• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: support for legalized pot is up in all age groups

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Poll: Support rises in all age groups for legal pot

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A growing majority of Americans say marijuana should be legal, underscoring a national shift as more states embrace cannabis for medical or recreational use.

Support for legal marijuana hit 61 percent in 2018, up from 57 percent two years ago, according to the General Social Survey, a widely respected trend survey that has been measuring support for legal marijuana since the 1970s.
==================================================
As an observer of changes in illegal drug culture, I have mixed feelings about this. Of course the states want the tax benefits. But there are too many downside issues with MJ. One is its Federal ban, another is its negative effect on people in general. It's like someone invented a new type of booze - great but not good.
 
As it should be, more and more are realizing how big of a mistake it was to deal with marijuana the way we have to date.
 
JacksinPA said:
As an observer of changes in illegal drug culture, I have mixed feelings about this. Of course the states want the tax benefits. But there are too many downside issues with MJ. One is its Federal ban, another is its negative effect on people in general. It's like someone invented a new type of booze - great but not good.
Click to expand...

How is current policy and all the resources tangled up in it better?

Marijuana is obviously quite old. What changed is the generation coming into political power realizes our traditional marijuana policy was based on fearmongering and misinformation.

Do you feel like significantly fewer people are using marijuana than will use it when it's made legal? I see no reason to believe that, as it's easy to find, and it's still edgy enough (where illegal) to be extra attractive as forbidden fruit, especially in light of the government's misinformation campaigns.

What percentage of our police resources do you think should be dedicated to marijuana, as opposed to other crimes? How does this rate as a priority compared with murder (with something less than 50% of murders being solved?)

My understanding is the federal ban could be removed today without a vote required, though I wouldn't expect it from this administration.

I won't argue that marijuana has it's downsides, but current policy is at very best ineffective. We've demonstrated we can't control the trade with federal or state law. We can't be bothered to provide treatment for hard drug users, nevermind marijuana. Your description makes it seem like it's something the government has some level of control over, but they don't. They just drive up the prices, and make examples of people now and again to try to keep the fear train running on time.

We've significantly reduced tobacco use over the last few decades without arresting anyone. Maybe it's worth considering a similar policy with marijuana?
 
JacksinPA said:
Poll: Support rises in all age groups for legal pot

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A growing majority of Americans say marijuana should be legal, underscoring a national shift as more states embrace cannabis for medical or recreational use.

Support for legal marijuana hit 61 percent in 2018, up from 57 percent two years ago, according to the General Social Survey, a widely respected trend survey that has been measuring support for legal marijuana since the 1970s.
==================================================
As an observer of changes in illegal drug culture, I have mixed feelings about this. Of course the states want the tax benefits. But there are too many downside issues with MJ. One is its Federal ban, another is its negative effect on people in general. It's like someone invented a new type of booze - great but not good.
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way. First of all, moderate use of intoxicants can be in fact 'good' because it relieves stress, is fun to do, makes people happy, helps them have a good time. Abuse of intoxicants is bad for the obvious reasons, and so is use by people whose brains aren't fully formed.

But the research that I've seen is pretty clear - if pot is a 'new type of booze' it's a less damaging to you health kind of booze (which isn't to say harmless), and its use shouldn't be illegal. I don't believe government ought to be in the business of encouraging use of pot or anything similar, including alcohol, but I don't see a good argument why use of pot should risk jail, a permanent record, not to mention all the civil liberties abuses associated with the War on Some Drugs. Government should treat pot use as a public health issue, nothing more.
 
OrphanSlug said:
As it should be, more and more are realizing how big of a mistake it was to deal with marijuana the way we have to date.
Click to expand...


Sure; now everybody will have a reason to claim discrimination when employers don't hire them because their pee tests will show their brains are in an alternate universe.
 
Barnacle said:
Sure; now everybody will have a reason to claim discrimination when employers don't hire them because their pee tests will show their brains are in an alternate universe.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately those pee tests don’t even show that. They show if you have used weed in the past days or weeks, not if you are under the influence at the moment.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Unfortunately those pee tests don’t even show that. They show if you have used weed in the past days or weeks, not if you are under the influence at the moment.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that using weed doesn't alter your perception of reality?
If you smoked weed a week ago, your pee test today is negative, it's okay to smoke weed after the pee test and operate machinery?!?
 
Barnacle said:
Sure; now everybody will have a reason to claim discrimination when employers don't hire them because their pee tests will show their brains are in an alternate universe.
Click to expand...

What's your excuse? Maybe you need some pot or other substances to get that brain to think

Barnacle said:
Are you saying that using weed doesn't alter your perception of reality?
If you smoked weed a week ago, your pee test today is negative, it's okay to smoke weed after the pee test and operate machinery?!?
Click to expand...

LIke Fox news alters right wingers perception of reality
 
Allow it for recreational use nationwide. Alcoholics will make the switch. There will be fewer deaths on the road. Less domestic violence. Sure you may lose some memory and brain cells but its better than being dead.
 
