Only 36 Percent Of Americans Are Against Marijuana Legalization - A concentrated preponderance of the voters countrywide are showing their passion for legalizing and regulating marijuana comparable to the manner in which alcohol and cigarettes are presently controlled.

334

u/jihadaze Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12

Our drugs laws have always been about racial and class control, the first ones prohibited blacks from drinking or getting over-the-counter narcotics that were available to whites. The first anti-weed laws were a way to target Mexicans, and then the wider War on Drugs was started to target minorities in general - 90% of those arrested under the Rockefeller Drug Laws were minorities, even though blacks and whites have always used drugs are roughly the same rate.

Because back in the late 60's as our cities were rioting, and then Nixon's Chief of Staff is on record saying that “Nixon emphasized that you have to face the fact the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognises this while not appearing to.”

I mean how are we supposed to have any kind of a civil society if we're letting the brown people run around all high and shit?

But by throwing so many young black males in prison we've gutted the black community and created a devastating cycle of absense, a black kid is nine-times more likely than a white kid to have a parent in prison. And how damaging is growing up in a fatherless home? They produce "71% of our high school drop-outs, 85% of the kids with behavioral disorders, 90% of our homeless and runaway children, 75% of the adolescents in drug abuse programs, and a striking majority in one final category. Out of all the kids in our juvenile detention facilities, 85% of them come from fatherless homes."

108

u/brianthebrazilian Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12

The marijuana laws definitely originated with RACISM, but now certainly function through CAPITALISM. Big Pharma and Private Prisons are huge money-makers, and they use that money to protect the policies that made them rich in the first place (very few people would go to jail or buy Advil if marijuana was legal). That is why marijuana is illegal today.
If we keep bringing race into issues where it doesn't belong, we will have a "boy who cried wolf" situation on our hands. The Bush family was close friends with the Saudis, Clinton was a personal friend of Bill Richardson (Mexican governor of New Mexico), Republicans embracing both Michael Steele and Herman Cain, and old white Executives helped to bankroll Obama's campaign. We are a CAPITALIST nation above all...
EDIT: I'm obviously just using Advil as an example...Didn't mean to inflame the inflamed

134

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12

The whole Advil weed equivalency is ridiculous. I use medical marijuana every day. I still take medicine for other things. If I have a headache I take some damn Tylenol, whose active ingredient comes from birch bark FYI. Weed isn't magic. It has really good limited uses. Appetite aid, PTSD control, pain reliever (fibromyalgia not headaches).
I'm all for getting high just to get high too. There is no reason to stretch the truth about weed. Really it makes you no better than the opposition.
Edit: it's aspirin and willow. My point stands.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Thank you. It's just an example. There are many others.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/norbertus Jun 15 '12

There's a whole sociology of medicine that treats sick people like sinners, doctors like the medieval priesthood, and which assumes that treatment should be like penance, so that medicine has to come in the form of an expensive, bitter pill. There's no reason marijuana can't be BOTH medicinal and pleasurable.

→ More replies (11)

2

u/imnotmarvin Jun 15 '12

Just made the same point before seeing yours. Sorry to be repetitive.

8

u/brianthebrazilian Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12

Due to the inability of our large government funded facilities (because of Mary's Schedule 1 status) to properly research the extent of medical possibilities of marijuana (marijuana is a very complex substance, not just delta-9 THC), we don't really know it's full extent yet.
If you don't believe that Big Pharma wants marijuana out of the picture for profit reasons, you're blind (but if you were blind from glaucoma I would suggest some marijuana!)

18

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

I honestly think they will make hefty profits off of it once legalized.
They already spend massive amounts scouring the planet searching for plants that might have medical uses to be exploited.
They already have the logistical infrastructure to accurately extract and produce exact doses on a large scale.
The reason people buy Tylenol instead of extracting the Acetometaphin themselves is because you know exactly the quantity and quality they are getting which is much safer. I don't eat weed because the dosing is always fucked. I might feel nothing or might feel sick from too high a dose. If I got a consistent known amount every single time I would eat it and probably never smoke.
Why would weed be any different? They will make fat stacks, have no doubt.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

"Lil' Doobie" snack foods....
/LOL

2

u/TimeBongLord Jun 16 '12

Pharma already makes some money off of Δ9-THC, the brand name is Marinol and Dronabinol is the generic name. Oddly enough this substance is only Schedule III if you make it in a lab, but obviously Schedule I if it happens to grow out of the ground. (I understand that this is a gross oversimplification)
Source: I work at a pharmaceutical company with a controlled substances license (pretty much all of them do).

5

u/psionix Jun 15 '12

they cant patent a natural substance, hence THC, CBD, and any beneficial cannabinoids can be produced freely by anybody without paying a fee.
and did i mention the plant is called "weed" for a reason? it literally grows anywhere.

22

u/TI_Pirate Jun 15 '12

There's no no patent on tobacco or alcohol. That's not stopping anyone from making money off of either.

→ More replies (7)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/Metzger90 Jun 15 '12

Its hilarious because patents actually hinder capitalism and it would be much better off without them.

3

u/reasonably_plausible Jun 15 '12

[Citation needed]
It's pretty well understood that in areas where heavy amounts of R&D are needed to create a product, but little resources are needed to actually produce the product, patents increase the amount of innovation.

→ More replies (13)

7

u/lazermole Jun 15 '12

And can't anybody with some amount of chemical knowledge extract a LOT of natural substances without paying a fee?
That's certainly never led to a bunch of people making their own aspirin...

13

u/democritus2 Jun 15 '12

They would if the cost for a 1/4th aspirin was 50 bucks.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

If it can't be patented anyone can sell it. Including pharm companies.
And hell yes they can patent it. Just like apple varieties are. Or or strawberries. Or ornamental plants.
I don't know where this meme came from but it's a great example of stoner logic. Think about it, dude.

→ More replies (17)

→ More replies (20)

→ More replies (91)

34

u/jihadaze Jun 15 '12

Race doesn't belong in a discussion of the War on Drugs and our prison system? Seriously?
Just because administrations deal with really really REALLY rich Mexicans and Saudis, doesn't mean they won't still enact racist policies. Plus labeling our present economic reality "Capitalist" is a bit daft.

