect notwithstanding.

Once the precedent of state power and authority has been asserted AND ACCEPTED, the relationship between the "state" and the individual has become altered in a fundamental and very dangerous manner. Taking the devil's coin may seem expedient in a time of desperation. Later, when the real cost of one's choice becomes apparent, a new and woe-laden understanding of what one had done usually rises to the surface, the result always including wailing and the gnashing of teeth.

[osan]

Decriminalization still means long jail sentences for people who cultivate more than a few plants or sell to others. The government's nose us much more up your business when you are sitting in jail, versus whatever the requirements are with a regulated system.

Um... no.

Decriminalization means the state holds NO OPINION on a matter, leaving it up for grabs by the free men of the land.

IF the "state" acts against such a man for the reasons in question, then regardless of any ostensible status, the acts in question are in fact criminalized.

It makes no difference that I say I am not cutting off you left arm, if I am cutting off your left arm. Words, while important, can be cheap. They are ultimately cheapened when they utter in diametric opposition to reality.

So if I say marijuana is decriminalized and I arrest you for possession, then cannabis is in fact NOT decriminalized at all. That, or I am committing a felony upon your person by the act of arresting you and should in my own turn be arrested, charged, convicted, and placed in an 8x10 cage for many a long year to come.

LEGALIZATION can lead to the result you claim, precisely because of the presence of legal stipulations placed upon your sovereign right to act. If the statute says no more than one million ounces and you are discovered to have one million and one quarter ounces, you may then by said statute be dragged away in manacles to await what I am certain would be a grizzly fate behind the very bars those comprising the "state" should be occupying.

[jmdrake]

Not necessarily, all superficial appearances to that effect notwithstanding.

Once the precedent of state power and authority has been asserted AND ACCEPTED, the relationship between the "state" and the individual has become altered in a fundamental and very dangerous manner. Taking the devil's coin may seem expedient in a time of desperation. Later, when the real cost of one's choice becomes apparent, a new and woe-laden understanding of what one had done usually rises to the surface, the result always including wailing and the gnashing of teeth.

*sigh* You're fighting the wrong battle and beating the wrong dead horse and trying to flag down a ship that's already long sailed. The government already regulates marijuana. It's "regulation" is that it is illegal. The federal government "regulation" of drugs is based on a bad twisting of interstate commerce clause. The constitution had to be amended to prohibit alcohol and the same should have happened with drugs but didn't because of FDR, Wickard v Filburn and the new deal. Wickard v Filburn was quoted in the 2005 upholding federal prosecution of medical marijuana even in a state where it was legal. (See: https://www.cannalawblog.com/gonzales-v-raich-545-u-s-1-2005/) Legalization / decriminalization / whatever may be done represents a reduction in regulation, not the creation of it. Your argument would be akin to saying Trump shouldn't roll back EPA regulations on CO2 because...that means accepting more government regulation on CO2.

[jmdrake]

Um... no.

Decriminalization means the state holds NO OPINION on a matter, leaving it up for grabs by the free men of the land.

IF the "state" acts against such a man for the reasons in question, then regardless of any ostensible status, the acts in question are in fact criminalized.

It makes no difference that I say I am not cutting off you left arm, if I am cutting off your left arm. Words, while important, can be cheap. They are ultimately cheapened when they utter in diametric opposition to reality.

So if I say marijuana is decriminalized and I arrest you for possession, then cannabis is in fact NOT decriminalized at all. That, or I am committing a felony upon your person by the act of arresting you and should in my own turn be arrested, charged, convicted, and placed in an 8x10 cage for many a long year to come.

LEGALIZATION can lead to the result you claim, precisely because of the presence of legal stipulations placed upon your sovereign right to act. If the statute says no more than one million ounces and you are discovered to have one million and one quarter ounces, you may then by said statute be dragged away in manacles to await what I am certain would be a grizzly fate behind the very bars those comprising the "state" should be occupying.

Portugal decriminalized drugs but you can still get arrested in Portugal for drug trafficking.

See: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

[Chester Copperpot]

No. Decriminalization leaves the "state" with no position on a given issue. In West Virginia, for example, open carry of a firearm is a non-criminal act. The state has no position on the question, leaving us free to openly carry. Were the state to criminalize open carry, then decide it was a mistake, the avenues of correction left to them would be to decriminalize, which would return the state to its former position of neutrality on the issue, or to "legalize" it, which would leave the issue subject to state limitations and other conditions. Theye could, for example, declare movie theaters as no-go zones for open carry. In the case of decriminalization, the only party authorized to ban open carry of weapons would be the theater owners.

well this probably explains why a group of black assemblymen are holding up the marijuana legalization thing in NJ.. They are promoting decriminalization while the governor promotes legalization... Im for whichever way maximizes personal liberty.. so it sounds like decriminalization is the way to go..

