POLL: Americans Favor Legalization of Marijuana 51-44%

CNSNews.com ^ | December 5, 2012 | Gregory Gwyn-Williams Jr.

[wardaddy]

It’s been even or close to this for 3 decades

but what happens is the young folks polled get older and then tighten up on their views when they quit smoking dope or much less usage

myself..I don’t favor outright legalization but fairly light decrim

which a lot of places do already

pot is contentious mainly because here folks still see pot users as lefties

but that is simply not my experience anymore...I gave it up in 83 and 91...maybe 12-14 years total pot use in youth and later at 30

55 now...been since 21 years since a jay passed my lips

but I still know a lot of pot smokers and 90% of the ones I know...white southerners...are very conservative..God guns guts Don’t Tread on Me sorts

maybe up north as usual..it’s different

youth are left leaning whether they smoke dope or not these days...the most left leaning youth in my lifetime

[reg45]

If it’s for medicinal purposes, will it be paid for by our health insurance? Has anyone checked all those thousands of pages in the healthcare bill?

[rarestia]

In that case, alcohol should be paid for as well. After all, alcohol is often an ingredient in liquid medications such as NyQuil and in mouthwashes, for instance.

[Lou L]

I can not stand this "medical marijuana" jive. It insults my intelligence and is nothing more than a ruse.

It's like the "health of the woman" clause they always insist upon for abortion laws. The "health" inevitably includes "mental health," which means that some doctor of psychiatry can say, "this woman will be emotionally distraught if she has to keep this baby..." and that clause becomes nothing more than a loophole.

Similar thing with "medicinal uses" of marijuana. "Medicinal uses" clause is big enough for a Mac truck to go through.

[Venturer]

More BS

Youve got the arguments down pat LMAO.

[Buckeye McFrog]

I’m probably the only person you’ll ever meet, who went to the original Woodstock festival in 1969, and didn’t get high OR drunk...

Bill Clinton, is that you?

[RckyRaCoCo]

None of this stuff should surprise anyone, after all, the hippie generation are now the elder statesman in America. As Yogi might say, forget about the bygone era...it's history.

The liberal utopia is on a bullet train now...next stop, Sodom, via Gomorrah.

[Vaduz]

Medical meth to ensue,anything to stay out of reality.

[Little Ray]

Y’know, if it is a choice between militarized cops kicking doors and shooting people’s dogs, and legalizing drugs, sign me up for legalizing drugs.

[Ken H]

Do you support honoring the Tenth Amendment in the case of WA and CO?

[boop]

"The majority of people and interest groups who think legalized pot is a great idea are also the very same self righteous citizens who go berserk over anyone lightng up a cigarette."

Yep. Now that people are banned from smoking tobacco in their own apartments, and outdoors in city parks, how are they going to exempt pot smokers from anti-smoking laws?

Exactly where will pot smokers be allowed to indulge?

[ClearCase_guy]

Yes, I do. The states should be in control of so much of this stuff. If I really, really supported legalization, I might move to CO because it has taken the plunge. If I were a CO resident and really, really hated the idea of legalization, I would move out of CO.

Citizens should be able to go to different states and live under different laws. We have too much being legislated at the federal level, and therefore too much homogenization.

[Ken H]

Shouldn’t those decisions, such as WA and CO legalizing mj, be left up to the states per the Tenth Amendment?

[Wuli]

O.K. Put your own argument in context.

We have laws that make consuming alcoholic beverages legal. MORALLY does that say “That stuuf’s O.K.”? No. It makes no moral statement, pro or con. It leaves the morality of using alcohol or not to your decision; it leaves the moral choice to your Liberty; your personal responsibility.

We have laws that make gambling legal. MORALLY does that say “That stuff’s O.K.”? No. It makes no moral statement, pro or con. It leaves the morality of gambling or not to your decision; it leaves the moral choice to your Liberty; your personal responsibility.

We have laws that make smoking tobbaco legal. MORALLY does that say “That stuff’s O.K.”? No. It makes no moral statement, pro or con. It leaves the morality of smoking or not to your decision; it leaves the moral choice to your Liberty; your personal responsibility.

We have laws that make some venues expressing pornography legal. MORALLY does that say “That stuff’s O.K.”? No. It makes no moral statement, pro or con. It leaves the morality of viewing pornography to your decision; it leaves the moral choice to your Liberty; your personal responsibility.