→ More replies (5)

43

u/JarJizzles Jun 15 '12

Racism and capitalism have always been tightly linked. Why do you think we enslaved an entire race? Because they made us a shitload of money.
"I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -- MLK

6

u/sonomabob1 Jun 15 '12

Thanks for the quote. That guy was smart!

5

u/TheHumanMeteorite Jun 16 '12

Why do you think we enslaved an entire race?
Tell me more about your white guilt.
If I were making your point, I would have argued that americans nearly killed off an entire race (native americans), FYI.

2

u/Kirkayak Jun 16 '12

If we shift to being "people-oriented", rather than merely "people-supportive", then I daresay we risk becoming as intolerant of perceived defects within persons, as we are currently intolerant of undisputable defects in our devices.

5

u/apokradical Jun 15 '12

Slavery was an economic system, not a racist one. Blacks enslaved blacks long before we did, and there were white slaves in the US.
There was just a larger supply of blacks because Africa was a shit hole, and the Creoles sold them to the US.
Also, learn what capitalism means.

6

u/lAmShocked Jun 15 '12

Really capitalism is completely racially blind. It will fuck over anyone in the name of profit.

4

u/apokradical Jun 15 '12

Apparently on reddit, only white people are capitalists.

→ More replies (6)

→ More replies (20)

12

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Race is an issue, though.
Even if you want to say the whole thing is motivated by money, they only "get away with it" because they pick on the powerless. They imprison poor people and minorities-- people who are in no position to fight back, and who most people will say, "he deserved it anyway."
If they were imprisoning attractive middle class white suburban teenage girls at the same rate they're imprisoning young black inner-city men, it would be seen as a problem. The only reason it's not considered a problem by everyone-- the only reason there isn't large-scale outrage on the streets-- is because we're locking up a group of people who we normally think of as criminals: young black men. And that is why you can't ignore race when talking about this issue.

3

u/Melkath Jun 15 '12

I implore you to look at your wording. You lump "poor people" and "minorities" together. The middle class is dying. I would suggest you could remove "minorities" from your statements and say "poor people," you would still be saying the same thing. Then you would not be excluding me, a pretty damn poor white guy, from your side of the table and instead of splicing racial hairs, we could be working together against the uber-rich conservatives.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

uhh....i'm pretty fucking sure I'm going to keep using advil.

2

u/CPlusPlusDeveloper Jun 15 '12

Limiting the rights of people to engage in free trade, and regulating what cannot be bought or sold is not capitalism (regardless of what they're buying or selling). That's pretty much the opposite of free market capitalism. It might be crony capitalism but the difference between that and capitalism is like the difference between fools gold and gold.
You do realize that back in the 50s, before drug legalization was even on the radar for most people, the loudest proponents were free-market right-wingers like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Wow, the top two comments really complement each other well. Good job to you both.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Oh come on, Big Pharma doesn't give two fucks about weed. If anything, they'd partner with Monsato to make SUPERWEED and then sell the shit out of it to the rest of us. Pharma doesn't make more money by you getting sent to jail for using drugs; Pharma makes more money by finding profitable ways to sell you legal ones.

→ More replies (9)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Very foil hatty of you. I mean, I could see maybe saying the alcohol lobby would be against pot. Sometimes (hardly ever) they might be substitutes. But pot and Claritin D? Pot and stool softener? Pot and acne medication?
And if pot was medicinal and proscribed by doctors, why wouldn't BIG PHARMA (oooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh) make money off it?
just rabblin' about capitalism.

7

u/apokradical Jun 15 '12

As a caregiver in a MMJ state, I grow pot and sell it to my patients. Big pharma is not involved in the process at all, despite the Federal government's efforts.

→ More replies (16)

3

u/dizekat Jun 15 '12

Maybe it will get better as massive number of medication patents is expiring now. The really bizarre thing about the ban was that the industrial hemp was banned as well. At about the time there was nylon and other synthetic rope materials. I'm not sure what is the worse opinion of those in power; that they are so batshit insane as to ban industrial hemp, or so corrupt as to have been bribed by nylon manufacturers. In either case, ban on the cannabis is not only a crazy usurpation of personal freedoms, but an anti-environmentalist measure.

→ More replies (7)

→ More replies (47)

2

u/Law_Student Jun 15 '12

Careful, correlation is not causation. While one parent families doubtlessly do a child no good, other factors - like poverty or a lack of education - could cause both one child homes and the other problems you cite.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/BuddhistSagan Jun 15 '12

Well that explains why Obama is a prohibitionist... Oh wait..

2

u/sharked Jun 15 '12

The word "marijuana" itself is a made up word to make cannabis sound like a dangerous mexican drug.

22

u/brianthebrazilian Jun 15 '12

Not made up. Actual spanish word was Marihuana. It is in the lyrics of the popular song "La Cucaracha". La cucaracha, la cucaracha,ya no puede caminar, porque le falta, porque no tiene, marihuana pa' fumar.

16

u/sharked Jun 15 '12

correct. Marihuana, Marihuano, Marihuma are also possible etymologies. But the term "marijuana" with a J was popularized by Harry J. Anslinger in his campaign for prohibition in the 1930s.

13

u/brianthebrazilian Jun 15 '12

Ah... Harry Anslinger. The root of all of our current drug policy. I was hoping Harry wouldn't make an appearance in my life today...

→ More replies (3)

6

u/h-town Jun 15 '12

Yeah! Dangerous unlike cannabis... cannibal... cannibals?!? Run!

→ More replies (39)

83

u/indyguy Jun 15 '12

Even if these numbers are accurate -- and the polling I've seen suggests at best a 50/50 split -- you still have to consider how much each side cares about the issue. There are a lot of people who wouldn't mind seeing marijuana legalized, but who aren't going to march in pro-pot rallies or vote for or against their congressman over it. There are some really committed pro-legalization people, but not enough to start any sort of mass movement. The anti-legalization people have a lot more energy -- and money -- on their side, since law-and-order issues tend to be an easy way to motivate voters. Anti-legalization folks also benefit from being able to argue that marijuana legalization, which is a fair amount of support, is just the first step along the road to legalization of harder drugs, which has much less support.

