Poll: Sixty-One Percent Of Americans Favor Legalization Of Marijuana

jeff_sessions_official_portraitThe decision of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to rescind the Obama policy allowing states to legalize marijuana without federal interference has caused a firestorm of controversy, including an array of irate Republicans. As we have been discussing, recreational and medical marijuana is now a multi-billion dollar industry that is pouring tax revenues into states.  More importantly, it is very popular and it is becoming more so by the day.  Indeed, there is now an overwhelming majority of Americans who want to see pot legalized and taxed.  A new Pew poll shows not only 61 percent of people supporting legalization but an overwhelming number of Republicans in every age group except the oldest voters.  For that reason, the decision of Sessions to open up this new political front could cost an already besieged GOP in retaining its control of Congress. At a minimum, it threatens to drive a wedge between the GOP and the young voters — a voting bloc desperately needed in 2018 and 2020.  Some members are grumbling that they were already fearing the loss of one or two houses before this decision.  The new policy will only make it that much harder to retain the majority in Congress.  Moreover, various GOP members have denounced the Administration for breaking a promise made by Trump to let states make these decisions.

The 61 percent is an increase from 57 percent just a year ago.  It is twice the support from 2000.  However, what is really interesting is the breakdown on specific groups.  Millennials are polling at 70%.  What should worry the GOP is that the percentage of millennials is identical to the support among Democrats. That is a dangerous overlap for a party that is increasingly worried about an age demographic that continues to rise.  Some 43 percent of Republicans support legalization but the opposition is largely confined to the older demographic bands.

For those in the GOP (or GOP leaning)  who are younger than 40, support for legalization stands at 62 percent.  For those between the ages of 40 and 64 in the GOP ranks, almost half support legalization (48 percent).  It is the oldest group of over 65 years and oppose legalization by 67 percent to 30 percent.

favor legalizing marijuana use, 62% to 38%. Republicans ages 40 to 64 are divided (48% say it should be legal, 49% illegal), while those 65 and older oppose marijuana legalization by more than two-to-one (67% to 30%).

From a purely political perspective, the polling numbers could not be worst for a party fighting to build a new foundation.  The Democrats could not have picked a more perfect issue to wedge the GOP and younger voters. This is the type of policy that costs dearly with single-issue voters and this is the ultimate single issue for a huge number of voters. The questions being asked by GOP members are why and why now?

270 thoughts on “Poll: Sixty-One Percent Of Americans Favor Legalization Of Marijuana”

  1. “Penny wise and pound foolish.”

    You argue law and ignore the Constitution.

    No individual or group of individuals has authority to deny freedom of ingestion to Americans.

    “The Law is Reason free from Passion.”

    ― Aristotle

    “Reason is the life of the law; nay, the common law itself is nothing less than reason.”

    — Edward Coke, First Institute [1628]

    Reasonable law precludes property damage and bodily injury, not natural and God-given, constitutional freedoms and rights.

    You are conflating and confusing issues. You want a responsible, well-heeled populace while you nullify and void the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802, fail to “compassionately repatriate” after abolishing slavery and you import “…the wretched refuse of your teeming shore…” (for the uninitiated, the later is not in the Constitution). It’s not the alcohol, peyote or marijuana. It’s the pedigree; the gene pool; the DNA.

    Do you know why they require membership at your country club?

    What did you think was going to happen when the gates were removed?

  2. Would someone please cite the Article and Section of the Constitution that nullifies and excludes the freedom and right of Americans to “ingest.”

    That one thinks and believes that one is superior to others is not a constitutional basis for nullification and exclusion of freedoms and rights of Americans. Laws themselves are “reason” and rationality. It is eminently reasonable to enact laws against property damage and bodily injury; leaving appropriate behavior to each individual. It is eminently unreasonable and irrational for certain people to dictate how other people live their lives.

    Indians, in what is now known as America, had the freedom and right of ingestion and there was no fundamental or codified Indian law which nullified and excluded their natural and God-given right to ingest. Peyote, Mescaline etc., were and are still in use by Indians.

    Is it rational or even possible to know that Americans have freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and every other conceivable right and freedom per the 9th Amendment, all of which existed before government was established, but Americans do not have the freedom of ingestion?

  3. It will be legalized because we have become a nation of dope fiends. The dope will allow people to pretend that they are happy, and that everything is just peachy. I only pray that no other other major nation, like China, fails to soon go down the same path of insanity, or we are likely to have our gooses cooked.

