Of course, the problem with polls is that each one has a different set of data, and the sampling methods and the questions asked are huge factors. And the question asked can have an even bigger effect when you’re talking about marijuana, where propaganda has influenced the public’s ability to think rationally.
For example, if you conducted two random polls using the following two questions:
- Should marijuana be legalized?
- Should people be arrested for marijuana?
… I think you’d find dramatically different results. Imagine the results if you asked:
- Should marijuana be regulated with age and purity controls, or should it be left in the hands of criminals to manage?
Still, the new poll results from Gallup are encouraging, particularly as they show a consistent direction that is very positive.
The gallup poll has a couple of other interesting points. One is that we’ve done very with women, with a 12% increase in support from 2005 to 2009 (bringing them now essentially even with male support). That’s impressive.
The other point is that we’ve still got a real uphill battle with Republicans/conservatives. While both categories showed increases in support for legalization, their previous numbers were so skewed that they’re still by far the greatest opponents of legalization.
How do we change that?
The other point is that we’ve still got a real uphill battle with Republicans/conservatives. … How do we change that?
Until the cultural baggage is removed, you don’t. The fiscal pinch argument doesn’t hold water.
We(America) already did, how well is the GOP doing right now?
Must get rid of religion. Religion competes with controlled substances – and the latter will always win which is why religion fears them so. People spending their money on heroin do not spend it on church tithings (and not due to any psuedomorality defect).
The case for prohibiting religion is far stronger than the case for prohibiting drug use. Religion abuse is the number one cause of death worldwide, and more suffering, torture, abuse, neglect, and crime is committed due to faith-based addiction than all other causes combined.
But as long as religion exists, drugs will continue to be outlawed. Religions control the minds of their followers, and the one thing on which ALL religions agree is that they don’t want any competition for followers. It’s like how the one thing Republicans and Democrats agree upon is that 3rd parties should not be allowed to foster and should be excluded from the political process at every opportunity.
Religion is a genetic disease, and it can be cured with anti-psychotic drugs. It can also be prevented, I believe, with some type of gene therapy. In the meantime though, society should affirmatively discourage the spread and use of religion.
Legalizing drugs would destroy religion, but like I was saying drugs will never be legalized as long as religion holds sway over the minute minds of the masses.
Maybe fox news can convince some of the conservatives this week from the financial perspective with their “high noon” series. They’re off to a good start.
@ BruceM: Link
In Reference to the line graph… I know they say you should never do this, but…
THEY SHOULD TOTALLY CROSS THE STREAMS!
Maybe we could convince conservatives that big-spending, intrusive government is bad and individual choice and free markets are good?
Apparently, they would rather just corner the market in hypocrisy. Unfortunately, people who still call themselves conservative are really just authoritarian. Where have all the libertarian Republicans gone? Legalization should have genuine bipartisan support among liberals and true conservatives.
Fortunately, from what I read, the people who still consider themselves Republican are mostly limited to the one region of the South-are mostly over 50 and white. Basically, the one region that did not vote for Obama-and Obama won anyway. So the electoral math will not hurt the Democrats or Congress if they go for repeal or remand.
The way alcohol Prohibition ended was by essentially remanding the control of alcohol to the states. The Federal approach to cannabis should be the same-repealing most of the Federal laws regarding it (save importation and interstate commerce) and letting the states regulate cannabis-even up to prohibiting it). It would pacify the one area of the nation that still wants to conduct the drug war, and allow the rest to go forward.
It can be sold as a money-saving effort by the Feds.
Chris: yep, sorta proves my point, at least circumstantially. Incidentally surveys showing a correlation between frequency of church attendance and supporting torture look almost exactly the same.
@brucem – bibles should be labeled with “literal belief in the following can be hazardous to your health”, and the legal age for religion should be 21 since it has killed so many people.
“The other point is that we’ve still got a real uphill battle with Republicans/conservatives. … How do we change that?”
Give up on winning over the hardened sections of the religious right. Won’t happen, doesn’t need to happen. Focus on a state by state strategy.