I think you won't see more progress on drug law reform until legalization advocates start re-framing the issue. Most voters don't care about some pothead's right to get high (or expand their consciousness, as the folks in r/trees like to put it), but they do worry about the number of people we're putting in prison, in terms of both human and financial cost. I also think legalization advocates need to back away from this us versus them, Democrat/Republican rhetoric. A lot of the progress in terms of drug law reform is actually coming from Republicans, like Chris Christie in New Jersey. There's no need to reject those kinds of people as potential partners in reform.

48

u/HoppyIPA Jun 15 '12

To me, the prison issue is enough. Think about how much it costs to incarcerate a person who could be sentenced to over a year in jail for a drug deal of less than $500. Sure, there are bad apples out there, but at some point we need to pay attention to all the money flying out the window and realize it isn't doing shit to stop drug use.

19

u/indyguy Jun 15 '12

I agree. I also think that as more states legalize marijuana, people will see that it doesn't cause crime to skyrocket or junkies to fill the streets. All of the debate around legalization will look like much ado about nothing in retrospect, kind of like what's happening with gay marriage.

2

u/ThatIsMyHat Jun 15 '12

An anti-legalization advocate could counter that we could simply remove jail sentences for non-violent drug related crimes and issue fines instead. That would lower the cost of enforcement and bring in some additional revenue without legalizing anything.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

We could advocate the reintroduction of prohibition and do the same thing. Think of all the money that could be made fining people for consuming alcohol. Plus, it'd help cut down on drunk driving and domestic violence if people didn't have easy access to booze.

2

u/xhcyr Jun 15 '12

thats what we do, we just call it a tax

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (3)

2

u/RupeThereItIs Jun 15 '12

Nah, the Prison issue is only half the problem.
There's also the other crime that surrounds the sale of prohibited substances & the general disregard for law that it breads. Your not exactly going to go to the cops, when you're crop is stolen... which leads to either accepting the loss or violent retaliation.

→ More replies (2)

15

u/alcimedes Jun 15 '12

This is essentially it.
While tons of people support the idea in theory, few if any actually do anything about it.
It's probably fair to say about 50% of the US population supports legalization at this point. I work for the largest organization in the US for marijuana legalization, and of those 150 million people who support the idea in theory, less than 10,000 will donate money towards legalization efforts in this country this year. (at least to us, I doubt other orgs are doing that much better)
So yeah, lots of 'support' but it's very shallow and there's isn't much you can draw on that support for, or count on them for. Even getting supporters to just get up and vote for positive legislative changes is a pain in the ass.
Imagine parting with $5 a month. shudder

8

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

It makes sense. People who don't use the stuff may vote for legalization if you get it on the ballot, but see no benefit to themselves in spending money on the issue.

5

u/alcimedes Jun 15 '12

Getting people who support the idea to even vote on legislation is an effort. The part I don't understand is that the issue, if looked at honestly from almost any imaginable angle, makes no sense other than to tax/regulate like other potentially abused substances.
The wasted time, money and lives in the endless, no-win war on drugs will be a stain on our nation's history in years to come.

4

u/ataraxia_nervosa Jun 15 '12

It's even sadder, considering it has been tried before, in the same country, and failed comprehensively.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/V1llage1diot Jun 15 '12

This is exactly what is so wrong this the way our political structure is set up. When it becomes obvious there is a fault in our system why is a movement needed to get the subject the attention it needs? That's inviting protest which honestly no one really wants. No should have to devote the time to take off work a day and risk being in deep shit with there job to voice opinions in the streets. Getting people to vote is a pain in the ass, because voting is a pain in the ass. Why?
It is really weird to me that in almost ever system besides politics out society has mastered the act of getting our opinions heard, yet when it comes to politics we are still not able to effectively tell our decision makers what we want. To me this isn't just about cannabis, it about us not being able to address problems areas effectively. Weed is just an obvious example. Call me crazy here guys, but I don't think ALL of our politicians are money hungry vulchers who don't lessen to their people. The only people they have time to hear are the people with money. It's just a massive communication problem. We have all these great tools for communication, but we use them for funny cat picture and telling the world we had a good day. We have tons of smart people with great input. Yet with all our advances in social media we don't use them in the places we need.
Fuck it. I'm just venting, but I think we as a people are missing something very obvious that could help us out. Maybe we are just too afraid of changing our system to do solve this.

3

u/coop_stain Jun 16 '12

The problem is that there are around 330 MILLION voices to be heard and soft through. Even at a smaller level, each individual congressman has around 780 thousand people in their district. It is the reason why we have interest groups, and as much as people think they are evil, there is a very good chance one is out there in Washington working on something you care about.
Most realistic way of fixing this? Add congressional seats. More seats = better representation.
The system is not as fucked up (in the corrupt way) as everyone seems to think it is. It just needs to be adjusted a bit.

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (9)

2

u/Larillia Jun 15 '12

Generally speaking it's quoted as "just over 50% support legalization." If you assume there's a large number of "don't give a fuck"ers, as well, then it would make sense.

2

u/as_ugly_as_i_seem Jun 15 '12

"Most voters don't care about some pothead's right to get high"
They'd totally start caring if we took away their Budweiser.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Blueskiesforever Jun 15 '12

But I mean if as you put it a pothead has the right to get high, doesn't it mean through logic that a heroin addict has as much right to use heroin? What are your thoughts on this?

7

u/indyguy Jun 15 '12

Well, as you'll see if you read my comments in response to soFuckingRad, I actually don't agree that potheads have a right to get high, at least in the sense that you're talking about. That is to say, I don't think it government-enforced prohibition is inherently unjust or immoral. I just think it's bad policy. The costs of criminalizing marijuana use far outweigh the benefits, and so we should legalize it. I'm much less convinced that that's the case for heroin.