    Because nothing spells success like just not giving a damn about anything except about the Doritos.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Are you confusing the problems of deleterious invasion/immigration and the unconstitutional failure of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln to “compassionately repatriate,” with natural and God-given freedoms and rights of actual Americans, which are not dictated by “superior” classes?

      1. If we ever back off, it will have to be thru a Democratic administration. Just like with ending welfare. It is the only way the mainstream press will go along with it. But, that is probably 50 years in the future at least. We haven’t been hurt enough yet. And the doper generation will have to die off. That alone will take another 25 years.

        Of course, that is all subject to change if we have a major disaster like a Super Great Depression, or a meteor strike, or a super volcano, etc. Or, if we get our very own Fuhrer. Or, if the Chinese take us over.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

              1. Not to me. Penelope does a lot of domestic work (aka divorces) and we see all kinds of whacked-out, strung-out, plain old crazy and delusional chicks, and the occasional psycho-b*tch from Hell – – – sooo no. I don’t find Linda too spooky. But, I can see how the uninitiated would be freaked out by her.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                  1. Well, I had to look “ochlcracy” up, and it isn’t that mob rule doesn’t bother me, it’s that I think it is too late to pull back from it in America. The best we can currently do is vote, and voice our concerns. But, the people in mobs don’t listen to our voices. I expect that there will be a Hitler in our future, who will take out the garbage, but that is probably at least 75 years away, and I will most likely be dead.

                    In the meantime, I boycott the NFL, Target, Penney’s, Campbells Soup, Colbert, SNL, and other pro mob sites. But, I don’t think we can pull back from the brink without a major disaster of some sort. Remember, it is our supposedly best and brightest, who as a group, are the dumbest most mob like. That does not bode well.

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                    1. Once again, I agree with your assessment. We’ve raised a generation or more in this mentality. The Class of 20 for example, is coming up with an expectation of safe zones and privilege management. Obama and Trump are, if you strip away the politics, the same thing: gut-level populists appealing to the divisive. I anticipate 2022 and later 2024 being very instructive election cycles.

                1. Squeeky, Penelope is seeing a lot of the spooky ones. I am used to them as well, but when I think of this nation and Linda in the same sentence I worry about the future. Can we say entropy to the lowest common denominator? We will be left with a bunch of Linda’s.

              2. The walking dead zombies still following Stalin pose no threat in the daylight like Adelson, the Mercers and the Koch’s do.

                1. I said: “Can we say entropy to the lowest common denominator? We will be left with a bunch of Linda’s.”

                  To which Linda replied: “The walking dead zombies ”

                  She got it. A bunch of Linda’s are walking dead zombies… Chanting, Oligarch, Oligarch, Oligarc…….

  4. No matter how successful, on any issue, President Trump will be marginalized by insidious, contriving, progressives. In so doing, these same intrepid progressives delegitimize themselves. In short, practitioners of divided government, namely liberals, continue attempts to hoodwink, snooker & bamboozle a gullible public.

                1. Apparently, you read too fast for complex ideas to reach your cerebrum and you leave it to your medulla oblongata to respond.

                    1. Your computer leads you down the garden path. Left wing-talk ON and to the cerebrum. Right-wing talk Off never gets past the medulla. That binary type of thinking doesn’t work in areas that require more than binary (ON / OFF) thinking. You aren’t a plug-in, are you?

  5. Already sent email to White House, Tweeted Trump, called Reps, and signed petitions….

  6. Follow the money

    Lee Camp [Redacted]
    ‏Verified account @LeeCamp
    21h21 hours ago

    Industries lobbying against legal marijuana –

    Big pharma
    Police unions
    Private prisons
    Prison guard unions

  7. I am a prude. I don’t: drink alcohol or soda; smoke anything; do drugs (it’s been about 15 years since I was last prescribed a drug by a physician); have homosexual sex; or commit adultery. But I don’t want anybody thrown into a cage and given a criminal record for doing any of those things. Nobody else’s liberty is impacted by that conduct. In fact, I support legalizing all drugs under one condition. That condition being you have to accept the consequences of your actions. The rest of society should not have a compulsory obligation to help you if you become a heroin addict unable to hold a job or contribute to society. When government is confiscating the money I earned to help you with your addiction, that DOES impact my liberty. It penalizes good behavior and subsidizes “bad” behavior.

    So when I am King and you become addicted to a substance unable to contribute to society, it will be up to your family, friends, neighbors, church, non-profits, do-gooders and rich pro drug liberals like George Soros to decide if they want to carry you. Not society at large via government.


