Poll: 64 Percent Of Americans Now Want Marijuana Legalized

Marijuana LeafWe have been watching an extraordinary shift in public opinion over the last decade on the legalization of marijuana.  With millions of citizens now using marijuana either medically or recreationally, the public appears ready to see nationwide legalization.  The huge tax benefits from legalization and the rapidly expanding market appears to have adding to the support for legalization.  This polls is just a few percent lower in support than a recent Harvard poll showing 68 percent support for legalization.

A new Gallup poll shows 64 percent of the country now supportive of marijuana legalization. There are few national issues with such a super majority of support.  This is the highest level of support registered in nearly a half century of polling.  It is 14 points above the level of support shown in 2011 and a four percent jump in just one year.


Now here is the really astonishing part. For the first time, a majority of Republicans favor legalization at 51 percent.

The issue could come before Congress.  Members are concerned that Attorney General Jeff Sessions could order a crackdown on marijuana.  Sessions has long advocated tougher enforcement against marijuana and recently indicated that he might prioritize the issue — even though many of the legalization states are GOP controlled.  These poll numbers may magnify the view of GOP members that this is the last thing the Administration would take on at this time.  Not only would a crackdown deny states badly needed taxes, but it would add one more controversies to an already overloaded Administration.

What do you think?



64 thoughts on “Poll: 64 Percent Of Americans Now Want Marijuana Legalized”

  1. I don’t think everybody is seeing the big picture here, when the Wall Street boys and their bankers lobby DC and get to “regulate” its rules and production…….Then it will be come legal. And I’m sure big pharma will have its say too. And you can bet on it that laws will be made harsh for homegrown products.

  2. Harvard and Gallup? Professor you have to do better than that. Those two wouldn’t add up to ‘suspicion of’ charge much less probable cause.

  3. Natural and God-given rights and freedoms existed before government was established.

    Freedom of ingestion is absolutely provided by the Constitution, including the 9th Amendment.

    Laws and statutes are intended to address bad behavior resulting in property damage or bodily injury as free citizens are responsible for their behavior as individuals, which is entirely within the control of those free citizens.

    Abraham Lincoln’s unconstitutional “Reign of Terror,” communistic Central Planning, Social Engineering, Redistribution of Wealth and laws against substance ingestion must have been struck down with extreme prejudice by the Supreme Court.

    The singular American failure has been the Supreme Court, which has chosen to ignore objectivity, act ideologically and pursue the reins of power, rather than implement the intent of the Founders and simply perform its duty to assure that acts by the legislative and executive branches comport with the manifest tenor of the Constitution.

    “Legislation from the bench,” “legislation by interpretation” and “legislation by convolution and obfuscation” are unconstitutional subversion and treason.

    The constitutional “control” exercised by the People on the Supreme Court is Impeachment, Article 2, Section 4, which must be enhanced and accelerated to keep pace with the increasing volume of “judicial overreach.”

    1. The Supreme Court must be reduced to one Justice to facilitate hasty impeachment, by the People through Congress, for egregious, subjective political decisions that do not impose the manifest tenor of the Constitution.

  4. What will be the blow back when the populace comes face to face with the reality that there was never a good reason for the prohibition and million of lives were destroyed?

    1. Michael

      Slavery, woman’s emancipation, alcohol, speaking one’s mind, etc. all these things have been confronted and society’s a better place having dealt with them. Lot’s of work in all fields to be done yet but nothing says regression better than, well for example, listen to Trump.

      1. Preposterous!

        “Affirmative Action Privilege” and the 19th Amendment constitute national suicide. Women don’t fight wars, build nations or industries, they are awarded affirmative action gifts (it’s merit that matters). It is the essential natural duty of women to perpetuate the population – or not. Woven don’t need to be in the workplace. Women need to be in the birthplace. Without numbers of babies sufficient to grow the population, there is no need for suffrage, “emancipation” or careers. The American birthrate is in a “death spiral.” The population, which is the basis for defense of national sovereignty, is vanishing. America’s “population” is being imported and it is dwarfed by China – 1.3 billion. India 1.3 billion. Southeast Asia 1.3 billion. The stated intent of the American Founders, “…to ourselves and our posterity,..,” has diminished to 240 million Americans and 80 million unassimilable hyphenates. Those hyphenates are not assimilating, they are conquering. In 100 years, there won’t be an American left in America. America is being “fundamentally transformed” out of existence (did you ever wonder why Obama, the son of a communistic, anti-Colonialist, anti-American, anti-Christian, radical extremist Muslim had a big smile on his face?).