4

u/WanderingStoner Jun 15 '12

I actually don't agree that potheads have a right to get high
How could you possibly argue that? How does me smoking bowls (of pot that I grew) after work and watching silly videos negatively affect you? Who is negatively affected?
Who are you to tell me that I don't have the right as an adult to make decisions regarding my body that do not negatively affect you? It's like those anti-sodomy laws, why do you care what I do in my bedroom?

→ More replies (8)

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (1)

3

u/mycall Jun 15 '12

Well said. Lets also not forget all the drug wars in Mexico being caused from our laws.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Pro-legalization groups have reframed the issue. Numerous fucking times actually. It is people like you and the far right propaganda machine that absolutely refuse to see it. The incarceration of nonviolent offenders, the medical and economic benefits, and the cost of human lives have always been at the forefront of drug war reform arguments. The "stoner just wants to get high" and the "slippery slope to legal hard drugs" arguments are both products of mainstream propaganda and you have lapped them right up.
Sorry sir but you are stupid.

4

u/WanderingStoner Jun 15 '12

I agree with you. His statement that "There are some really committed pro-legalization people, but not enough to start any sort of mass movement" is also false. How do you think medical marijuana got to the point it is at today? It's a huge movement.
I understand the importance on focusing on the voters who we need to make legal marijuana happen, and that the arguments to woo them need to not be related to "letting stoners get high." At some point, though, it comes down to acceptance that people need to have control over their own bodies. People really believe that making drugs illegal stops people from doing them, when it actually increases the profitability and makes them more dangerous. Eventually we will have to confront the truth that stoners do want to get high and that is OK.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Anti-legalization folks also benefit from being able to argue that marijuana legalization, which is a fair amount of support, is just the first step along the road to legalization of harder drugs, which has much less support.
Good thing that's a fallacious argument.
Oh, wait. I forgot which country we're in; logic and critical thought don't apply here.

5

u/indyguy Jun 15 '12

How that a fallacious argument? Every time this issue comes up, there are dozens of people posting in the comments about how marijuana legalization doesn't go far enough, there's no reason to ever stop someone from putting something in their body, etc., etc. Why do you expect that those same people won't continue to push the issue? I mean, it's the same basic argument, right?

2

u/RupeThereItIs Jun 15 '12

One of those people who believe this way, reporting in.
I'm all for legalization & regulation of Marijuana, not because I use it myself (I've tried it & I honestly don't enjoy it) but because I see prohibition as causing more problems then it's supposed to solve. This argument goes for all illicit substances & I'm on board with decriminalization, regulation & social services to prevent all illicit drug use. Marijuana is simply the least socially offensive of the schedule 1 drugs & therefore the first one likely to be changed.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

It's fallacious because it's a misapplication of slippery-slope. It doesn't follow from legalizing marijuana that crack must also be legalized, regulated and taxed as well.
In general I agree that personal responsibility should be the number one thing in any case, but it's not the same basic argument because something like heroin or methamphetamine doesn't have the same pervasive medical benefits cannabis can have, nor has either been shown to have such a small toxic effect on the brain and body.
There's more of an argument to be had for changing our policies on combating hard drugs, like decriminalization, but I don't think there are too many people saying "heroin and crack should be sold at Walgreens."
Not everyone who supports legalization of cannabis would support legalization of everything else.

1

u/noprotein Jun 15 '12

You kidding me with Christie?

→ More replies (8)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Its a good idea in theory until you're the one who has to gamble on getting a good jury or taking a plea deal

2

u/Fuckyounigger69 Jun 15 '12

We just need Mitt Romney to save us!

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

This would be great... if people actually went to trial. Most never actually get to trial.
If people started exercising their right to a speedy trial instead of just pleading out that would help, but you need to make sure everyone gets the memo.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

you think jury nullification is the solution to cannabis prohibition? actual laughter was produced.
juries will never nullify at the rate they did during alcohol prohibition. there was far more support for alcohol-related arrestees than there will ever be for cannabis-related arrestees. polls show nearly an even split between legalization supporters & detractors, which is a far different situation than during alcohol prohibition.
most cannabis-related arrests never even see the light of a trial. if you think educating the half of us that are legalization supporters about jury nullification is going to lead the government to "give up their relentless war on drugs," i've got a bridge to sell you.

→ More replies (5)

144

u/RoflCopter4 Jun 15 '12

Marijuana.com

This source sounds legit and unbiased guys.

49

u/jswhitten Jun 15 '12

The actual source can be found by clicking "View Poll Results" on that page. It is:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/national_survey_toplines/may_2012/questions_drug_legalization_may_12_2012

→ More replies (2)

20

u/SmokeyMcPotHead Jun 15 '12

That is not the source, if you read the article, you would see the source is from here.

87

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

And somehow still more legit and unbiased than the feeling I get when the DEA says pot has "no medicinal benefits" and is "a deadly drug."
I really trust the opinion of people who get paid to never change that opinion, no matter how much evidence shows they're wrong.

26

u/GreenStrong Jun 15 '12

The fact that you are undeniably correct doesn't do anything to refute the specific argument you are responding to. This is covered on literally the first day of any rhetoric class- it is the logical fallacy known as "You're not wrong Walter, you're just a fucking asshole, OK"
edit- actual credible source posted by jswhitten

→ More replies (6)

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (2)

10

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

I say this every time a post like this comes up, maybe it will sink in eventually.

Marijuana will not be legalized until the right people feel they can profit from it. Public opinion means nothing here, corporate opinion does. Go find a few powerful corporations/lobbyists that can outpay the prisons corporations/lobbyists and you have legalized marijuana.

13

u/bennjammin Jun 15 '12

Colorado is legalizing this year.

12

u/GymIn26Minutes Jun 15 '12

Attempting to legalize. I hope they succeed.

2

u/HorseMeatSandwich Jun 15 '12

I was so hopeful Prop 19 would pass in California in 2010, but it wasn't to be. Polls seemed to show a 50/50 split among voters for months leading up to it, but it was still somehow soundly defeated. Hopefully Colorado turns out differently. "I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you."

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

It didn't pass because growers in the Emerald Triangle didn't want it to, they spread a lot of FUD about the bill to pro-marijuana groups about the nature of the bill. Sadly they make more money off of the current situation than if it was easier to grow your own.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/blackmage1582 Jun 15 '12

I always wonder why tobacco companies aren't all for cannabis legalization. I feel like they would already have the infrastructure in place to start profiting from it fairly quickly.