    JT’s position is weird. He does not want Sessions to do his job and enforce laws duly enacted by Congress. That undermines the rule of law. Very strange for someone who is a legal scholar and who seems to admire the Madisonian constitutional system we have.

    JT wanting to make Sessions a scapegoat for enforcing laws enacted by Congress makes no sense. It is backwards. He should be urging Congress to fix the laws they enacted decades ago. Sessions needs to do what he was hired to do: enforce federal law.

    1. Scott –

      If drugs were legal, they would be so relatively cheap that even the most strung-out junkie would be able to get all they needed for a day at a cost of a few dollars. About 30 years ago or so, in a front page article, the WSJ reported the cost for the daily habit of a junkie would be less than one dollar.

      Fewer crimes would be committed because junkies wouldn’t need much money for a fix.

  8. I’m completely neutral on this topic although I think it should be a state-level decision and not a federal issue. I also think we should dismiss that perennially stupid argument that always comes along with this topc. You’ve heard the argument before. It goes like this: “we should legalize it and then tax it to pay for _______”. Give me a break. That argument is about as dumb as the one that gave us state lotteries. We were told “if we have a state lottery we will use the money it brings in to fund schools”. Did that happen? Big fat no. If marijuana is legalized and taxed will it pay for ________? Big fat no.

    If all the waking bakers want to use taxation to fund _______ they are more than welcome to return their tax refunds this spring to the Treasury Department.

    1. AWW re “We were told “if we have a state lottery we will use the money it brings in to fund schools”. Did that happen? Big fat no.”

      Dunno where you live but here in SC residents attending state community / technical colleges do benefit – 50% of tuition reduction.

  9. Marijuana never belonged on the Schedule 1 list of dangerous drugs.

    All Sessions is saying is that, Congress has to get its act in gear and update the Schedule to reflect actual danger….correct an error made 70 years ago. Is that asking too much?

    That said, the entire recreational drug industry (including alcohol) needs to come up with dosage recommendations. What other drug is put out there in the market on a basis of “consume as much as you can”?

    1. “Marijuana never belonged on the Schedule 1 list of dangerous drugs.”

      What expertise do you have? Should it be on the Schedule 2 list or any of the lists 1-5?

      1. Schedule 1 is for addictive drugs with no medical uses. So cannibis fails the criteria twice over.

        1. Apparently, your mouse is slow at transmitting data. Cannabis falls into the addictive category of Schedule 1 when not prescribed for a medical use. The question is what expertise one has to make such judgments and doesn’t Cannabis have a right to fall into any one of the 5 schedules?

          🧀 that is for your mouse.

          1. Sorry. Cannabis is not physically addictive. Learn some medical science.

            1. “Learn some medical science.”

              Really? Train your mouse better.


              Marijuana use can lead to the development of problem use, known as a marijuana use disorder, which takes the form of addiction in severe cases.

              I think for the purposes of the Schedule 1-5 drugs we can use the .gov website.

  10. I don’t think that Trump should be referred to as “King Trump”. I think “Prince Trump” is more appropriate.

  11. Having lived with an ex-husband who once he started never stopped smoking pot… Yeah, go on. Lose your job. Lose your sex drive. Lose your wife. Get a big whopping appetite and watch a whole lotta TV from your comfy recliner. As I said, he’s my EX-husband.
    Pot is estrogenic.
    Great for cancer patients, hospice patients, people with chronic pain. Not so much for the casual user.
    That being said, I’m in favor of decriminalization, not legalization.

      1. Jay, I have personally witnessed a total distruction of family because of majuana use. Your comment is sad and ignorant. The fact that such an overwhelming percentage of our population believes that smoking this drug is not harmful is one of the most concerning trends. Wake up!

          1. In Cincinnati, there’s a big Republican donor family named the Lindners. The company they own was testing employees for drug use at the same time an executive in the firm (a Lindner), pled guilty to importing cocaine and marijuana into New Zealand for his personal use while vacationing. It won’t surprise anyone that he saw no jail time.

            Consistency within the Republican Party is limited to singling out those without money for harsh treatment.