        America has working women and no babies sufficient to perpetuate the population and nation.

        The 19th Amendment is the “Devil’s Paradox.” Women gain suffrage and kill the nation.

        “Women’s emancipation” indeed…

        and the death of America.

  5. The facts are there:

    -When and where pot has been decriminalized, pot related crime has gone way down, the cost to society of dealing with pot related crime has been reduced.

    -When and where drug use has been treated as a medical problem and not a criminal problem, drug use has gone down, crime has gone down.

    -When and where drug abuse has been attacked through other than police intervention, the ill effects of drug abuse have been lessoned.

    -When and where pot sales have been made legal and taxed, buckets of dollars have flowed into the society’s coffers to be used for education regarding drug abuse-or so they should have…..

    1. Sure, it stands to reason that if you make an intoxicant more readily available to the public during an addiction crisis, good things will flow from it.

      1. Actually, marijuana has been shown to be an effective way to treat opioid addiction (I assume that’s the “addiction crisis” to which you refer.)

      2. mespo

        The intoxicant ‘pot’ has never been more readily available. What comes with it, prison sentences, ruined lives, crime, lost revenue, etc., is the issue. Making it legal does not make it more readily available but simply ‘weeds’ out much of the negative. Everything has a plus/minus axis. Alcohol had a much more negative effect on society when it was illegal than when it was and is legal. The greatest counter to alcohol abuse is not the legal issues but education. You can’t educate someone if they are afraid to show up for class.

        Taking away the negative parts of the pot scenario will indeed produce some positive results such as a greater facility to teach about drug abuse and be heard. Nothing reduces the credibility of society than to partner pot and heroin in an anti drug rant. However, taking away the negative parts, such as imprisoning and ruining youth, will simply mean there are fewer negative parts, such as abuse, on which to focus. It’s kind of like Trump. He does say the odd intelligent thing. However, when that nugget is buried in the filth and idiocy that he spews, it is hard to give him any credit.

    2. Since you didn’t reference any sources or cites and since it’s an out of our country subjective opionon….who cares?

  6. As trump and sessions go all in on arresting and prosecuting as many potheads as possible because in the GOPs demented state it’s a gateway drug. Reefer Madness 2017 style. SAD!

  7. It’s largely due to millennials, methinks It must be stated though, that medicinal use and recreational use are two very different beasts – it’s effects on heavier users are profound, even if it doesn’t make people ‘violent and aggressive’ (it sure makes some people paranoid, though, and it definitely makes people duller). I don’t support legalization, though I think decriminalization would be a good thing.

    It’s true that having a joint at the end of the day may be no different than popping a beer, but in my experience, that is not the usage pattern for most, and we already have enough problems with currently legal drugs to be adding more to the list, in my opinion. No one thinks of the consequences of their actions at 60 when they are 20.

  8. Not once has any pollster ever asked me a really cool question like: Do you favor legalization of marijuana?Obviously all of the pollsters have written me off as a cranky old woman. It’s age discrimination; I tell you.

    All I ever get are poll questions for squares like: What do think of Professor Turley’s updated blawg photo?

    A) Very distinguished.

    B) Bring back the Beatnik look.

    C) Put a marijuana cigarette in his lips and light it live on CNN.

  9. The experiment has been run. People see that
    1) Pot is not a “gateway” drug.
    2) Pot is less dangerous than alcohol.

    How much alcohol smuggling exists today?
    That’s how much marijuana smuggling could exist tomorrow.

    Making possession or sale of anything illegal (with the best of intentions) leads to organized crime involvement. Legalization will move the smugglers to something else we’ve made illegal. (There are vice squads. Really? Crimes without a victim are an attempt to legislate sin. If your church advocates not doing something, then don’t do it; don’t expect others to follow the dictates of your church, but theirs.)

    The idea of making, say, cocaine and opium illegal was to save people from their own stupidity. When my dad was a child Coca Cola had cocaine. Arsenic was available at the pharmacy.

    There is even an argument for legalizing all substances. Criminalizing behavior only. For some reason smoking marijuana or drinking alcohol is illegal while driving, but driving on prescribed medication with the same effect is legal. Marijuana, legal in one state, might be a felony by the person standing on the other side of an invisible line.