Go harder, much harder, at the arguments which are aimed at assuaging the hypocritical feelings of the baby boomers (Pot is way stronger now!). Work at separating the idea of legalized, regulated cannabis from the stereotypical notion of ‘pot culture’, then arc-weld it to a small government, pro-liberty platform. Increase the visibility of the issue amongst conservative journals, a number of which already have libertarian-conservative pro-pot leanings (National Review etc).
It’s really not about the arguments at this point. The prohibitionists don’t have any good arguments left, which is why reefer madness is now reefer mildness (emailing pluto just aint in the same league as fornicating with a negro and then murdering your best friend with an axe). It’s about framing the debate.
jhelion: I’ve long argued that, at the very least, it should be illegal to teach religion to children. If religious education could not begin until the age of 18 (preferably 21), the mind would be sufficiently developed to be immune from religion and no matter how hard they tried and how much they threatened with fire and brimstone, 99% of people would still be atheists. The only way to ensnare a mind with religion is to do so at the youngest age possible.
This is why religious people are always trying to get religion into schools, why school board elections are so contentious, why ‘prayer in school’ and battles over teaching evolution are so serious – they want to faithwash our brains at the youngest age possible, and they all fight over who gets access to the children at the earliest possible time. It’s really sick and evil.
JS Mill: if we weren’t fighting religion when arguing with Republicans/conservatives, then there would be a very compelling reason for them to side with us – smaller government, saving taxpayer dollars, and individual freedom – all things that used to be central to the platform of the GOP before the Bush years, and before the Jesusfuckers hijacked the Republican party. Unfortunately the Republican party has devolved into nothing more than a religious cult, so as long as drug use is bad for the profits of big religion, it will be opposed by this current form of the Republican party and there is no sense in even talking to them about it. Fortunately, only 20% of Americans now identify themselves as Republicans. Anti-drug Democrats are where we should be focusing our efforts at education and reason. You can’t reason someone out of something that they didn’t reason themselves into, and that’s the bottom line of religion.
*sigh*
I don’t want to get into a big argument over the merits of religion (which I’m not even a fan of, at least in its literalistic manifestations) but I don’t think it’s right to turn it into the great evil war machine of history. Human conflict is all about economics and the aspirations of those in power. Consider the Crusades. To me, that centuries long conflict between Christian and Muslim powers had very little to do with God and religion and a whole lot to do with spices. European nobility loved spices (sweet Jesus did they ever) and they wanted more of them at a cheaper price. The only problem was that the spice trade routes were controlled by Muslim nations and neither side liked each because of previous conflicts during the age of Muslim expansion (which, in my opinion, were less about spreading Islam and more about establishing an Arabian Empire). So the Pope and the nobility dream up the notion of the Crusade to convince the general populace (who couldn’t afford the expensive spices and had little reason to war) that going to war in the Holy Land was a really good idea because God wanted it back from the Infidels.
So religion is just a tool used by those in power to legitimize their war-like actions. But it’s not really religion that’s causing conflict, it’s people who think it’s alright to use other people as pawns to fulfill their political aspirations. And even in the absence of formal religion these conflicts will still take place, whether it be for the “American Way of Life” or the “Great Communist Revolution”.
Also, the notion that people raised devoid of religious teaching would automatically be atheistic is pretty silly. They would in all likelihood be non-theistic (big difference, just ask a Buddhist) or agnostic. Atheism requires just as much as much “faith” as theism. After all, neither have any real proof, just philosophical arguments.
I must agree, all religious faith within me disappeared in me right about the time I tried acid and came face-to-face with reality.
But BruceM, don’t think banning religion will do us any favors, think of what banning alcohol and drugs has done. Don’t think the repercussions will be less dire, I assure you they would be more disastrous.
Conservatives present themselves as in sync with the written American foundation.
To convince Conservatives, it comes down to 16 words:
“To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”
That is the commerce clause in its entirety in our Constitution.
That is also the sole constitutional basis for drug prohibition, according to the Supreme Court.
Want to embarrass a Conservative? Get him to point out where in those 16 words a sane person can find the authority to regulate drug use.
I would love to see a continuous campaign focusing on getting the likes of Rush Limbaugh to address that question in the national spotlight (perhaps every April 20).