            1. There were about 1,000 criminal convictions resulting from the S&L fiasco in the 1980s.
              Some of those people served very long prison sentences.
              There were very few prosecutions after the much-worse 2008-2009 financial crisis; it was not a priority during the Obama/ Holder/ Lynch years.
              This doesn’t have anything to do with Fox News, or Russians, or looking under one’s bed for an oligarch, or one of the Koch brothers.
              I know the pattern well enough to know the kind of smokescreen response that’s becoming standard here.
              But it might be of interest to others who are can understand what I wrote, and there might possibly even be a reply not involving an unfocused, muddled,unrelated speech.

              1. The pattern, Nash, is a Republican donor class singling out poor people for abuse. The balance of power that enabled those who work hard to succeed based on merit and, punished the rich for wrong doing, began to erode with Reagan.
                As long as the donor class dominates D.C. and state capitols, both Democrats and Republicans will give a free pass to the rich. To this point, Democrats have attempted to rein in the worst abuses of the Republican donor class which Dubya described, during financial Armageddon in 2008, as “drunken” beyond reason.

    1. JB – your ex sounds like my friends ex – except his drug of choice was alcohol. Addicts always abuse the substance (or activity) of their choice.

  12. California is gonna sue da fascist T rump govmit again. Are there no states right libertarians on this blog anymore?

    1. Only “states rights” when its convenient e.g. the Koch’s ALEC, the brothers’ gift to multinational corporations and to alt dight billionaires.

      1. If republicans truly believed in states rights, then minimum wages be be law. Florida would have decided Bush vs Gore, the list is getting longer all the time…………… They want state rights only when it benefits them politically.

        1. You silly girl. Small r republicans do not equal big R Republicans. This means we absolutely believe in state’s rights, the rule of law and the separation of powers. Believing in state’s rights does not mean we believe there are 50 supreme laws of the land either. We do not support the executive branch deciding what laws to enforce. If there is bad law, then there exists a process to change the law. I happen to agree marijuana laws should be left up to the states. They should be decriminalized at the federal level.

          1. Small r republicans are paper tigers, toothless in the oligarchy. The hope comes from the recent Alabamian vote.

        2. Just months ago people like you were big state’s rights supporters when you thought it might offer a backdoor post-election route for Hillary to be President. So don’t come on here FishWings talking about things you know nothing about.

          By the way, minimum wages ARE state laws. (Yes, in different states the minimum wage is set at different rates and under varying conditions).

          As for Bush v Gore, the election was not for Governor of Florida.

          I thought the list was getting longer. You only cited two things because again, you know nothing.

          1. If a state wants to pay above federal law can they? The state of Florida had the right to count or not count, by state law, not to be told by the Supreme Court to stop counting. As for post-election route, I have no idea what you are talking about, then again, either do you.

    2. “States’ Rights!” is not a provision of the Constitution. People have rights and privileges. States and the Federal Government have Powers. Never the Twain shall meet. So said Mark Twain when Huck and Jim were going down the Mississippi. Ohio wanted to tell boat riders how to speak English. Ohio people said it was a matter of State’s Rights. Jim told em to hold der tongues.

      1. People have rights and privileges. States and the Federal Government have Powers.

        Your 1st sentence is absolutely false. Your 2nd sentence completely ignores where the state and federal government got their constitutionally LIMITED powers. The establishment of our government, by the People, did not give government all the People’s power.

        10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        1. “STATES RIGHTS!” Yes sir. The right to keep a strangle hold on the nigras.

    3. Ken wants to know what its like to break past the flesh & spirit ….into eternity future

    4. ” Are there no states right libertarians on this blog anymore?”

      Ken, dummies violated the Constitution and we are left with Federal Law that should not exist. However, Federal Law ‘Trumps 🙂 ‘ state law so we all have to live with it until our elected officials change the law. If federal law didn’t trump state law then all the states would have had a chance to opt out of ObamaCare.

  13. Try driving a car after smoking Panama Red or Colombian Gold that’s been dosed with psychedelics. Jerry Garcia says he didn’t like it because you don’t have options.

  14. Issac, I agree with most of your posting. If the stuff was legalized it wouldn’ t matter too much to me. I wouldn’t smoke it anyway. I also believe that there has to be toxins similar to tobacco when inhaled. In time people will realize that this wasn’t a good idea. You still have to do something about your Trump derangement syndrome. Maybe some professional help is restore.

    1. King T rump has declared on da twitter that he is a stable genius and is not deranged.

      1. Is this a first time for Trump, labeling himself a genius? Trump, just like Einstein, no dif.

    2. Sorry, no toxins similar to tobacco. Many millions of dollars have been spent looking for something medically health-threatening and evil in marijuana in order to justify it’s suppression. All that could be found was benefit, like inhibition of certain cancer tumor types. Etc.

