Tweet
According to a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll (PDF), American adults overwhelmingly believe the “War on Drugs” has been a failure: 65 percent of adults describe it that way, while only eight percent call it a success and 27 percent are not sure. After several decades, billions of dollars spent and hundreds of thousands of arrests as part of the War on Drugs, illegal drugs remain easily available throughout the nation. It’s no surprise Americans say the policy has failed.
With so many Americans viewing the War on Drugs as a policy failure, they’re now open to legalizing the most common and safest of illegal substances, marijuana.
Even more interesting, the poll finds that 52 percent of American adults either strongly or moderately support legalization of marijuana. A majority of Democrats, 57 percent, and independents, 59 percent, support it. Only 38 percent of Republicans do. The poll finds extremely little support for legalizing any other illegal drug, such as ecstasy or cocaine.
Angus Reid, a Canada-based international polling firm, was very accurate in the 2008 Canadian federal election. This poll was an online survey of 1003 American adults with a margin of error of 3.1 percent, conducted on July 14 and 15.
Even if a slim majority of all American adults supports marijuana legalization, it is likely there is not yet majority support for legalization among that all-important group of individuals: those who will cast a ballot this November. It is important to note that the poll was of all adults. As a group, all American adults tend to be noticeably younger and more liberal than “registered voters.” The group of “likely voters,” those who are expected to vote on Election Day, is, on average, older and less liberal. This discrepancy of opinion between all adults and the small subset of adults who normally vote is why registration and turnout will be so critical to the fate of Proposition 19 in California.
26 Comments
Notice this post claimed comments where off! This is a test! You shall not comment? You shall not think? Why?
Comments are not off and people should comment!
jon- please explain why you do not have “nullification outrage”.
why should california try to pass an initiative that is expressly against federal laws that are supreme? is this not a waste of taxpayer money on the inevotable losing legal challenges?
I don’t think your comment makes any sense. California isn’t nullifying any Federal law. Even if California removed the state law criminalizing marijuana, the Federal law would still be enforceable.
Even if California taxed Marijuana sales, it would hardly be the first state to do so:
http://marijuanastamps.com/state-stamps.htm
California can no more nullify a federal law than the Federal government can require that California (or any state) criminalize certain conduct.
Think about it, there’s no state law that punishes people who fail to pay their federal income tax; I suppose you think that means that all fifty states have “nullified” all federal income tax laws?
That merely means that no comments have been posted yet. As soon as a comment is posted, that notice goes away. You should by all means think. I don’t believe commenting has ever been banned here.
It’s called concurrent jurisdiction. What a maroon!
The fact that the polling is so close is somewhat deflating. The idea that the government has a stake in controlling what kind of plants a person owns or consumes, in a free society, is to me ludicrous on its’ face. If a person commits a “crime”, that is, some action that violates the rights of someone else, fine-prosecute them. But imprisoning people for their preferences in foliage is, in my very humble opinion, tragically silly.
Perhaps the tension between California and Federal law will serve to move this debate to the Federal level.
Not to be too granular, but there is no tension. California has laws prohibiting murder, the federal government does not, but nobody talks about the “tension” between California and Federal murder laws.
There are clearly defined categories for state vs. federal murder laws. No tension, as you say. California legalization vs. Federal Prohibition are, however, contradictory, and could create tension. Or not. You will notice the “perhaps…”
which federal law prohibits murder? There are laws that criminalize depriving someone of their civil rights, which covers certain types of murder, but no general federal laws against murder.
If I (a private citizen), kill my wife (a private citizen) today (using my bare hands, and without crossing state lines, or entering federal property, and without involving the cooperation of any third party), what federal law have I broken?
Whatever, I don’t want to get too off topic. But this idea that it’s somehow unprecedented for behavior to be criminalized by a state or the federal government, but not vice versa, is just silly.
Hey now, careful. You go questioning the official myths, that back up the monopolies of elites over the state (and oh so conveniently project them as our natural-born MOTU), democracy might happen, and we all know how messy that can be. /s
Check this out. Here in the great state of Washington, ironically named the Evergreen State, the medical board hasn’t qualified MM for many mental illnesses, most notably anxiety disorders, citing lack of scientific evidence. Apparently, it hasn’t been proven to their satisfaction, that pot gets people high.