What I love about this approach is:
1. It uses the law against law enforcement (our most major opponents).
2. The argument is rock solid whether someone likes marijuana, etc. or not.
3. It allows us to emphasize that we are the sane ones, making the prohibitionists out to be insane for believing the authority is in those 16 words.
4. It presents a simple, single point of failure for prohibitionists. If they can’t connect their policy to the Constitution, they don’t have a just policy.
To present this campaign right, I suggest doing so with composure (be polite and casual). Be the good guy, as that image will go a long way towards discrediting prohibitionists and gain the support of Conservatives who would be surprised to see us behave that way, since we have been demonized so much in their circles.
Bring those 16 words with you (I memorized them) and give it a try. It seems to work well over in the WSJ comments section where I spend most of my anti-prohibition time.
My agenda is to find an effective way to handle drug abuse, including keeping kids away from abusing drugs, and strengthening the rule-of-law.
Notice how that is the publicly-perceived strength of the prohibitionists.
With that sincere agenda (that really is my agenda), I position drug prohibition as an obstacle in the way of honoring the statement by the U.S. NIDA:
“Researchers have long recognized the strong correlation between stress and substance abuse.”
I support a serious effort to oppose unhealthy stress levels, which are well-proven to be harmful.
If we all emphasize that effort, we eliminate the prohibitionists’ publicly-perceived strength, because our goals are in sync with their goals, but our approach makes sense.
This agenda is one that will likely resonate well with Conservatives, because it distances ourselves from the drug user stereotype of being reckless, selfish, and immature idiots.
WRT to conservatives and Republicans lagging support for legalization, religious beliefs is a big reason, but certainly not the only factor in play here.
For some on the Right, their opposition to MJ legalization is pure knee-jerk politics. To them, MJ legalization is something the Left supports, ergo it must be bad, ergo we are against it.
Also in play here is the 1960’s and the anti-war/student unrest of the that era. In the minds of some on the Right, the fall of South Viet Nam is the result of the anti-war protests and riots, and illegal drug use played a major roll in stirring the pot, pardon the pun. IOW, for some, MJ is to blame for the loss of the war. To support legalization of MJ is to condone the bad behavior of that era.
Lastly, there are some cynical souls on the Right that support the WOD because drug users vote Left, ergo drug convictions remove one more vote (at least temporarily) for the Left candidate on election day.
What is pretty much universal among WOD supporters is their exclusive focus on the harm drug abuse can do to an individual while ignoring the harm the WOD causes.
Probably going to have to wait for the “greatest generation” to die off. Look at the same poll. That group, which is easily the most socially conservative/authoritarian of all age groups, is the reason for many of the ridiculous prohibitionist laws today and many of the culture wars.
Today’s GOP is garbage. I’m ashamed to say I used to believe that crap. Too many of the followers get all of their ideas from Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. They’re all about fiscal conservatism… until it’s fiscal conservatism vs social conservatism. Then the money doesn’t matter anymore. The libertarian conservatives are definitely making a comeback though amongst the younger generations.
Bingo, Buc! We don’t have to do ANYTHING but keep on overgrowing the government as we’ve been doing and let the grim reaper take his toll.
The Gallup site itself EXPECTS, given the demographics and the aging and dying off of the prohibitionist generations, support will automatically grow at 1-2% per year and we will be in the majority in just a few years:
“Bottom Line:
Public mores on legalization of marijuana have been changing this decade, and are now at their most tolerant in at least 40 years. If public support were to continue growing at a rate of 1% to 2% per year, as it has since 2000, the majority of Americans could favor legalization of the drug in as little as four years.”
Also, since most of the fun-hating fogies are in the blue states, a state by state approach with liberal medical marijuana laws seems to be the way to go. With a solid majority in those places within a few years, the Berlin wall of “marijuana only for life-threatening conditions” is OK but “recreational use” is a serious crime which enables Mexican gangsters blahdiddy blah blah won’t be a legally or politically appropriate demarcation anymore.
Whoops, I meant “red states”…can’t keep that lingo straight sometimes!
“fornicating with a negro and then murdering your best friend with an axe” ..Where can I get some?
