U.S. Support for Legalizing Marijuana Reaches New High

I wonder if calling it a "New High" was intentional....

U.S. Support for Legalizing Marijuana Reaches New High

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's October Crime poll finds 44% of Americans in favor of making marijuana legal and 54% opposed. U.S. public support for legalizing marijuana was fixed in the 25% range from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, but acceptance jumped to 31% in 2000 and has continued to grow throughout this decade.

Click to expand...

It's jumped 19% in just 14 years, and 8% in just the last 4 years. Support is growing fast, and it's growing faster all the time.

Gallup also finds a generational rift on the issue, as 50% of those under 50 and 45% of those 50 to 64 say it should be legal, compared with 28% of seniors.

Click to expand...

I still have mixed feelings about legalizing marijuana (more based on emotion than based on facts), but my feeling is, regardless of whether you want all drugs legalized (which I am against), weed, like alcohol during prohibition, is simply too widely used today to be labeled criminal.

The question that remains is: when a majority of Americans support legalization- and at the rate we're going, it looks like that will happen pretty soon- will it be of small quantities, or all-out legalization?

Our past three Presidents have admitted to using marijuana. Does anybody think they deserved to go to jail for it?

Dav said:

The question that remains is: when a majority of Americans support legalization- and at the rate we're going, it looks like that will happen pretty soon- will it be of small quantities, or all-out legalization?

Click to expand...

Although a good sign, and the latest polls is of no surprise, this does not mean federal legalization is just around the corner.

decriminalization is the likely first step, but I fear that it is doomed to an abysmal failure since it does not address the big problem of black market distribution.

Legalization with regulation is the way to go, anything else is half measures, and concession.

Unfortunately, do not count on this occurring through congress, since half measures and concession are the status quo, and our representatives will represent lobbying interests over public interests.

Legalization's most likely path is through a handful of states making it legal under state law, while federal law will continue to comply with The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and its sister international prohibition treaties.

The Single Convention does not allow legalization period, which is why other countries such as Denmark and Portugal have decriminalized (distribution still remains illegal, but small possession is a civil infraction). This is the best they can under the treaty.

There are 3 paths around the single convention

1) the number of signatories of the treaty drops to below 20 from the current 180+ (If i remember the number to trigger revocationn of the treaty correctly) - until then any nation that does not comply with this treaty is subject to heavy handed sanctions -we tied our own hands here.

2) There are constitutional limitations which preclude compliance with the treaty.

3) new treaties are drafted that render this invalid

I have posted this elsewhere on this forum, but there are 3 paths to legalization under the single convention, and none are easy paths.

1) Renig on current international treaties that we heavy handed the world into signing on and accept the sanctions, or lead the world into drafting new treaties that invalidate the current ones (there is a large coalition of S. American countries that want to do this, and I am sure they will get more nations on board soon.. meanwhile we have been ignoring it.)

2) Constitutional Amendment

3) States legalize it themselves, and win supreme court fights over the interpretation of the commerce clause of the constitution (Montana is poised to challenge this and lay groundwork courtesy of their newly enacted gun sale laws).

legalize and tax it, same as alcohol

Dav said:

I still have mixed feelings about legalizing marijuana (more based on emotion than based on facts), but my feeling is, regardless of whether you want all drugs legalized (which I am against), weed, like alcohol during prohibition, is simply too widely used today to be labeled criminal.

Click to expand...

Common sense is starting to sink in for you huh?? I seem to recall you being staunchly opposed to the notion of legalization of pot previously (and since you mention it.. I seem to recall that your opposition to the idea was emotional) :2razz:

We are making progress.. I won't try to get you to swallow the legalize it all pill yet

marduc said:

3) States legalize it themselves, and win supreme court fights over the interpretation of the commerce clause of the constitution (Montana is poised to challenge this and lay groundwork courtesy of their newly enacted gun sale laws).

Click to expand...

Could you talk a little about wHat's the situation with Montana's gun sale laws and the commerce clause?