    1. ghsteele – there have been complaints about cars pulled over in neighboring states to check for pot. Although I think they just look for CO plates before they pull them over. 🙂 Happy Trails.

    2. There is some truth to this, but the benefits outweigh the risks. It’s a pretty tired argument that at one time ‘all drugs were legal’. That is the height of self-centeredness. None of us can make the mistake of assuming our own virtue or common sense is universal, and we all have to live in our societies. That means all of us must make a few concessions here and there.

  10. “Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country.” Thomas Jefferson wrote. Jefferson knew hemp seeds are a super food. Dr Oz asks “Can medical marijuana help fight the national opioid crisis?” Looks like the answer is “Yes”. Cannabis has been used as medicine long before the DEA showed up. (Google – antique cannabis bottles)

    These billion dollar industries in the hands of the people would shift the economic power back to the people from the ruling class in DC. Interestingly, the two groups most opposed to the people having control of these industries are 1) the Deep State 2) the Religious Right.

  11. Weed is now normalized in WA. When travelling through many cities, billboard sized adverts announce where to get it and try to attract customers. And probably one could say they are now equally ignored among all types of advertising generally. It’s no longer novel. And there are strip-malls that have shops next to nail salons and whatever. It’s just another business.

    Occasionally, they’re worth a chuckle or two because they are unrestrained by corporate wonks in marketing departments and frequently use puns and wordplay in their business names or products such as: Herban Legend; Bud Commander; Mary Mart; Fillabong; Mari J’s Highway Pot Shop; The Joint; Starbuds; and Fweedom Cannabis.

  12. Give the same poll again, and ask if they would support growing marijuana in their neighborhood. How about having a dispensary in their neighborhood? Because you know who always gets anything that falls under “not in my backyard” – rural areas. In fact, there are several people close to me who are trying to turn their property into pot farms, with no security or proper fencing. How awesome is that? My kid can ride his bike next to pot farms! I wonder how my talk against doing drugs will fare against all the marijuana in easy access, if they succeed. And most of the people who hang out at dispensaries are not those who have a valid medical reason, but rather recreational users who got one of the easiest prescriptions to get in CA.

    I visited friends up north in another rural area. Their neighbor started a pot farm. He had to get a vicious, unsocialized dog to help protect against the inevitable thefts and other crimes, and how handy for the criminals to have neighbors to steal from, too, after they hit the pot farm. My friend and the other neighbors had to fence their entire property to keep the dog out. And I wonder what they did to that dog to make him so unsocialized and aggressive. Another grower started one of the huge fires in CA last year.

    I drove almost a thousand miles up and down CA several times over the past few months. Everyone I know in rural farming or ranching areas had pot encroach, and they said that crime went up, and property values were impacted. Pot farms negatively impact residential neighborhoods, but in some industrial areas, it might actually increase real estate.

    People might vote for marijuana, but they wouldn’t want to raise their kids next to a pot farm or dispensary. They should remember that when they vote for something and then zone it out of urban areas and into rural ones.

    Pot farms are drug manufacturing facilities, and should be treated as such. Hash oil uses butane, which leads to fires.

    I, too, support medical marijuana, but I have my doubts as to recreational use. For one, pot today already has 7 times the THC than it did in the 1960s. Users are going to keep at it until pot is a hard drug, and no longer an herbal sedative and appetite stimulant. For another, THC persists in the system, but affects people different, and impairment tests have not caught up yet. For people who are extremely ill or in pain, they should have access to anything that helps. But pot should be manufactured in a similar fashion to morphine or other drugs. I support the use of morphine in warranted circumstances, but I don’t want it produced in my neighborhood in an open field without a fence or security. That’s just foolish. But that’s what open field pot growers do in rural areas. It should be in industrial areas with security, and not in any residential or agricultural areas. Pot is not an agricultural product like corn or cabbage; it is a drug.

    1. Another thing to remember is that almond growers have born the brunt of millions of dollars in ads against their water usage. Although they have generations old water rights, and live near the actual rivers that supply the water, the southern Californians believe they are selfish and greedy and should stop farming so that they can continue to grow their population in a desert state that has continually suffered droughts for thousands of years.