Federal marijuana prohibition is a fully unconstitutional religious prohibition based on Exodus 22:18 Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.
Here is a nice book on the issue as world history, I highly recommend it,
Marijuana – The First Twelve Thousand Years
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/first12000/abel.htm
Marijuana is completely harmless and a very useful medicine. From FOXN,
Are You Cannabis Deficient?
http://health.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/10/are-you-cannabis-deficient/
That means the argument used to regulate it as interstate commerce is totally bogus.
That is also why even though weed is completely harmless, it is scheduled all wrong, and they refuse to change it. Like including Native Americans in the religion section at Borders Books, it would rip a hole in their space/time/legal argument continuum, granting us equal rights, including the right to keep our property, practice our religion in peace, and keep our children.
You see when it gets to American Indians, and our religions based on smoking things, the Doctrine of Discovery gives white men the right to take away everything we have. How else do you think they have gotten away with drug war asset seizures that are so completely unconstitutional? There is a legal precedent.
From our constitution,
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF (smoking and growing pot); or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
From my church,
Cultivation and enjoyment of Cannabis sacrament is a fundamental human right provided by God and protected by the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is our opinion that Cannabis is the original sacrament of Hebrew, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Rasta and more, and fulfills the prophesies to ‘raise up for them a plant of renown…’
http://www.thc-ministry.org/
Our church was raided, my minister is being denied bail. Do you think the supreme court is going to rule against the first amendment freedom of religion?
Because I don’t. I think I actually have the freedom of religion.
Reverend Lauren Unruh
Tea Party Instigator
THC Ministry
Pleasant Hill, Ca
A Native American Church
Never have I argued that it is unprecedented, but simply that the disconnect may promote debate.
“Federal marijuana prohibition is a fully unconstitutional religious prohibition based on Exodus 22:18 Thou shall not suffer a witch to live. ”
That is my new favorite sentence.
RonD, Sorry, wasn’t trying to pick a fight over a technical matter. And yes, the fact that California would not punish the instate use of Marijuana, even though it would be banned by Federal law, would strike many people as odd, althought this has more to do with most Americans’ (mis)understanding of the relationship between state and federal law than anything else; see azhealer’s comment above at #3.
Glad to read that Oakland may be something of a tippy point. The Oakland City Council votes 5-2 with one abstention in favor of a plan to license four production plants where marijuana would be grown, packaged and processed. http://www.newslook.com/videos/231510-calif-city-permits-large-marijuana-farms?autoplay=true
‘preciate it.
Nullification, as I understand it, was an attempt to claim that state law trumped Federal law, specifically as regards slavery. It’s primary spokesman was John C. Calhoun of SC, who Andrew Jackson threatened to hang for treason (and later expressed regret that he had not done so). I don’t think California is claiming that their state law supersedes Federal law, but I am unfamiliar with how the conflict between the state and federal laws will be reconciled-which is why I see an opportunity for debate, and maybe even fundamental change at the federal level. Unlikely, but possible.
let me try again, in spite of the ad hominems.
federal law- which preaumably applies to the places and people of the usa, says the having and selling of marijuana is illegal.
california may pass an initiative saying the opposite.
do federal laws not have to be followed in the states if the states pass laws in opposition?
if so, how is this any different than ANY state attempt to pass a law to protect its citizens from ill-advised or inappropriate federal laws?
Likker prohibition fell one state at a time until the federal laws were unenforceable.
Wow! You just blew my doors off, kindGSL (of perception, that is).
Or, as I like to say, we self-knowing organic human selves cellf-imprison our selves in cellves of our own mistaken making. How?
It’s the mythology!
For just one simple example everyone knows, when we look up into the night sky, we’re taught mistakenly to collapse our selves into quantum singularities of egocentric pain, when, in fact, we’re looking up into our external organs.
If we were to look within our own bodies with a microscope, would we then say, look how giagantic we are?
The illusion is that, somewhere, somehow, there’s this boundary that absolutely and eternally divides each of us from the other. Ok, so where is it? Of what is it made? How does it function? What color is it? Is it organic, or mechanical? Is it simply and naturally found in nature, or is there a manufacturer’s label on it?