Unless someone wants to ban - to make illegal - alcohol comsumption, gambling, tabbacco. and any form of pornography (which alone might not be a bad idea - but would the right to freedom of speech allow it), and if not then what is the legal argument for not doing so but saying marijuana should be criminalized? It is obviouslly not because marijuana is morally “bad”; so are many other “legal” things. It is obviously not that it is not O.K. and many other “legal” things are as if “That stuff’s O.K.”.

I am not making a moral argument condoning marijuana use. I am saying I am not sure the legal arguments against it are NOT defeated by the legal arguments permitting many other things.

[KSCITYBOY]

Might as well be stoned and stupid while the country goes down the crapper. WTF.

[ClearCase_guy]

All laws are an attempt to legislate morality.

Why is murder illegal? Why is robbery illegal? Why is rape illegal? Society has decided that certain activities should be banned. It's all based on morality when you get down to it.

For now, our society has said that alcohol is not inherently immoral and that marijuana is inherently immoral. When I look at the laws, that's what I see.

We can change the laws -- we could (again) say that alcohol is a great sourge and has no place in our society. We could say that marijuana is essentially harmless and people should feel free to partake. These are moral choices and it is up to society to send a message on what is socially acceptable.

If we were a theocracy, perhaps we could look in a holy book and announce the final word on morality. But we are essentially a secular society, for better or worse. And so our public stance on moral issues such as marijuana and alcohol is revealed by the laws we pass. You say our laws make no moral statement, pro or con. I disagree 100%.

[steve86]

They're dishonestly pushing this agenda under the guise of medicine. They need to just come out and say, "We want pot to be legal for any and all purposes, not just medicinal."

That was about 10 years ago, wasn't it? Here in WA, the new law WAS based on "legal for any and all purposes", but with many restrictions (i.e. can't grow, no juveniles, no DUI (of course), can't buy except from state-licensed dealer, one oz. personal possession only (I believe)). I'm actually looking forward to finding out what all the fuss is about but it will be a year or so until first legal sales occur. No way should any young person use it regularly with the neurological harm during development that has been scientifically documented (I am not young and not an addictive personality in the least).

[Wuli]

“Why is murder illegal? Why is robbery illegal? Why is rape illegal?””

Sorry, I do not place murder, robbery or raoe on the same moral plane as marijuana, aclohol, tobbaco or gambling. The former are crimes where Liberty is taken from someone by someone else, the latter generally are not.

Secondly, as much as some individuals vote for, or are in favor of some law on moral grounds, though everyone in favor may not be doing so on moral grounds, I do not say all such laws as making a “moral” choice, and saying something is “morally” O.K.

We quite often are NOT saying that we all think that something is morally O.K., but simply that LEGALLY the moral choice about them should be left to the inidividual, because our idea of Liberty says that is what we should do - leave tbe moral choice of it to them. Those of us who think it is morally NOT O.K. will refrain, and those that don’t won’t.

Such laws are not morally pro or con vis-a-vis some allowed activity; they are just pro Liberty and inidividual responsibility.

[steve86]

We have laws that make consuming alcoholic beverages legal. MORALLY does that say “That stuuf’s O.K.”? No. It makes no moral statement, pro or con.

Sure it does (make a statement that it is moral, relative to something like cocaine or heroin).

We have laws that make gambling legal. MORALLY does that say “That stuff’s O.K.”? No. It makes no moral statement, pro or con.

Sure it does (make a statement that it is moral, relative to theft by other means).

We have laws that make smoking tobbaco legal. MORALLY does that say “That stuff’s O.K. No. It makes no moral statement, pro or con.”?

Sure it does (make a statement that it is moral, relative to smoking opium).

We have laws that make some venues expressing pornography legal. MORALLY does that say “That stuff’s O.K.”? No. It makes no moral statement, pro or con.

Sure it does (make a statement that it is moral, relative to the forms of pornography that are not legal.

[Wuli]

I disagree. I do not think we allow alcohol becuase we think alcohol comsumption is morally O.K. Quite the opposite. We think what would be morally wrong for us would be to make the moral choice of comsuming alcohol or not consuming alcohol dicated by the law, as opposed to the choice, the moral choice of the individual. The same goes for the rest of your examples. These are all laws where we ask the law to step back from making a moral choice for us. It is not moral approval for doing anything. It is approval of our Liberty to choose.