      Pot is a water hungry crop that fares best in wetter states than CA. Marijuana grows best in slightly acidic soil. Most of the soil in CA is alkaline, and our water is hard and slightly alkaline. It is quite poorly suited to our climate, soil, and water. But it represents fun to users and lots and lots of money to politicians.

      So, it’s out with the generations old almond farms, passe! And in with pot farms, totally hip! The exact same reasoning of water resources used against almond farms is turned on its head for pot farms.

    2. One of the reasons Karen for the thefts and problems is that marijuana is illegal and so the criminal element has an incentive to steal it. If weed became an ordinary crop such as lettuce, you won’t find many armed thugs wanting to pick lettuce and sell it behind a seedy bar.

      Unfortunately, there are occasionally, though significantly less than before, illegal marijuana grows of some scale here in WA. The common tactic is for unscrupulous “farmers” to hoodwink a landowner into leasing it for a marijuana crop under the false pretense that they are licensed with the Liquor & Cannabis Board.

      Unfortunately there are states where it is still illegal, hence the demand, and the taxes here are too high and there is an untaxed contraband incentive. But for the most part, it isn’t as bad as it is in CA from what I have read.

      1. It is true that when it is illegal, there is the scarcity factor and the whole criminal dealer aspect. Here in CA, it is expensive to run any marijuana business. Tax and permit cost evasion will always be an incentive for illegal grows. And those costs, which vary from state to state, will affect whether legalization increases or decreases the cost of marijuana.

        When it is legal, and in an unguarded field, it is a valuable commodity free, if a thief times it right so it’s close enough to harvest. Also, the crop is a valuable commodity once it’s harvested and being processed. They have noted an increase in property crimes in areas surrounding dispensaries, with a boundary zone likely created from the guards.

        Prescription drugs are legal, but there is still an incentive to rob pharmacies and break into people’s medicine cabinets because they get people high, and cost money. Addicts steal to get it, or criminals steal drugs just to make money.

        There was a legal grow near my friend’s ranch, and the grower suffered so many thefts that he kept an aggressive dog. Another grower in the neighborhood started a large fire that almost got my friend’s ranch. Another farmer I knew lost tens of thousands of dollars in tools and equipment after a legal grow sprang up in his neighborhood.

        Theft is enough of a problem for legal grows and dispensaries, that cannabis security is a booming industry right now. (https://www.security-mps.com/cannabis/) “Crime is always a threat to the Retail Marijuana Stores and Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. If thieves are willing to rob a convenience, liquor store or gas station for a few hundred dollars or less, the chance of violent crime at a Retail Marijuana Stores and Marijuana Dispensaries is equal to or greater than these other businesses. This is especially true when you are transacting thousands of dollars a day in cash and have a product that is desirable, stable and easily stolen?” “Often Retail Marijuana Stores, Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Grow Operators will use employees or other internal resources to transport marijuana within state boundaries. This not only increases the liability but also increases the risk to staff. A carjacking, holdup or auto burglary can happen in seconds and thieves can quickly steal thousands of dollars in cash or marijuana before law enforcement can arrive on the scene.

        MPS offers transport services using secure armored and covert vehicles. All security officers are trained in transport security and can offer a level of security that untrained and Retail Marijuana Store, Medical Marijuana Dispensary and Grow employees cannot provide. This reduces the liability to the employer and removes the threat to these employees.”

        I have no problem with medical marijuana legalization, but I think the grows need to be in areas zoned for drug manufacture, not farming towns and rural neighborhoods.

        I’ve have more of an issue with grows and dispensaries than I do people who use it occasionally recreationally. They’re just sedating themselves. As long as they don’t drive, or smoke it where I can breathe it, I don’t really care. But the manufacturing and distribution process does affect people who live in rural areas, where these businesses go. They suffer the loss in real estate value and crime (see the article on property crimes increasing around dispensaries.) And hash oil production is a scary proposition when we’re all essentially living in a lake of gasoline in summer in CA, when we are surrounded by mountains of dry brush.

  13. This is how our system is supposed to work–states make political changes and the change sweeps over the country. This is exactly how the 19th Amendment came about. After vicious opposition in Congress, states adopted laws for sufferage and onlr then did Congress concede and move the amendmnt forward

  14. I have voted for medical marijuana twice but I am against legalizing its recreational use.

    1. You have every right to your opinion that recreational use of marijuana should be illegal. I fully support your decision to not use it if that is your choice, and if you were to plead with your children to never use the substance (any substance) I fully support you in this effort. I do not understand why you think your position gives you the right to criminalize it for those with a different view? If a persons use of a substance (any substance) causes harm to others, by all means make the actions of said individual illegal (such as driving while under the influence of a substance). But if a person chooses to sit in their back yard and use a substance you disapprove of, why is that illegal?