JacksinPA said:
Poll: Support rises in all age groups for legal pot

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A growing majority of Americans say marijuana should be legal, underscoring a national shift as more states embrace cannabis for medical or recreational use.

Support for legal marijuana hit 61 percent in 2018, up from 57 percent two years ago, according to the General Social Survey, a widely respected trend survey that has been measuring support for legal marijuana since the 1970s.
==================================================
As an observer of changes in illegal drug culture, I have mixed feelings about this. Of course the states want the tax benefits. But there are too many downside issues with MJ. One is its Federal ban, another is its negative effect on people in general. It's like someone invented a new type of booze - great but not good.
Click to expand...

Its a matter of liberty and racism/class bigotry. The original reason for banning weed was because people were prejudice against Mexicans. That has shifted into bigotry towards a certain group of people, mainly the hippies in the 60's.
 
Barnacle said:
Are you saying that using weed doesn't alter your perception of reality?
If you smoked weed a week ago, your pee test today is negative, it's okay to smoke weed after the pee test and operate machinery?!?
Click to expand...

A few hours after you smoke there are no longer any physical or mental effects whatsoever, so yes, you can just as safely operate heavy machinery if you smoked the night before. You speak out of fear and ignorance, not knowledge and experience.

It's way worse to drink the night before then operate heavy machinery. Why is that allowed?
 
WillyPete said:
How is current policy and all the resources tangled up in it better?
Marijuana is obviously quite old. What changed is the generation coming into political power realizes our traditional marijuana policy was based on fearmongering and misinformation.
Do you feel like significantly fewer people are using marijuana than will use it when it's made legal? I see no reason to believe that, as it's easy to find, and it's still edgy enough (where illegal) to be extra attractive as forbidden fruit, especially in light of the government's misinformation campaigns.
What percentage of our police resources do you think should be dedicated to marijuana, as opposed to other crimes? How does this rate as a priority compared with murder (with something less than 50% of murders being solved?)
My understanding is the federal ban could be removed today without a vote required, though I wouldn't expect it from this administration.
I won't argue that marijuana has it's downsides, but current policy is at very best ineffective. We've demonstrated we can't control the trade with federal or state law. We can't be bothered to provide treatment for hard drug users, nevermind marijuana. Your description makes it seem like it's something the government has some level of control over, but they don't. They just drive up the prices, and make examples of people now and again to try to keep the fear train running on time.

We've significantly reduced tobacco use over the last few decades without arresting anyone. Maybe it's worth considering a similar policy with marijuana?
Click to expand...


I wish people wouldn't compare dope smoking to tobacco use.

Take a few puffs on a "dope cigarette" during your lunch break and see how good you're gonna be at calibrating the saw in a wood mill ... not to mention how well you're gonna fly an Airbus or drive an 18-wheeler.
 
WillyPete said:
How is current policy and all the resources tangled up in it better?

Marijuana is obviously quite old. What changed is the generation coming into political power realizes our traditional marijuana policy was based on fearmongering and misinformation.

Do you feel like significantly fewer people are using marijuana than will use it when it's made legal? I see no reason to believe that, as it's easy to find, and it's still edgy enough (where illegal) to be extra attractive as forbidden fruit, especially in light of the government's misinformation campaigns.

What percentage of our police resources do you think should be dedicated to marijuana, as opposed to other crimes? How does this rate as a priority compared with murder (with something less than 50% of murders being solved?)

My understanding is the federal ban could be removed today without a vote required, though I wouldn't expect it from this administration.

I won't argue that marijuana has it's downsides, but current policy is at very best ineffective. We've demonstrated we can't control the trade with federal or state law. We can't be bothered to provide treatment for hard drug users, nevermind marijuana. Your description makes it seem like it's something the government has some level of control over, but they don't. They just drive up the prices, and make examples of people now and again to try to keep the fear train running on time.

We've significantly reduced tobacco use over the last few decades without arresting anyone. Maybe it's worth considering a similar policy with marijuana?
Click to expand...

Teen marijuana use was at nearly 50% in 1980 but was taken all the way down to around 20% by the early to mid 90s and now we are back up to the 40% area because of states going lax on marijuana
 
RabidAlpaca said:
A few hours after you smoke there are no longer any physical or mental effects whatsoever, so yes, you can just as safely operate heavy machinery if you smoked the night before. You speak out of fear and ignorance, not knowledge and experience.

It's way worse to drink the night before then operate heavy machinery. Why is that allowed?
Click to expand...


What a load of crap. Take a few "puffs" during your lunch break and see how well you "operate".
Sorry, I forgot, you don't work ...
 
RabidAlpaca said:
A few hours after you smoke there are no longer any physical or mental effects whatsoever, so yes, you can just as safely operate heavy machinery if you smoked the night before. You speak out of fear and ignorance, not knowledge and experience.

It's way worse to drink the night before then operate heavy machinery. Why is that allowed?
Click to expand...

Depends on how hard you drink.

If you're a stoner, you can smoke all night and go to work, but it'll be dish washing, or a line cook.