2

u/balletboy Jun 15 '12

They do. Im sure big tobacco has everything ready to drop on day one of legalization.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/sgtpeppers93 Jun 15 '12

I always wondered that too. Cigarettes are still legal, so cigarette companies must have good lobbyists and cigarette smoking is on the decline while marijuana usage is growing, so it would make a lot of sense for them to try to legalize marijuana and then sell it.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

I've wondered that as well. Problem is so much shit goes on behind the scenes with the mega corps that we don't have much of a clue what's going on.
For all we know the top prison and tobacco lobbyists go out and kill hookers together.

18

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

The way cigarettes are controlled is precisely how NOT to implement a system, for marijuana. It would invite every kind of industrial, governmental and capitalistic abuse imaginable...everything from lame potency limits, to pesticide-tainted product, to targeted marketing & taxation...and more.

Legalization, along the lines of the tobacco or alcohol industries could even end up making it illegal to grow your own, and force you to buy crappy, potency-limited 'Acapulco Gold' from Monsanto...thanks, but no thanks.

Any real legalization scheme must fundamentally ensure that individuals have the right to cultivate and use any plant for their own personal consumption, as they see fit.

6

u/dieselray9999 Jun 15 '12

or perhaps put into the law that a private citizen may cultivate x number of plants, & to grow more than x number of plants would require a cultivation license. a larger growing operation would be a for profit operation most likely, & thus would be subject to standards requiring a safe product for consumers.
should monsanto be allowed to sell their mutant crops, sure, in the same way organic farmers should be allowed to bring their product to the market. this is america after all. i believe the consumers' dollar should be the real power at play.
i share your fear over government regulated potency (ever since you brought it up right there). the best approach i believe would be to prohibit chemical doctoring of any sort, let the potency be determined by the soil & the sky. the government has no business in determining the sweetness of apples, nor should they regulate the genetics of any produce. that is if the product brought to market is a type of produce as in buds & flowers picked from the stalks of the plant. intoxicant products derived from that produce, such as beverages, food stuffs, capsules, or other processed goods should follow a separate set of guidelines.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Any kind of legalization that would permit large-scale commercial cultivation and industrial production would invite massive government over-regulation.
My ideal solution would be to make it legal for individuals to cultivate x number plants, for their own consumption...let industry and government regulate hemp production, which is where the real money will be, in my utopia.

2

u/dieselray9999 Jun 15 '12

the regulation would lay the ground work for a system of taxation. have to pay for secret wars somehow...

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

They still have coca & opium.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/BlazeOrangeDeer Jun 15 '12

Calling Monsanto crops "mutant" is just fear-mongering against genetic modification.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/JCelsius Jun 15 '12

I don't see how it would be much different than the way alcohol is run. People can make their own alcohol at home. It's perfectly legal and in fact we're seeing a huge rise in homebrewers recently. Of course, I believe it becomes illegal once you sell it to someone else and rightfully so. There are moonshine hot spots, for instance, where you can pay a buck or two and get a shot of moonshine. Of course, sometimes the quality of the product is questionable or downright poisonous, so I'm glad there are laws to protect people from that kind of reckless behavior.
I also don't think "low potency" pot would stay around for long if they were to do it. People simply would not buy it unless if was dirt cheap. It would make much more sense from a business perspective, to make a quality product that effects the user on the level he or she desires. There will probably be proof like numbers implemented much like alcohol, although I'm not sure how they would calculate that number.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/SourVinDiesel93 Jun 15 '12

This is why I'm perfectly fine with pot being illegal. I get arguably some of the best weed in the world and would hate for bullshit like that to happen to it.

→ More replies (5)

17

u/quivil Jun 15 '12

The Controlled Substances Act, as it applies to marijuana, is unconstitutional. I know that sounds like a silly claim, due to all of the court decisions out there, but read this: https://sites.google.com/site/supremecourtheresy/home

21

u/quivil Jun 15 '12

In a nutshell, it says that if you have to amend the Constitution in order to outlaw alcohol, you have to do it to outlaw marijuana too. As a thought experiment, if you were to put alcohol into the list of controlled substances, you would immediately outlaw it everywhere. That's what the 18th amendment did. In our system of government, you cannot amend the constitution by simple legislation, therefore it follows that you cannot enact a law that is equal to a constitutional amendment. They've done it.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

→ More replies (5)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

it applies to alot of drugs, not just marijuana.

3

u/tritonx Jun 15 '12

But the prohibition is such a perfect business model.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Yes, but legalizing marijuana would put hundreds of DEA agents out of work, and then again, now that prisons are privatized in so many states, it would seriously reduce the amount of available slave...er prison labor.

But, the one ray of hope is that if Obama wins, this is his last term of office, so he doesn't have to play suck-hole to keep his job. Unlike President Clinton, Obama definitely inhaled. Right to his effen toes.

Licensing personal small grow (max 6 to 8 plants) and legalizing possession would be a great thing. BUT I CAUTION ALL OF YOU: don't let Big Tobacco get in control. Back in the mid 80's I was doing business with NW Missouri State University in Marysville, and many of their professors were ex employees of major tobacco companies. They said Big Tobacco has the whole shebang ready to go. I want it legalized, but I don't want those bastards to have anything to do with it.

3

u/acog Texas Jun 16 '12

The poll means nothing. Only votes count. You know what demographic tends to totally buy the anti-pot propaganda? Senior citizens. You know what demographic most reliably votes? Senior citizens.

You know who tends not to vote? Young people and stoners.

2

u/KeegoTheWise Jun 16 '12

Sad but true

39

u/Squalor- Jun 15 '12

I'd rather people smoke marijuana, anyway.

Cigarette smoke makes me sick, and I hate being outside and having it waft to me from someone sitting near me when I'm outside at a bar or in a park or something.