      1. Paul – this is America and I get my opinion, just as you do. However, I have seen the damage pot has done to my students and like the use of drugs and alcohol in the workplace, it also does damage.

          1. Olly – because I was an award-winning teacher and a great lecturer. I once had a college class waiting for me for over an hour (I just missed the time) because they were worried about me. When I was in college, 20 minutes and you were gone like the wind. 😉 However, I do appreciate your moral support.

        1. Perhaps, and perhaps it has a different cause. But what if Bill Gates had been arrested for using Pot while he was in his late teenage years and subsequently was unable to get a meaningful job? How about any number of others that have used pot extensively in their younger years, never got arrested, and went on to do great things? Making this substance illegal causes a number of people (mostly people of color) to enter the criminal justice system where their lives are significantly altered in a negative way. With a criminal history many of these people have doors closed, their future altered in a significantly negative way, and most of them are people of color.

          But the larger question remains..why do you, with your opinion, get to force me to live by your standards? i have an opinion that says pot use should be a personal matter, not legal. My position does not force anyone to use any substance. Your position forces your viewpoints on others though criminal sanctions. Seems rather draconian to me.

          1. Paul – what if Bill Gates had bathed on a regular basis, do you think he would have married earlier? Coulda, woulda, shoulda, doesn’t do it.

            1. you didn’t answer my question on why your opinion of how things should be supersedes others? Why do you want to destroy lives (mostly people of color), who use a substance you disagree with? Is it so dangerous that you think criminalizing usage is worth the cost of destroying lives? I don’t get it.

              1. Paul – it is already criminalized, I had no part in that. However, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. Color of someone’s skin has nothing to do with it.

                1. “Color of someone’s skin has nothing to do with it.” But it does.
                  Like I said, you are free to have your opinion, I just don’t understand why you want to destroy someones life because they do something you disapprove of. Why so much hate for someone that does things you don’t approve of?

                  1. Paul – what you don’t seem to understand is I do not hate anyone. However, if there is a law and if you break it you have to be prepared to pay the penalty. I am not going to change that particular law because I do not believe in it recreationally. Maybe after 10 years of data from CO I might change my mind.

                    There is a difference between hate and being a law-abiding citizen. I obey the law, I expect others to as well. If they do not, if they are caught, I expect they will go to jail or prison. I live in a town that has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation. I hope we keep it that way. I am doing my part. Are you doing your part?

            2. Here is an example where PCS’s lack of willingness to argue and instead denigrate commentators is exposed:

              Paul, (the first one), asks a salient question:

              “But what if Bill Gates had been arrested for using Pot while he was in his late teenage years and subsequently was unable to get a meaningful job?”

              Paul, (the first one) then elaborates on this line of questioning.

              PCS responds, “. . . what if Bill Gates had bathed on a regular basis, do you think he would have married earlier? Coulda, woulda, shoulda, doesn’t do it.”

              In one fell swoop – the genius that is PCS – simplifies a valid course of questioning (given the thread) from Paul to triviality while not addressing the same.

              PCS then offers anecdotal verbiage of the way the world was, and forever should be.

              It is a very unimpressive show of mindset by PCS; of eschewing valid questions so as to move on to his next comment which will be as illuminating – by PCS’s reasoning — as the one offered to Paul.

              1. WWAS – you think Bill Gates should have continued his non-bathing routine just to make your argument?

        2. “Mankind’s thirst for intoxicants is unquenchable, but to criminalize it, as Lincoln reminded the Illinois temperance society, reinforces the clinging to the addiction; to think otherwise would be ‘to expect a reversal of human nature, which is God’s decree and never can be reversed.’ The injuries inflicted by alcohol don’t follow ‘from the use of a bad thing, but from the abuse of a very good thing.’ The victims are ‘to be pitied and compassionated,’ their failings treated ‘as a misfortune, and not as a crime or even as a disgrace.’ ” – Lewis Lapham, Alms for Oblivion

          Lincoln’s words apply equally to marijuana, a far less harmful drug than alcohol.

          1. I would agree that marijuana is not a gateway drug, but with the new HTC levels, I am not sure it is less harmful than alcohol.

            1. I was a teenage pot smoker. For decades I was a successful professional pot smoker. Now I’m an old-man, new-THC level pot smoker. I am still able to drive a car, take care of my home and family, and speak in complete sentences.

              I know, that’s just anectdotal. But so are your reports of damaged students.

              1. Sadly, I am required to turn in my grade books at the end of every year. And there is this federal law about identifying students. It has to be anecdotal on my end. Sorry. Believe me, don’t believe me, that is up to you.

                1. I believe you, sir. No disrespect was intended.

                  But if the existence of overindulging pot smokers is a considered a valid argument for criminalization, then alcoholism is a valid argument for prohibition, and over-eating an argument for federally-mandated dieting.

                  1. Didn’t Mrs. Obama have a program based on over-eating school children? Wasn’t that federally funded?

                    1. That was a program, not a law. No one went to jail as a result.

                      Signing off now. I’ve enjoyed talking with you. But as Henry Ward Beecher said, “Pushing any truth out very far, you are met by a countertruth.”

  15. Legal and well controlled here in Washington state. Various crimes seem to have declined here in Pullman since legalized but that might also be due to our most excellent new police chief.

    1. David – crimes caused by legalization are difficult to track.

      If someone steals pot from a farm, and then hits the neighbor houses on his way out, that is not considered a pot crime. If someone has an illegal grow, he is not going to report theft. The type of crime that does go down is arrests for dealing pot. Once it’s legal, obviously those types of arrests go away.

      Take Colorado, for example:


      “Greeley Police Chief Jerry Garner said he and many other police chiefs across Colorado have noticed a big increase in the number of transients moving to the state and contributing to a surge in burglaries.

      “They were breaking into homes to burglarize them, breaking into cars and breaking into homes to stay warm in the winter,” said Garner, who added that Greeley had a 20 percent increase in major crimes.”

      There are reports that legalization did not lead to the increase in crimes in CO- the sharp spikes in rapes, murders, and car theft. However, there was also a marked increase in transients after legalization, and the accompanying drug addiction.

      This would not be considered a pot crime. If a transient moves to CO for the legal pot, and then also commits crimes to feed his heroin habit, or he rapes someone, that would not be considered a pot crime. But in this hypothetical situation, pot was indeed the reason why the drug addicted transient moved to such a cold state in the first place.

      CO is still working out the complex causes of their crime wave. And there are going to be many causes. Will pot legalization be one of the common threads? Reports first came out that crime decreased after legalization, and then it surged upwards.

      The only type of crime that legalization decreases would be dealing pot or using pot, which would no longer be crimes. The legalization of any recreational drug in a state is going to attract drug users. Obviously. People who only do pot, and nothing else, would probably be too sedated to cause much trouble, besides driving under the influence, stealing pot, or stealing to afford to buy it. Those who do pot and other drugs or transients would cause more problems.

    2. https://phys.org/news/2017-04-legal-marijuana-property-crime.html

      “Researchers found that crime isn’t higher in the area immediately surrounding marijuana outlets. But adjacent areas saw about 84 more property crimes per year than neighborhoods without a nearby marijuana store.
      In Denver, no significant increase in violent crime was seen as a result of marijuana sales.
      The results show that legal marijuana sales come with a cost, said Bridget Freisthler, lead author of the study and professor of social work at The Ohio State University.
      “If you’re looking strictly from a public health standpoint, there is reason to be somewhat concerned about having a marijuana outlet near your home,” Freisthler said.
      Putting this risk in context, marijuana outlets led to similar levels of property crime as bars, liquor stores and restaurants that serve alcohol, data from the study suggests. And businesses that sold alcohol led to much more violent crime than marijuana outlets.”

      Property crime increased in the areas adjacent to dispensaries, similar to liquor stores. Alcohol was associated with more violent crime. Note that they remarked that violent crime was not seen as a result of marijuana sales, not legalization. From my reasoning above, attracting a certain criminal element would increase crime, even if it didn’t happen in the dispensary’s door.

  16. John Ehrlichman, 1994: “You want to know what this was really all about?…The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

    Jeff Sessions, if you fed him truth serum, would say the same thing about drug laws today. I don’t believe the federal laws on marijuana will change anytime soon.

Comments are closed.