And just to underline this Gallup poll trend data which was not highlighted in the parent article: the cross tabs for age of respondent and support in recent trends were hugely more pronounced than region, gender, politics etc:
Age 18 – 49 — 39% (2005) -> 50% (2009) = +11% change
Age 50 – 65 — 37% -> 45% = +9% change
Age 65 and over — 27% -> 28% = 1% change
Age and die off of older people (who came of age before marijuana use became among youth after 1967)/# are the demographic reason that the overall positive rate is growing automatically at 1-2%. Converting those who trend negative may hasten the trend (arguments for taxing marijuana, etc., but the Gallup poll also indicates such incentives tend to be irrelevant for both pros and antis, interestingly. You’ll love or hate cannabis regardless of whether it is taxed).
#/This age differential in attitudes is also discussed in clinical research based on California doctor Tom O’Connell’s study of 4,000+ applicants for a California “recommendation” which found few applicants over the age of 63. The theory that someone would not think of using cannabis unless they were familiar with it from their previous use during adolescence was Dr. O’Connell’s theory based on inferences from his study data populations. See, http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/4/1/16
I think it is paramount to begin developing an in-depth, effective Biblical argument for the legalization of Marijuana and the condemnation of prohibition. For a college paper, I tried to write one of these, but I gave up, because there are no in-depth arguments published online. A body of works needs to be made available supporting marijuana from a Christian perspective. I assure you, it’s there, we just need to properly develop it with Biblical analysis and commentary.
I am not a Christian, but I understand the importance of Christian values to many conservatives. Too many dissenters are held back from reason because they feel their religion dictates it so, and the majority of arguments that we present are secular. This is something that, if changed, could greatly expiate the swaying of conservative opinion.
Just an addendum to what I said above:
@ BruceM; First, I think by “religion” you’re referring to Christianity, and I admitted above that it’s a problem. Surely you realize that we will never be able to fully secularize politics, let alone people. Some people feel the need to believe in a higher power, and I don’t begrudge them that. We have a responsibility to work with, rather than against, conservatives, so that they can work with us. I know that some of them say infuriating things that can make even the most patient advocates facepalm, but a good advocate can’t let this jade him. People are capable of seeing reason, even Christians.
I looked through the Bible for principles against prohibition and I found them, I just don’t have the time to develop a good, well argued and researched essay about it, since I would basically have had to start from scratch. Somebody needs to, though. So far, all of the pro-cannabis Christian essays and pamphlets I’ve seen have just spewed out Bible verses without attending to their historical and biblical context or properly defending their relevance. Hopefully that will soon change.
Dreau Preau-
One religious argument I’ve found effective is to use one of the Ten Commandments. Specifically, the one that says “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”.
First I explain that the commandment means much more than not lying. What it says is that it is a sin to lie about your neighbor. I explain that Jews interpret the commandment to mean that when the stakes are high and the truth is important in deciding the outcome, then it is a moral imperative to tell the truth. Even if you don’t like the results or the results cost you in some way, it is a sin not to tell the truth.
After laying that as a foundation, I go on to explain how supporting the WOD is bearing false witness about your neighbor. Specifically, I say that by supporting laws that deem a person’s actions as “crimes” when there is no real criminality, is to bear false witness.
I will usually include the alcohol angle is well, saying that buying, selling and using MJ is no more criminal than buying selling and using alcoholic bevs.
When we talk about crime we are also talking about punishment. I remind them that when the stakes are high, and issues that curtail a person’s liberty seems are indeed high stakes, it’s morally imperative to tell the truth.
I will challenge them to tell me what is specifically criminal about buying, selling or using MJ. First response is usually “It’s agaisnt the law”. Then I ask, “But why is it against the law?”. If you keep pressing them to really explain their answers , sooner or later what you finally get to is “I don’t approve” or “I don’t approve of the risks”. I point out to them that they support curtailing a person’s liberty, not because of what they are doing is criminal, but but merely because you don’t approve of the behaviors or the associated risks. You tie this back to how calling non-criminal actions as crimes is bearing false witness.