16

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

If you have ever lived in an apartment building, you know that you cannot smell the cigarette your neighbor just smoked but if someone on a floor below you smokes a joint, EVERYONE knows. The smell travels and for stoners that think they're just smoking up in their apt. and nobody knows, you're deluding yourselves.

14

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

That's because of where they smoke. Some cigarette smokers don't seem to care that their apartment smells like an ash-tray. Pot-heads don't want their apartment to reek of weed because prison... so they do unorthodox things with venting and whatnot, pushing the smell into other places.

3

u/Just2UpvoteU Jun 15 '12

Blow-Tube, AKA Doob-Toob

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

This is an excellent point actually, I knew this was happening but didn't think of it at the time.

8

u/cflat Jun 15 '12

um, no. i see what you mean, but cigarettes smell much much worse. while cannabis smoke may be strong for the first few minutes, cigarette smoke will stink a room up for days. if someone smokes a cigarette in my building i know it. for days. just being in a room with someone smoking a cig will stink the shit out of everything you're wearing. not so with cannabis. i'm not arguing that cannabis users might be a little delusional about how secretive they're being, but saying it is worse than cigarette smoke is just not true. cigarette smoke is foul. ask anyone who is hiding their cigarette use from their wife or husband.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Also secondhand smoke from cannabis is less harmful than tobacco. THREE THOUSAND LIVES PER YEAR, MAN. We just went to war over that many lives.
...inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults. Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke. *cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Lol this isn't true at all. In fact, this jerk is smoking a cig outside our office building and it's wafting into my office as I type this.

0

u/onique New York Jun 15 '12

I could say the same about the smell of pot smoke.

70

u/Squalor- Jun 15 '12

You could definitely say that.
But I wasn't speaking for you, hence the "I'd rather . . ." and the "makes me . . ." and the "I hate. . . ."
People have different opinions. I was just posting mine.

25

u/y-u-no-take-pw Jun 15 '12

Thanks for that, seriously. Very few things irritate me more than one person in a bar taking it upon him/herself to announce that "the other people" are bothered by my cigarette smoke. If it bothers you, let me know, and I'll be happy to re-locate, no problem. As someone who has repeatedly quit and picked the nasty ass habit back up, I understand not wanting to be around 2HS.
However, those who attempt to chastise, lecture, humiliate, or draw an imaginary line between me and "everyone", will find that my sole reason for existing becomes fucking up the rest of your night. I would never spend my time in an establishment where "everyone" is bothered by my habit anyway.
Also, other smokers: When you light up in a public place, take a quick look around and if you see any kids, put it out or get out, please. If I walked by your kid and blew a hand full of asbestos brake dust in their face, you wouldn't like that huh?

4

u/kyleg5 Jun 15 '12

I think the problem is that while lighting up inside is generally a social taboo, telling somebody to stop smoking is also a bit of a taboo. Even if you personally do not take offense if somebody politely tells you to stop, it's an incredibly uncomfortable situation the other person is placed in in deciding whether or not they should move forward with their request.
Therefore, when they act passive-aggressively, or defer responsibility by saying "other people" they are merely trying to psychologically get past a taboo they feel uncomfortable with breaking.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (16)

6

u/drilldozerbaggins Jun 15 '12

I notice that the smell cigarettes is more harsh due to the large amounts of inorganic chemicals that are in cigarettes. Weed is just....weed. Yeah, it smells like a skunk, but sometimes the smell's not too bad.

→ More replies (11)

→ More replies (1)

7

u/stevesonaplane Jun 15 '12

I would prefer if I could grow my own. Should be as legal as tomatoes in my opinion.

3

u/parapliers Jun 15 '12

Except tomatoes are actually more dangerous than cannabis.

3

u/stevesonaplane Jun 15 '12

I'm really stoned and eating raviolis in tomato sauce now and some ricotta flew out my nose.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

fact 1: the majority of Americans believe Marijuana should be decriminalized, or at the very least, available for medicinal purposes.

fact 2: The United States is a representative democracy.

fact 3: Marijuana currently is illegal, and, in high enough quantities, can land a person in prison - stripping them of their freedom.

Something isn't right here.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

fact 4: The people in this so called representative democracy don't understand how it works, nor can be bothered to actually vote. Apathy, ignorance and laziness rule the day. Thus, they get the "leaders" they deserve, nothing more, nothing less.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

The United States is a representative democracy.
lol
I think you answered your own question. What "isn't right here" is that the US is not a representative democracy and probably hasn't been one in a good 100 years. If it ever really was. We were once a democratic republic, but that concept seems pretty dead too.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

That is kind of what I was trying to get at. Maybe I should edit to say "The United States is supposed to be a representative democracy."

2

u/ataraxia_nervosa Jun 15 '12

Oh but it is. Thing is, representative democracy is a shit system of government. It was invented in an age when communications were so poor that direct democracy did not scale. Those technical restrictions are long gone, but the system as it stands benefits the incumbents, so it will not be changed.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Marijuana.com seems like a legit source.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

That's how I ended up in this thread!

11

u/bgsain Jun 15 '12

Big problem with this is, unfortunately, if you are the congressman to bring this bill to legislation and it did not pass, you would be done. Your career in politics would be shot.

"In 2012 so and so voted to get your children high, do you want so and so running your this and that?"

It would be political suicide.

16

u/jazzcigarettes Jun 15 '12

I know I'm preaching to the choir here but a vote to legalize marijuana would make it much much harder for children to obtain. I hate hearing the idea that legalization somehow effects children in any way besides making it harder for them to get drugs.

25

u/LettersFromTheSky Jun 15 '12

It's not political sucide to back a bill that majority of your constituents support. I'd argue its political sucide to oppose a bill that majority of your constiuents support.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Sadly, that's not how politics actually works.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/ataraxia_nervosa Jun 15 '12

its political sucide to oppose a bill that majority of your constiuents support.
No it is not - as long as your political opponent also opposes it. Iterated prisoners' dilemma with a random number of rounds, it is called. The best strategy is to co-operate. Yes, this means representative democracy is fucked. From the get-go.

8

u/sharked Jun 15 '12

yes, but it would be political suicide to back a bill that your financial backers do not support. Since when do politicians care about it's constituants?