I would be curious to see a breakdown by State.

Orius said:

I would be curious to see a breakdown by State.

Click to expand...

Of pot laws?

State By State Laws - NORML

underdog334 said:

legalize and tax it, same as alcohol

Click to expand...

I'd like to see this. Unfortunately, in the profession I have, I can not have anything to do with it, although I see nothing wrong with it. I think at least pot should be the same as alcohol to obtain and use. Only problem we have is that there would have to be a test to measure inebriation at the point of driving offense. Other than that what is the problem?


j-mac

reefedjib said:

Could you talk a little about wHat's the situation with Montana's gun sale laws and the commerce clause?

Click to expand...

Cliffnotes version is that the Montana says that if a gun is manufactured instate, and sold instate that the commerce clause does not apply, and the 10th amendment gives the power to Montana to enact their own laws.

The law went into effect on Oct. 1, and suit was filed in federal court that same day.

here.. just the first of many links after a google search.. it covers the basics:

firearms, ammunition, and accessories manufactured entirely inside Montana are not subject to federal regulation, including background checks for buyers and record-keeping requirements for sellers.

Click to expand...

Montana Gun Suit Challenges Federal Authority - Taking Liberties - CBS News

Also extended cliff notes courtesy of wikipedia:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act]Montana Firearms Freedom Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

marduc said:

Cliffnotes version is that the Montana says that if a gun is manufactured instate, and sold instate that the commerce clause does not apply, and the 10th amendment gives the power to Montana to make enact their own laws.

The law was enacted on Oct. 1, and suit was filed in federal court that same day.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the links. I seem to recall the 10th Amendment. One of your links states it is hardly used anymore.

What do you think the odds of them winning the suit are?

It seems like the fastest of your three courses to legalization. A Constitutional Amendment would be heavy going. How did so many treaties get passed in an anti-drug fervor?

marduc said:

I have posted this elsewhere on this forum, but there are 3 paths to legalization under the single convention, and none are easy paths.

Click to expand...

I have never heard any of this before ... thx for posting it, marduc :2wave:

Kernel Sanders said:

Our past three Presidents have admitted to using marijuana. Does anybody think they deserved to go to jail for it?

Click to expand...

Not for smoking pot no, maybe for other things though.

reefedjib said:

Thanks for the links. I seem to recall the 10th Amendment. One of your links states it is hardly used anymore.

What do you think the odds of them winning the suit are?

Click to expand...

I don't know the odds of them winning, its a legitimate challenge, but precedent is not in their favor. Gonzales V. Reich will be revisited (highly suggest you look at that case, esp. the Clarence Thomas dissension), and basically assures this case a path to the Supreme Court since lower court judgments will rely on that precedent.

If I were to put a bet on it, I would give it about a 35% chance of winning. win or lose it will draw public attention to what is now basically unchecked federal latitude in establishing federal law over states under the commerce clause.

At least it is a good initial opening salvo (from a conservative state and a conservative cause) for when more liberal states such as Ca, and Mass. pass legislation legalizing possession of marijuana and challenge states rights themselves.

Even if it does not win in the supreme court it wins in the court of public opinion.

It seems like the fastest of your three courses to legalization. A Constitutional Amendment would be heavy going. How did so many treaties get passed in an anti-drug fervor?

Click to expand...

Currently 3 treaties, and as you correctly worded it the latter 2 do directly coincide with an anti-drug fervor here in the U.S.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs]Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] - enacted 1961 and is the foundation of drug laws across the world the other 2 are supplemental treaties to this one.