The religious have claimed the moral high ground in this debate from day one. It is a fiction. This is one way to point it out.
I hope I ‘ve been of some service here. This a lot easier to explain verbally than to write. LOL
“Legalizing drugs would destroy religion, but like I was saying drugs will never be legalized as long as religion holds sway over the minute minds of the masses.”
Hummmm. So instead of religion being the opiate of the masses, opiates become the religion of the masses 😉
Sorry…couldn’t resist.
I’m not talking about banning religion (“felony practice of prayer”) I’m talking about trying to cure people of it. It’s a neurological disorder. But in the meantime we can stop doing things that ENCOURAGE religion. We can start by taking away religious institutions’ tax-exempt status, forcing them to pay taxes like all other businesses.
Also, the idea that “it’s economics, not religion” is something I hear a lot (“terrorism is about economics, not religion” … “Islamic hatred of Israel is about economics, not religion”… “9-11 was about US economic policy, not religion”) sounds plausible and is a lot more comforting, but it’s very naive. It is entirely about religion. It’s not even a little bit of both. Economics has absolutely nothing to do with it. You don’t blow yourself up because of a disagreement over regulation of OTC derivatives, you blow yourself up to serve god, destroy the infidels, and receive eternal reward in the afterlife.
Economics has absolutely nothing to do with it. NOTHING.
Hummmm. So instead of religion being the opiate of the masses, opiates become the religion of the masses
No, people would just use the real thing instead of a dangerous, artificial substitute.
Why is it none of you bring up “Prohibition I?” Alcohol was Prohibition II.
What was the prohibited item? The Tree of Life.
How many had to be watched? Two
Who was the Narc in Charge? God
Outcome? Failure
We all know people who are so “heavenly minded they’re no earthly good.” I’ve even bent down, picked up a small rock and handed it to people. When asked what it was for, I tell them I finally found someone “without sin” so they have the right to throw the stone. They usually drop it. However, to use scripture to disuade some, you have to have a working knowledge of the words it uses and their implied meanings. Most don’t.
As a flight instructor, I found that I had to put aviation terms in the terms understood by the student. They learned faster. And, it was one-on-one. Same holds true in having debate with Christians, of which I count myself included. Plus, I’m not bothered by talk such as above.
While we talk about society as a group, we’re still faced with mind-changing, one person at a time, like one state at a time. It seems to be working. So, keep up the dialogue until we no longer have a reason to fight the good fight.
insofar as the bible is a poorly written book of parables, you’re right, the “tree of knowledge” (it was knowledge, not life, as this atheist heathen recalls) should be interpreted as an example of how prohibition – as in prohibiting people from using things they want to use – does not work, even god couldn’t do it.
I always found it incredibly amusing and a rather blunt admission that man was not supposed to eat from the tree of knowledge. knowledge is a bad thing, we’re meant to be stupid and subservient, and any desire we have to discover reality is bad and should be stopped.
“And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow
every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;
the tree of life also in the midst of the garden,
and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”
~ Gen.2 [9]
The tree of knowledge or good and evil is the forbidden fruit God didn’t want A&E to find. The division of good and evil, trying to separate humans into two warring camps. Buzzwords with no reality base, political. A linear sliding scale. There is no evil, just less good, no cold, just less heat, no vacuum, just less pressure than in the atmosphere at sea level. Used to calculate huan’s simple machines fuel needs or capacities. Ganja is the “Tree of Life” that was never forbidden, but since A&E couldn’t be trusted, they didn’t want them becoming immortal like us? Us? The only other entity mentioned is the serpent.
So Leary was right, drop out, education is for job placement, not enlightenment. It actually breeds humans for political ignorance, then rewards it. The tree of knowledge is only for the sheople leaving God’s gift of Free Will to others. Those using Ganja tend to question the educational authority, and fail SAT’s for that very reason. Doesn’t matter if the Indians were already here, the correct test answer is Columbus.
Naturally this isn’t a “working” hypothesis in the USA, the only tree of knowledge I know of would be winning the lottery. Otherwise you’re either rich or you work or you become a slave to the system on welfare or in prison. The work station depends on the dead sheepskin hanging on the wall. Plasticville, but probably a lesser evil for middle aged caucasians taught this way of life than searching for the Holy Grail, sitting in full lotus munching out on Hempseeds.