Let’s take a close look at any one of the umpteen billions of cells that make up each of us. Note that the membrane is necessarily semi-permeable, or life couldn’t exist to begin with.
Each of our cells is joined with every other cell through the intercellular medium and across very selectively semi-permeable membranes. As with our cells, so with our selves.
If we’re so almighty dedicated to our founding principles, such as religious freedom and equal protection under the law, then how come there’s nearly 100% perfect religious symmetry, between this “one nation under god,” and its detainees in the “war on terror”?
If it’s not a bogus holy war, then how come there are only Muslim selves in our cells at GTMO, Bagram, and no one (literally no one, thanks to our metastasizing IIC and MIC [ike 'n mike] mentality) can tell us where else?
Just so, if alcohol and tobacco are USDEA Grade A-OK, but we have to go to war against marijuana growers and users, what’s wrong with pot?
Say it with me: It’s the mythology!
Our high priests of the temples of justice have injected into our laws their atavistic ideology under the cloak of “law and order” criminology.
Case in point: the many efforts to claim our laws are actually (their idea of) god’s laws. And even when they don’t come right out and say it, they very often still believe themselves to be doing “god’s work.”
From the Evergreen State to the Golden State, I bow in your virtual direction, kindGSL.
Ok, there was no ad hominem. Your questions demonstrate a lack of understanding of the relationship between state and federal laws. That’s not ad hominem, that’s ad whatyouwrote-em.
Here is where you make your mistake:
federal statutes- which preaumably applies to the places and people of the usa, says the having and selling of marijuana is a violation of federal law. (CORRECT)
california may pass an initiative saying the opposite. (INCORRECT)
To be more specific, Federal law says that it is a violation of federal law to possess or sell marijuana. Prop 19 would say that it is not a violation of California state law to (under some circumstances) possess or sell marijuana.
California is not repealing, nullifying, altering, amending or in any way affecting Federal law. There are many instances in which an activity is banned by State or Federal law, but not by both.
To demonstrate, have you ever been pulled over by the FBI for speeding on a state road?
Have you ever been charged with a state crime for not paying your federal income taxes?
If Prop 19 passes, posession or sale of marijuana is still a violation of federal law in California, it’s just not a violation of state law. Much like the murder of my wife discussed in post #11 would be a violation of state law, but not a violation of Federal law.
Do you see why your post at #3 made no sense?
EDIT: This is a little unrelated, but since you brought up “nullification,” I’m assuming you are referring to the individual mandate in the ACA. Nullification is a (hypothetical) extra-judicial (that is, not involving the judiciary) declaration by a State that a Federal law is void. In this case, if Prop 19 said “Federal laws proscribing the sale or use of Marijuana are void,” it would be an instance of nullification.
BTW, hello from my tribe of unknown name (Heather Flower’s tribe wasn’t noted on the marriage license), most likely of the Six Nation/Iroquois Confederation of the northeast.
Nicely rebutted, badgerexpat. Can’t speak to the details of your argument, since I’m a legal know-nothing, but I really like “ad whatyouwrote-em.” Might even cite you. But don’t expect any freakin’ “royalites.” ;]
Come to think of it, by the principle of universal common descent, we’re all of the same tribe, the Tribe of the Unknowable Name. ;-}
As Jonathan Swift would comment, here’s a Modest Proposal: If Sarah Palin is correct, in 2014 when HCR really kicks in, we’ll have the long-awaited Death Panels that should hasten the demise of those atavistic seniors who are preventing the legalization of weed. Even more so, the Death Panels will likely be manipulated to select mostly Republican seniors for elimination; that will certainly do the trick for legalization. And if Alan Simpson has his way, many seniors will be so despondent at the loss of Social Security, they will have to legalize the plant to make their Catfood Dinners more palatable. And many other seniors will just off themselves! But one way or another, in the land of King Obama, we shall at last be free, to anesthetize oursleves with God’s favorite gift!
Hey guys, we can argue here amongst morons till the cows come home, but the thing that really matters is getting out there and encouraging people to vote on it so we can finally end this stupid war.