This is what established the drug scheduling process that we also incorporated into our Controlled Substances act, and where cannabis due to the wording of the treaty (at US insistence) gets irrevocably classified as a schedule I drug.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs]Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] - enacted in 1971 to address the sudden emergence of widespread use of a multitude of new drugs not covered by the single convention (notably hallucinogenics such as LSD)

This sets the procedure to add and classify new drugs in the scheduling scheme.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Amending_the_Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs]Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] -this occurred in 1972, not really a treaty itself, just amendments to the Single Convention

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Illicit_Traffic_in_Narcotic_Drugs_and_Psychotropic_Substances]United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] -enacted 1988 this is to combat illicit international trade in controlled substances and gave great latitude and leeway in what can be done to disrupt this trade.

You can thank this treaty for our 20 year long crusade trying to stamp out drug traffickers in Columbia as well as in many other less publicized locales.


The U.S had a very heavy hand in enacting these treaties.. especially of note is the dates of the second 2.

One coincides with the start of our drug war (1971), and another a massive escalation of that war which continues to this day. (1988).

marduc said:

I don't know the odds of them winning, its a legitimate challenge, but precedent is not in their favor. Gonzales V. Reich will be revisited (highly suggest you look at that case, esp. the Clarence Thomas dissension), and basically assures this case a path to the Supreme Court since lower court judgments will rely on that precedent.

If I were to put a bet on it, I would give it about a 35% chance of winning. win or lose it will draw public attention to what is now basically unchecked federal latitude in establishing federal law over states under the commerce clause.

At least it is a good initial opening salvo (from a conservative state and a conservative cause) for when more liberal states such as Ca, and Mass. pass legislation legalizing possession of marijuana and challenge states rights themselves.

Even if it does not win in the supreme court it wins in the court of public opinion.



Currently 3 treaties, and as you correctly worded it the latter 2 do directly coincide with an anti-drug fervor here in the U.S.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

I found the Clarence Thomas' dissent of Gonzales V. Reich: GONZALES V. RAICH

I only made it partway through. I can dig what he was saying though. This is really depressing.

Dav said:

It's jumped 19% in just 14 years, and 8% in just the last 4 years. Support is growing fast, and it's growing faster all the time.

I still have mixed feelings about legalizing marijuana (more based on emotion than based on facts), but my feeling is, regardless of whether you want all drugs legalized (which I am against), weed, like alcohol during prohibition, is simply too widely used today to be labeled criminal.

The question that remains is: when a majority of Americans support legalization- and at the rate we're going, it looks like that will happen pretty soon- will it be of small quantities, or all-out legalization?

Click to expand...

I can see us going the way of Mexico eventually. I see no good reason to keep it illegal.

My high for marijuana support has been reached right now. Wha?

Who's holding? I want some...

reefedjib said:

Who's holding? I want some...

Click to expand...

*cough* here ya go dude

winston53660 said:

*cough* here ya go dude

Click to expand...

sweet bud. Gracias.

NOT gonna happen!!

The anti-weed industry is too deep and too powerful.. from drug testing supplies, labs, enforcement, municipalities, commercial incarceration, all profit too greatly from the prohibition...

Everyone who supports legalizing marijuana is a pot smoker and everyone who doesn't smoke weed is against legalization. All pot smokers belong in jail.

medium said:

Everyone who supports legalizing marijuana is a pot smoker and everyone who doesn't smoke weed is against legalization. All pot smokers belong in jail.

Click to expand...

Ok....Maybe a little less generalization there friend.....I don't smoke pot, I can't with the career I have (Truck Driver). But I tell ya, if they legalized it, and figured out a way to test on the spot for driving under the influence like alcohol? I'd be all for that. See, at my age, drinking heavily like I used to do on the weekends, now leaves me with a huge hang over and a wasted day the day after. But pot, on the other hand would be an answer to that, and I like the buzz better.

I think, it is a travesty that we in this country have spent so much, and ruined so many lives going after people for a weed.


j-mac

ConservaBill said:

NOT gonna happen!!

The anti-weed industry is too deep and too powerful.. from drug testing supplies, labs, enforcement, municipalities, commercial incarceration, all profit too greatly from the prohibition...

Click to expand...

Yeah but....what happens when they figure out decriminalizing and taxing triples the amount of deep and powerful?