The Tree of Life Ganja , backed by clinical studies, permits one to Re-Create themselves. In gods image in a manner of speaking, or in our original blueprint. Regenerating cells, turning off cancerous cells, bypassing circuits to stop spasms, regulate the Immune system or govern the appetite for obesity or wasting syndromes. It acts as a preventive to air borne germs, smoke particulates from pollution or cigarettes adulterated with chemicals.
This being the case only the tokers will survive, the DARE kids won’t be protected either. Is this what kept the cave dwellers free of asthma and cancer thousands of years? Camp fires inside caves, natural wild fires they must have inhaled smoke. Thats only discoveries made during prohibition. One can only imagine what is out there by searching on purpose. Not just finding stuff trying to sabotage reality to maintain the corporate Ganjawar. Corporate in that the drug worrier politicians are all vested in the ignorance, as employees of lobbyists, not representatives. Actually a good profiler tool to round up the crazy calvinas and liars and gossipers when we start the Drug War Crimes Tribunal.
Atheists and Religionists are Arrogant and Ignorant for drawing conclusions, especially since science is dictated by industry profits, not the Mother of Necessity. No one is even looking in-between the atoms. The theoretical quirtz could provide answers to prayers and miracles the same as Galileo eventually changed the church and the flat earthers. Some obviously escaped to the ONDCP. The smaller universe is as vast as the popular one. Where do potholes go?
Tree of Life
“And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Gen.2 [9]
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. Gen.3 [22]
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” Gen.3 [24]
Marijuana May Live Up To Be The Elixir of Life By Ravi Chopra
Source: Earthtimes.org October 15, 2005
A study by University of Saskatchewan researchers results appearing in the ‘Journal of Clinical Investigation’ have actually given a fillip to the traditional and mythological view that associates the addictive weed in some ways with immortality… continued cannabisnews/21194
A Few Buzzwords 07/13/01
Thanks for these engrossing comments everyone.
Happy Day!
……….maybe I’m so open-minded my brains fell out!
Be careful, BruceM. I feel, in your stances, the same logic that got drugs prohibited.
Religions, like drugs, are a part of human nature. We will never be able to get rid of them, and there will always be those who seek religion in organized and unorganized means. To try to fight human nature will only bring about bad things, as has been evidenced by the war on drugs. There are negative aspects to religion, but there are negative aspects to drugs, too. I know you don’t mean to prohibit them (that would be the most ridiculous proposition ever) but even working with the direct intent of their abolition smacks of folly.
I agree. The anti-religion argument was getting a little much. There are many people of faith who don’t try to impose their will on others, and I would no more wish to deny them their choice of enlightenment than I’d want them to deny others.
I’ve got two things on my mind regarding this whole strand of comments….
First: If you want a christian view from the bible, it is on the very first page. Genesis 1:29 states ” and our Father said, “See I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.”
Though when I used this as my defense against a marijuana possession charge in an american court, i was told, and i quote, ” son that’s just not good enough of an excuse.”
So american courts in my experience do not care about christian faith, and their is no real freedom of religious faith to be had here.
Second: Cannabis is now becoming accepted by doctors across this country as a real and viable medical treatment, which many of us have always known. So how can it still be classed as a “schedule 1 narcotic, with no known medical use”?
At least the hypocrisy is being revealed.
Fed up with the feds,
Johnny Hempseed
Unlike drugs, religion is verifiably dangerous and has killed more people than anything else – everything else – combined. Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. I feel no hypocrisy in saying all drugs should be legal and all religion should be outlawed. If the punishment for public prayer were a mandatory minimum 20 years in prison, I wouldn’t be complaining one bit.
Meanwhile, never forget that without religion there would be no prohibition. Don’t let yourself be convinced that it’s about “politics, not religion” as so many people do. Yes, now that prohibition is the status quo it’s about everything – money, politics, power, etc. But religion is the root cause.
I find this site via gogle and glad to find info you provide in your blog. Btw your sites layout is broken using IE4