If you're a clean person you might end up on planet Pluto and who knows what you'll do.

It could be that, like Astrology; bad dope; is nothing but a racketeer by the government perpetrated by our very elect.

I don't know how the Founding Architects let dope become illegal.

Probably because they smoked it.
 
Barnacle said:
I wish people wouldn't compare dope smoking to tobacco use.

Take a few puffs on a "dope cigarette" during your lunch break and see how good you're gonna be at calibrating the saw in a wood mill ... not to mention how well you're gonna fly an Airbus or drive an 18-wheeler.
Click to expand...

It IS a bit unfair, in that marijuana isn't addictive.

"Sin" taxes, enforced age restrictions, and honest informational campaigns have worked for tobacco. There's no reason to think similar policies wouldn't have similar effects on marijuana usage.

No one is encouraging marijuana use while driving or at work. Anyone doing so should be dealt with in the same way as someone using any intoxicant in those situations.

Do you think the current marijuana policy is effective? What part of it prevents people from using it while driving or working?
 
WillyPete said:
It IS a bit unfair, in that marijuana isn't addictive.

"Sin" taxes, enforced age restrictions, and honest informational campaigns have worked for tobacco. There's no reason to think similar policies wouldn't have similar effects on marijuana usage.

No one is encouraging marijuana use while driving or at work. Anyone doing so should be dealt with in the same way as someone using any intoxicant in those situations.

Do you think the current marijuana policy is effective? What part of it prevents people from using it while driving or working?
Click to expand...


Pee tests.
 
Barnacle said:
What a load of crap. Take a few "puffs" during your lunch break and see how well you "operate".
Sorry, I forgot, you don't work ...
Click to expand...

Who said lunch break? I said night before. You're pretending that anybody who smoked weed within the last 30 days is incapable of work.

Also, I'm an engineer with a nice job and you're acting emotional and childish.
 
Crovax said:
Teen marijuana use was at nearly 50% in 1980 but was taken all the way down to around 20% by the early to mid 90s and now we are back up to the 40% area because of states going lax on marijuana
Click to expand...

Can you substantiate that claim? It'll be tougher than it might seem, as it's been demonstrated people don't answer poll questions about illegal behavior honestly, and so likely those results are skewed, with a sudden rise as it becomes more acceptable in society.

That not necessarily an increase in usage, it could just as easily be an increase in the poll's accuracy, as people become more willing to admit to using marijuana.

What would be wrong with approaching it, policy-wise, like tobacco? Do you agree tobacco use is on the decline?
 
Barnacle said:
Sure; now everybody will have a reason to claim discrimination when employers don't hire them because their pee tests will show their brains are in an alternate universe.
Click to expand...

It's arguable that drug tests are a violation of privacy anyway. It can reflect actions taken on private time. Pot stays in your system up to six weeks for one bowl.

I refuse to test my guys unless there is reason to believe they are high at work or are making a worker's comp claim (required by insurance).
 
Barnacle said:
Pee tests.
Click to expand...

Those aren't government policy, outside of government positions that require pee tests.

Decriminalizing marijuana wouldn't change pee tests, or their consequences, any more than ending alcohol prohibition made it legal to drive a fork lift with a martini in your hand.
 
Keridan said:
It's arguable that drug tests are a violation of privacy anyway. It can reflect actions taken on private time. Pot stays in your system up to six weeks for one bowl.

I refuse to test my guys unless there is reason to believe they are high at work or are making a worker's comp claim (required by insurance).
Click to expand...


Most companies don't wait until an accident happens ... at which point it's useless anyway.
 
Barnacle said:
Most companies don't wait until an accident happens ... at which point it's useless anyway.
Click to expand...

Not true. Most companies don't do drug tests until compelled to do so. Especially with pot. And the reason they want the test at the time of the accident is because if the person smoked pot in the last month and a half, they get out of paying for care, whether or not the person was at all impaired at the time of the accident.

I have always and will always fire anyone who shows up impaired at work. What I won't do is fire them for a choice they made last weekend when they were under perfectly safe conditions and not being paid.

We have very dangerous work. Neither I or any of the people relying on others to secure a ladder will put up with something that might endanger us. We also agree unanimously that what someone does on their own time (including recovery) is on them.
 
WillyPete said:
It IS a bit unfair, in that marijuana isn't addictive.

"Sin" taxes, enforced age restrictions, and honest informational campaigns have worked for tobacco. There's no reason to think similar policies wouldn't have similar effects on marijuana usage.

No one is encouraging marijuana use while driving or at work. Anyone doing so should be dealt with in the same way as someone using any intoxicant in those situations.

Do you think the current marijuana policy is effective? What part of it prevents people from using it while driving or working?
Click to expand...

I'd say you people weren't bargaining out a deal for yourselves; this having to take my plant down out of the window and put her in some back room and have to build a shady fence or get caught watering the species on my property.

How would they prove I planted it there?

Is there a law against watering the ground, or standing in the forest.

It is only fear and I stand there and hand them my declaration.

The Judge knows me though and wouldn't let me get away with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom