More Proof That Obama Has His Head Up His Asterik

[dales]

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/201 ... a_poll.php

Another Poll Shows Marijuana Legalization Has Overwhelming Support


By Chris RobertsWed., May 23 2012 at 12:47 AM



If only President Barack Obama was marijuana, then he'd win reelection by a landslide.

Marijuana legalization enjoys a 20-point advantage in the polls among American adults, according to a recent survey Rasmussen Reports. Fifty-six percent of Americans polled support the notion of marijuana being taxed and regulated like alcohol or tobacco, with 36 percent in opposition (8 percent of respondents are unsure, somehow. We envy their unspoiled opinions.).

Those keeping score will note that this is yet another poll indicating strong support for doing away with, or at least reforming drastically, current American marijuana policy. The question remains: If so many citizens want to legalize pot, when -- if ever -- will it finally happen?

The poll queried 1,000 likely voters via telephone on May 12. Respondents were asked 18 yes-or-no questions, such as:

The United States is the leading consumer of illegal drugs like marijuana and cocaine. Some foreign policy experts argue that the U.S. consumer demand for illegal drugs is a primary cause of the drug violence and gang warfare in Mexico and Central America. Is the U.S. consumption of illegal drugs a major factor in the drug violence in Mexico and Central America?

Turns out, cocaine legalization is still the fringiest of causes, with only 11 percent of respondents favoring the idea of a businss model for an actually-profitable Instagram (not our joke, but we'll happily steal it). Still, 47 percent said they'd support legalization of pot and cocaine if it meant reducing border violece and cartel killings.

Fifty-eight percent support the selling of pot in pharmacies only, with a margin of error of three points. It's interesting to note people's interest in a tightly controlled market model, even if they're reluctant to accept a taxed and regulated cannabis product.

The news here is perhaps that there is no news. A Gallup poll last fall already revealed that a record number of Americans favored legalization of marijuana. And the backers of failed marijuana legalization ballot measure Regulate Marijuana Like Wine insisted that they were very close to polling at 60 percent in favor -- the threshold necessary for big-time donors to start throwing money at a ballot initiative campaign.

Time and again Americans weary of the Drug War have been told that it's only a matter of time before civic leaders heed citizens' desires and change American marijuana policy.

But there's reason to worry: Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), both longtime marijuana banner-wavers in Congress, are both retiring. Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney isn't open to even considering the question, and if he's truly representative of the right, then we can only assume the rest of the country won't even approach the idea. And Obama's trip to South America made non-lurid headlines, too: He said drug legalization is a straight-up no-no.

Then again, politicians unwilling to take risky stands might be swayed by Washington and Colorado, both of which will consider legalization on their state ballots this fall. If either one wins -- or if either one fares better than California's Prop. 19 did in 2010 -- political will might just begin to appear.

"I think we'll start to see a lot more politicians who have agreed with us only behind closed doors feeling more comfortable in pushing these sensible reforms in public" if those efforts win, said Tom Angell, spokesman for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of current and ex-cops seeking an end to the drug war. "In order for us to translate polling support into policy change, the movement needs help politicians understand in very tangible terms that supporting reform is good politics."

[Grim Reaper]

I'd give it about 20 seconds before FOX News started proclaiming that President Obama was going to legalize all drugs and force people to use them.

[BoSoxGal]

Maybe when the mikes were off Obama hinted that he'd have more flexibility on this issue after his last election.

[dgs49]

There is absolutely NO POLITICAL UPSIDE for a politician to support legalization of marijuana, and the downside is substantial.

Not in our lifetimes.

Pity.

[BoSoxGal]

Whoa there Nellie; I realize this board is largely populated by geezers, but I certainly expect to see legal regulated marijuana in my lifetime!

For the record, I think CP is the only regular poster who is a bit younger than me.

[Crackpot]

Sean is as well

[oldr_n_wsr]

but I certainly expect to see legal regulated marijuana in my lifetime

Many years ago I thought it would be legal by now. And I don't share your optimism maybe because I'm closer to the end, aka older

[dales]

Two words.

Beverage Industry.

[dgs49]

I would personally favor legalization (regulation, and taxation), and I also thought with all the tokers in law school a generation ago that we would have legalization by now.

But the problem is that for those who favor it, it is a nice thing, but not something that would greatly influence a vote (e.g., for Governor), but for those who would oppose it, it would be enough to sway a vote against that candidate in favor.

So I just don't see enough legislators anywhere - even in California - who would be willing to push this forward.

[Lord Jim]

We've gone over the near universal political cowardice on this topic many times...

Dave is right about there being no political upside for legalization. The reason for this is that the issue of legalizing marijuana is one of those issues , like gun control and gay marriage where there is a significant asymmetry in the passion and intensity of the folks who are supportive rather than opposed.

A person who supports any of those, (except of course regarding gay marriage, gay people who are directly affected) is much less likely to vote for or against a candidate based on that one issue alone, than are the people who are opposed to them.

This "intensity gap" does not show up in raw poll percentages, but it is real, and the politicians know it, so they have to consider that factor when performing the political calculus of how much support or opposition is likely to hurt or help or help them.

[Beer Sponge]

Whoa there Nellie; I realize this board is largely populated by geezers, but I certainly expect to see legal regulated marijuana in my lifetime!

For the record, I think CP is the only regular poster who is a bit younger than me.

Hey, I'm only 39!

[BoSoxGal]

Sorry!


PS, LOVE that sig line!

[Lord Jim]

Hey, I'm only 39!

You and Jack Benny....

[rubato]

Obama is a coward.

Mind you, he's 1000 times better than the Repuglican alternatives, but that sets a particularly low standard for comparison. Their best are barely in the all-slime league.


yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

The "War ond Drugs" should be countered by a War for Freedom.

The "War on Drugs" is, at its very core, immoral. It merits being fought on every level.

Jury nullification.

[dgs49]

Andrew my boy, do you deny that drug addiction is the scourge of millions, including not only those who are addicted but their significant others and the victims of crimes that are committed to obtain either drugs or money to buy them?

The "core" of the WOD is the cornucopia of laws that prohibit the production, sales, and use of destructive, addictive drugs. You can opine that the WOD has become a cluster-fuck that sustains an army of public and private sector participants who work at it for nefarious and/or self-interested reasons, but the core of the WOD - fighting addiction and its harms - is moral and appropriate.