Posted on 10/08/2014 1:41:56 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
It's almost been two years since Colorado passed legislation legalizing the sale of marijuana to adults who are 21 and older, and many states are on similar paths to pass marijuana legislation in the upcoming election - there are more drug reform questions on this November's ballot than ever before. But a few recent reports coming out of Colorado indicate that support for the legalization efforts may be decreasing among Colorado citizens.
A Sept. 17 poll conducted by Suffolk University and USA Today shows 50.2 percent of Colorado voters are not satisfied with the state's decision to legalize marijuana, while 46 percent continue to support the decision.
It's almost been two years since Colorado passed legislation legalizing the sale of marijuana to adults who are 21 and older, and many states are on similar paths to pass marijuana legislation in the upcoming election - there are more drug reform questions on this November's ballot than ever before. But a few recent reports coming out of Colorado indicate that support for the legalization efforts may be decreasing among Colorado citizens.
A Sept. 17 poll conducted by Suffolk University and USA Today shows 50.2 percent of Colorado voters are not satisfied with the state's decision to legalize marijuana, while 46 percent continue to support the decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at hngn.com ...
I did predict once you had stoned gangs hanging around parking lots and scaring customers away from local businesses, approval ratings would fall. Would be interesting to see it criminalized again, just from a policy standpoint.
Can I ask a stupid question?
Maybe off topic, but,
How is it that states are allowed to legalize marijuana, when marijuana is illegal under federal law?
And at the same time, we see courts overturning state laws which define marriage.
In the case of marijuana, apparently the right of states to define marijuana use overrides the federal laws on the subject.
But in the case of marriage, federal courts are forcing federal law/policy on the states, rather than leaving up to each state how to define marriage.
Just a thought.
The drug cartels sure hate it- they are losing $millions from Colorado alone (I think I read $26 millions so far?)
that would make a great supreme court argument for states’ rights
RE: But in the case of marriage, federal courts are forcing federal law/policy on the states, rather than leaving up to each state how to define marriage.
Also, there is NO FEDERAL LAW (not yet ) RECOGNIZING GAY MARRIAGE.
The funny thing is that, according to some articles posted here, significant numbers of people are still buying from their friendly local dealer because his/her pot isn’t taxed.
Democrat donors with big pockets will finance the campaigns because they know it will increase turnout.
Remember laws are layered. There are state laws against it and federal laws against, well in Colorado there’s mostly no more state laws (except when minors are involved), and cops below the federal level just ignore the federal laws (as they usually do anyway). There’s nothing new here, for most of the time it’s been illegal in America it hasn’t been illegal in Alaska unless the DEA or FBI got involved.
And at the same time, we see courts overturning state laws which define marriage.
Liberal Federal judges CARE about "gay marriage" but they do not care about pot.
There is a “back door” federal law on homosexual marriage, in that the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government will recognize homosexual marriage from states where it is permitted.
The Defense of Marriage Act actually defined marriage in federal law, but, that definition was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
So as of now, there actually is no federal definition of marriage, if you think about it.
“I did predict once you had stoned gangs hanging around parking lots and scaring customers away from local businesses, approval ratings would fall.”
That’s funny, I haven’t seen anything like that.
Another poll in September showed support for legalization, 55% to 41%. Go figure.
There’s a reason it’s called dope.
But violate those guidelines and they will. There is a prosecution now alleging some Colombians were attempting to buy marijuana shops with laundered drug money.
So, it is still illegal under federal law, but in most cases the feds are not enforcing it. It's a crazy situation that could change with a different AG or administration.
The reciprocity clause causes all states to accept contracts formed in other states - Nothing more is needed. I have been saying this is the crux of the problem for years. The more comparable argument is in how one state does not have to accept the concealed carry right granted by another state - that is where the contrast lies.
In case you haven't noticed, this administration, with its rogue attorney general, only enforces laws they approve of while ignoring laws that they don't like or approve of.
...Of the demographic that favors them.
That’s funny, I haven’t seen anything like that.
Nor I. Viennacon, have any evidence for stoned gangs hanging around parking lots and scaring customers away from local businesses?
I wonder if something like what I call the “Amsterdam effect” may apply here: By legalizing MJ while it’s still technically illegal in most other states, you become a magnet for people whose primary goal in life is “smoking some heady nugs” - which is to say people who are not particularly desirable. You know the types, the ones who think the world owes them a living, and all the dope they can smoke, too. Not representative of most pot smokers (most of whom you’d never know that they smoke, because they’re not hanging around on the sidewalk with their dreadlocks and their dogs, reeking of weed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.