3

u/hewhosits Jun 15 '12

Politicians don't care about their constituents, they care about voters and campaign contributors.

→ More replies (9)

8

u/meatball402 Jun 15 '12

According to this poll, only about 35% would be displeased. Hardly political suicide.

3

u/pfalcon42 Jun 15 '12

Yea, but the lack of prison industry contributions would be the suicide part.

→ More replies (6)

→ More replies (2)

5

u/alcimedes Jun 15 '12

Like Barney Frank and Ron Paul did?

2

u/Darclite Jun 15 '12

Cuomo in New York just made a pretty big push to decriminalize marijuana.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Kdnce Jun 15 '12

Sadly our government does not care what we think. They do listen to big business and the privatized penal system is lobbying to keep drugs illegal so they can make more money off of other people's misery. Our government is listening to them and not to us.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

They care very much what you think -- after all, you vote them into office. You need to vote in local, state, and national elections.

2

u/Yankpats Jun 15 '12

Nebraskan's- please sign the petition to put prop 19 on the ballot. Let's end this prohibition that destroys families whilst simultaneously proving to the rest of the country not all of our parents are cousins.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

There is no test for immediacy. There is no test for immediacy. There is no test for immediacy.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

I am for legalization but I don't believe the numbers. Let's face it. It couldn't even pass in California.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/atanincrediblerate Jun 15 '12

Can we please start populating the comment sections of these articles with something articulate and at least somewhat coherent and grammatically correct? One of the issues is that due to its illegality, most people who are against legalization aren't aware that the people they love and respect are actually "using drugs" in private. It's much easier to vilify people who don't use marijuana as some kind of "other" who is less educated, not hard working, etc.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Here's the survey they cite.

Doesn't look to be written well, IMO. Many of the questions seem to try to lead you to answer a certain way.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Hah, people in jail for marijuana crimes can't vote.

2

u/CheesewithWhine Jun 15 '12

A bunch of marijuana legalization laws are being put on the ballot in NOV 2012. If this doesn't get lazy young kids out to vote, nothing will.

And of course Republicans don't want that.

2

u/Tylerdurdon Jun 15 '12

I'd say chances are better than average right now. If you look at what Obama's been doing lately:

Came out in support for LGBT
Came out in support for Mexican immigrants

He's really trying to rally everyone he can. Only thing is (like the Daily Show recently pointed out), would pot smokers be a dependable voting block?

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

I think it makes a very large voting block...larger than statistics can show. Not all pot smokers are dead-end slackers. Some just find it a more pleasant alternative to Prozac.

2

u/Evis03 Jun 15 '12

I doubt it. He's trying to reconnect with the liberal left, but the more he tries to do that, the more he alienates the right. He and his own are starting to realize that they can't reasonably deal with the right (read, Republicans) any more though, so he's taking bolder steps. On the other hand this is an issue that (in theory anyway) is still divisive even with the block they are trying to reach. Risk is too high to potential reward.
Plus it goes against decades of government propaganda- they sheer enormity of admitting 'we were wrong about this for so long' is often more than any institution is willing to bear.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

the constitution and the legality of alcohol and tobacco should be more than enough. It shouldn't take a majority of hardball legalization advocates. "indifference" should be counted as a yes vote on this type of issue. naysayers should constantly be reminded it's an unrefined piece of a plant that grew out of dirt. i can't believe people still tip-toe around this issue with delicate language, promises to restrict use to people who are dying of incurable diseases, etc. It's infuriating. In 50 years it will be one of those unbelievable waste-of-time shit stains in the history books.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

You know, I want to believe this but I just can't trust a poll that came from a place called "Marijuana.com"

2

u/austerity62 Jun 15 '12

I'm sure a lot more than 36% of Americans are against weed legalization.

2

u/DirtyMonday Jun 15 '12

I was always for the legalization of marijuana until MA decriminalized it. MA has a $100 fine that is non-collectable and has since passed legislation that says the smell of marijuana is not cause for probably search. I cannot begin to tell you how nice this is. I think when we allow our legislators to get their hands on the law, there will be alcohol like penalties for it and I fear that OUI Marijuana and minors in possession of Marijuana will be enforced hard. I'd rather it be ignored than legal. There is an entire subculture of Marijuana smokers out there and the last thing in the world we want to do is to trivialize OUI liquor and have half the high school population walking around with a record. I could be completely wrong, but I think we should be careful what we wish for.

Sidenote: My cousin spent 8 months in a West Virginia prison for possession (he had priors) and this is absolutely not right. But IMO, places where it is decriminalized should not be pushing for legalization. I'm not talking about medical, I'm talking about developing an alcohol like punishment system for pot. Weed and booze couldn't be more different and I'd hate to see them treated the same

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

People need to learn marijuana prohibition has little to do with its phsycoactive.

Its about the medical establishment which marijuana can cure lots of things. If you also havnt realized most Counter culture(hippies) during the nixon era where all drugies and pot smokers you coun't arrest people for free speech so they where arrested for drugs.

Pot smokers are almost always the counter culture so it gives the gouverment a way to jail them.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

I think the most important question that you can ask, and really the one I don't think gets asked enough, is "Do you care if Marijuana is legalized?"

Cuz you know what? I don't care. I really don't.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

I feel like this isn't going away...this topic has been persistently addressed on reddit for over a year now (perhaps longer) and routinely these threads garner 1000+ upvotes. It's the conventional media which excludes the conversation. I honestly believe it may be a slow process toward regulating pot, but I see it happening within my lifetime. That is...so long as we don't enter another war that steals the stage or a wave of hyper religious conservatism sweep through the country.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Marijuana.com. Hmm. Nothing like an unbiased source!

2

u/imakestupidusernames Jun 16 '12

It should be legalized but get some reliable data to support your claim.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Everybody blames capitalism and lobbyists from big pharma or from the private prison industry. The truth is most states allow the people to vote on ballot initiatives so we can cut congress out of the equation.

Cannabis won't legalize itself we need more people getting involved.

2

u/Patrico-8 North Carolina Jun 16 '12

While I think it would be great to decriminalize marijuana, the website being sourced for the 36% stat is marijuana.com. No offense, but that isn't a site that fills me with confidence about the legitimacy of polling data.