[Influenza]

We aughta keep this devil's lettuce tightly regalated because it poses a danja to the well-being of my children. I'm gonna have to vote against legalization at least until my kids grow older.

p.s. anyone here know where I can get a smaller rifle for Billy? This one was a bit cumbersome for him as he is only 5 and unable to wield it unassisted.

https://s.abcnews.com/images/GMA/140131_gma_sawyer_wg.jpg

[jmdrake]

well this probably explains why a group of black assemblymen are holding up the marijuana legalization thing in NJ.. They are promoting decriminalization while the governor promotes legalization... Im for whichever way maximizes personal liberty.. so it sounds like decriminalization is the way to go..

Hmmm....I just looked that up. Sadly it looks like they are holding up the legislation because they want to include reparations for black people for the disproportionate effect of the drug war.

https://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/09/black_leader_legalizing_weed_should_come_with_repa .html

So...rather than stop the harm as soon as possible....use this as an opportunity to demand money. Yeah...makes sense. /sarc

[shakey1]

To the goobermint... de-schedule & GTFO.

[jkr]

Um... no.

Decriminalization means the state holds NO OPINION on a matter, leaving it up for grabs by the free men of the land.

IF the "state" acts against such a man for the reasons in question, then regardless of any ostensible status, the acts in question are in fact criminalized.

It makes no difference that I say I am not cutting off you left arm, if I am cutting off your left arm. Words, while important, can be cheap. They are ultimately cheapened when they utter in diametric opposition to reality.

So if I say marijuana is decriminalized and I arrest you for possession, then cannabis is in fact NOT decriminalized at all. That, or I am committing a felony upon your person by the act of arresting you and should in my own turn be arrested, charged, convicted, and placed in an 8x10 cage for many a long year to come.

LEGALIZATION can lead to the result you claim, precisely because of the presence of legal stipulations placed upon your sovereign right to act. If the statute says no more than one million ounces and you are discovered to have one million and one quarter ounces, you may then by said statute be dragged away in manacles to await what I am certain would be a grizzly fate behind the very bars those comprising the "state" should be occupying.

THIS IS WHERE I GET MAD!

OHIO has been "decriminalized" since 1976!

not a fuk is given!


end it at the "fed" level and it should not be a mater of controversy...


but then statists goNNa state no matta what, so buckle up & guard yo grill!

[Krugminator2]

These people.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwejQBIyjow


That was one of my favorites. The pro-choice incoherence should be stuffed down Dems throats every time.

This video from the same convention in 2012 from Peter Schiff is even better where he asks people if they are in favor of banning profits.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07fTsF5BiSM

[jmdrake]

THIS IS WHERE I GET MAD!

OHIO has been "decriminalized" since 1976!

not a fuk is given!


end it at the "fed" level and it should not be a mater of controversy...


but then statists goNNa state no matta what, so buckle up & guard yo grill!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jkr again.

[jmdrake]

That was one of my favorites. The pro-choice incoherence should be stuffed down Dems throats every time.

This video from the same convention in 2012 from Peter Schiff is even better where he asks people if they are in favor of banning profits.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07fTsF5BiSM

LOL @ Van Jones running from Peter Schiff.

[Swordsmyth]

FAIL.

I support decriminlization. Legalization keeps the "state's" nose in your business.

As is plain to see, many who proclaim liberty are really advocates of pretty slavery.

FAIL-plex.

It is still an improvement and we can't get full decriminalization right now.

This is good if not perfect.

[Swordsmyth]

Not necessarily, all superficial appearances to that effect notwithstanding.

Once the precedent of state power and authority has been asserted AND ACCEPTED, the relationship between the "state" and the individual has become altered in a fundamental and very dangerous manner. Taking the devil's coin may seem expedient in a time of desperation. Later, when the real cost of one's choice becomes apparent, a new and woe-laden understanding of what one had done usually rises to the surface, the result always including wailing and the gnashing of teeth.
But it has already been asserted and accepted with criminalization.

[osan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwejQBIyjow

It becomes ever more difficult for me not to think that some people need killing.

This brand and degree of corruption and stupidity is almost not to be believed. How do the heads of these people not explode?

[osan]

It is still an improvement and we can't get full decriminalization right now.

This is good if not perfect.

Is it?

Think "devil's coin".

[osan]

But it has already been asserted and accepted with criminalization.

The millions of people in prison on drug convictions would seem to suggest otherwise.

[Swordsmyth]

The millions of people in prison on drug convictions would seem to suggest otherwise.
Most of them have accepted that it is illegal, they just chose to break the law and there are far more people on the outside who have accepted it.