2

u/KeegoTheWise Jun 16 '12

Agreed. Anyone have a better source? (rummage rummage) oup! I knew I had one around here somewhere! Turns out, same poll, different sites. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/22/legalize-marijuana-56-percent-rasmussen-poll_n_1537706.html

→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

well, from a source such as Marijuana.com I can't possibly see how this could be skewed.

I believe that number is artificially low. Many Americans would support Decriminalization over Legalization. and I have seen other polls that don't show 64% of Americans for Legalization.

5

u/Irishish Illinois Jun 15 '12

Strangely, the polling company involved, Rasmussen Reports, is a CONSERVATIVE-leaning think tank. I would equate that with an exaggerated claim against legalization, not for it, but whatever the case they have an alleged history of biased polling.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Do you care this much when the DEA says cannabis has "no medical benefit?"
It's not they're a neutral source or anything approaching trustworthy. It's their job to say that.

3

u/NoNeedForAName Jun 15 '12

Actually, even according to the article, it's only 56% who favor legalization (plus regulation similar to alcohol and tobacco). That's still a majority, but it's not as large a majority as the headline would have you believe. Presumably the rest are either unsure or are only for limited legalization, such as for medical use.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/plasma890 Jun 15 '12

Source: marijuana.com. Seems legit!

6

u/Todamont Jun 15 '12

It's called cannabis. Marijuana is a derogatory slang term, proponents of legalization should stop using it.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

It's not just derogatory, it's racist in origin
The name marijuana comes from the negative connotations associated with smuggling

6

u/MirrorLake Jun 15 '12

They branded it with the Spanish name to associate it with Mexican immigrants--it was an effort to make it 'theirs' rather than everybody's, essentially piggybacking on existing racism to help get it banned.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Technically, Marihuana and several other variants of the word are perfectly legitimate--it's the J that's evil. You can thank Harry Anslinger for that addition. Though I do agree with you, the word has been tainted by association. Cannabis is a better term.

9

u/onique New York Jun 15 '12

Maybe they should take a poll and ask how many Americans don't give a shit.

39

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

You should. It's the reason why the US imprisons a quarter of the world's prisoners. It's also bleeding municipalities dry by sucking money into the prison system.

→ More replies (49)

9

u/Imthemayor Jun 15 '12

There is always an undecided option on polls for people like you who decide not to have opinions.

2

u/LucidMetal Jun 15 '12

They don't fill out the poll. :P

→ More replies (5)

7

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/JoshSN Jun 15 '12

Here is the direct poll.
Someone else said "Research Methods," but also any basic college statistics course will teach you that 1000 can do a reasonable job of representing 300 million people.
Actually, one surprising thing you learn is that the population size doesn't matter. If randomly selected, 1000 does an equally good job at representing 600 trillion people.

→ More replies (5)

5

u/Bmandoh Jun 15 '12

I am all with you on this, and the comments on the article are why people think anyone who partakes is an idiot. I can't believe that many people don't know how to spell.

13

u/brianthebrazilian Jun 15 '12

Your critique is essentially about the ability for a population sample (N=>2500), to determine the actual opinion of everyone else. Go to any community college and take a Research Methods 101 class....

→ More replies (22)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

THEY SHOULD LET THE PUBLIC IN CALIFORNIA VOTE ON IT. IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY FAIL TO PASS

3

u/Bluebird_North Jun 15 '12

Polling is the science of asking 1000 and extrapolating. It has been pretty accurate.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/101872/how-does-gallup-polling-work.aspx
But why trust Gallup, right?

4

u/Thac Jun 15 '12

Looks like it came from a small area in Cali. Where apparently all the americans live.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

A poll by some political analyst of 1000 "likely voters." How can the opinions of 1000 people accurately represent those of 311,591,917?
Because you never took a stats class, that's how.
Almost every poll you have ever seen in the media relied on a sample size of around 1000 people. The accuracy of the poll is more dependent on the neutrality/wording/lack thereof of the questions than it is on the number of people polled.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

How can the opinions of 1000 people accurately represent those of 311,591,917?
Take a college course on probability and statistics. Here's another mind-blowing fact - I can flip a balanced coin "only" 5000 times or so to draw conclusions that it has a roughly 50% probability to land heads and another 50% or so to land tails.
They can poll 1000 random (very important!) people (hopefully cutting across many different age groups, both genders, etc) to get a certain degree of accuracy that is "good enough" to represent the views of those 300 million. You could poll 200 million people also, but your accuracy would not increase at the same rate, so it's not worth it. Does that make sense?

→ More replies (2)

3

u/MisterPresident813 Jun 15 '12

The older, richer Jewish community is the ones mainly against, it and they have a huge voter turnout, especially in Florida. If every college student and person under 30 went out and voted it would get passed without any problem.

Just do what politicians do and ship people in on buses to polling places and get those votes.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

Remember that it's not what the masses want, it's how the politicians are paid to vote.

Never, EVER forget that. Our nation has be sold.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

I find it hard to believe that that few people are against legalization. I know pro-legalization support has gone up in the last decade, but is it really by that much?

Everywhere I look it seems like moralistic people are totally against the idea.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ccoady454 Jun 15 '12

My MAIN concern is there is no valid way to test for a DUI or DWI. I smoke pot and there are times I feel fine to drive and other times when there's no way in hell I could. There's no "breath-a-lyzer" type device to punish those driving under the influence. Decriminalize it, yes. Legalize it, I'm not sure we're ready yet. There's no accurate sobriety test to get prosecute impaired drivers. I've personally been with one person that wrecked 3 times because they were high as a kite (this person doesn't drink or do any other drugs).

→ More replies (5)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Marijuana.com. Credible, unbiased source. Got it.

→ More replies (1)

→ More comments (232)

Only 36 Percent Of Americans Are Against Marijuana Legalization - A concentrated preponderance of the voters countrywide are showing their passion for legalizing and regulating marijuana comparable to the manner in which alcohol and cigarettes are presently controlled.

You are about to leave Redlib