  15. This has to stop. Remember history. First they came for people’s pot. Good people did nothing. Then they came for people’s pot stickers. Good people did nothing again. Before they knew it, people didn’t have any pot to p*** in.

  16. Ah come on, This has nothing to do with states rights, This is all about big pharma, it wants and will get control thru lobbyists pushing federal regulation on pot laws. Than the masters of the universe, “WALL STREET” will control price and distribution. And in this case the republicans will be all in for regulation so the big boys win, and mom and pop shops close. At least in THIS administration. And with Pence, Fuhgeddaboudit.

    1. Pence’s deputy chief of staff has an oddball mother-in-law, who is running for Congress in Florida (abducted by extraterrestrials who still communicate with her from their ships steered with quartz crystals). Republicans can vote for her to join Trump in a separation from reality.

      1. That’s the best you’ve got??? Oh it is you Linda so I guess I set the bar too high. So someone at least four people removed from Pence is strange and that somehow it Trump’s fault. That’s like saying Linda’s co-worker’s friend has a mother-in-law that’s part of the Klan so Linda is racist. Yeah, I know you don’t have co-workers since my tax dollars pay for your lifestyle but you get my drift.

        1. The referenced person is the only Republican candidate in the race for that U.S. Congressional district. Ork Sop, we agree Trump is not responsible for all of the fringe in the Republican Party but, he is the unhinged leader of the party of the oligarchs. And, the Mercer’s Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, has a roster of candidates that included Roy Moore.

          You and I can compare our tax returns but, we won’t be able to see the returns of the man who said, “People who pay taxes are stupid”, unless criminal charges relating to money laundering or Russian collusion are brought against him.

            1. What in the world is an “Ork Sop”? Is it a person, place, political topic? I’ve watched Lord of the Rings and read a great many Tolkien books but I don’t recall Ork Sop in any of them.

              Linda’s made the case against marijuana legalization with her Ork Sop.

              Ork Sop, the covefe’ of 2018.

        2. Your tax dollars and mine are paying for the lifestyles of the hedge funders and men like Trump who abuse the tax code and in doing so create a grossly unfair system for the middle class.

            1. Who needs pot when Linda is ranting Oligarchs, Oligarchs. That alone can make one silly.

              1. Allan and Olly,..
                I believe in giving credit where credit is due.
                She went for a few sentences without the use of the words oligarchy or oligarchs.
                And the ability to start her own column on topics unrelated to JT’s column, or any of the comments, is amazing.
                With those special talents, there may be no limit to the heights she can climb in her chosen field of demagoguery.

  17. Who was that musician from Jamaica who wrote the song entitled “Legalize Marijuana!”?

    Some of the lyrics:

    Legalize…. Mari Juana!
    Whooo whooo whooooo!
    Right here in sweet Jamaica!
    Whoo whooo whoooo..

    There will be .. no more illegal…

      1. There was a small group singing the song outside Jeff Sessions’ office bldg yesterday. Here are the full lyrics:

        Warning – The surgeon general warns
        Cigarette smoking is dangerous… Dangerous
        Hazard to your health
        Does that mean anything to you?

        Then legalize marijuana
        Right here in Jamaica yeah
        Dem say it cure glaucoma yeah
        I’m an a de bush doctor yeah
        So there’ll be no more
        Smokin’ and feeling tense
        When I see dem a com
        I don’t have to jump no fence

        Legalize marijuana
        Down here in jamaica yeah
        Only cure for asthma yeah
        I man a de minister yeah
        So there’ll be no more
        Police brutality
        No more disrespect for humanity

        Legalize marijuana yeah
        Down here in jamaica yeah
        It can build up a failing economy yeah
        Eliminate the slavish mentality

        So there’ll be no more
        Illegal humiliation
        And no more police

        Legalize marijuana
        Down here in sweet jamaica
        Only cure for glaucoma
        I’m an a de bush doctor yeah

        And there’ll be no more need
        To smoke and hide
        When you know you’re takin’
        A legal ride

        Legalize marijuana
        Down here in Jamaica
        It’s the only cure for glaucoma
        I’m an a de minister…

  18. “Moreover, various GOP members have denounced the Administration for breaking a promise made by Trump to let states make these decisions.”

    Congress passed the laws involved. They have a job and should stop complaining. The Constitution gives them control over this issue.

      1. That is absolutely true, but when blame gets passed around on this blog I note all too many people don’t recognize the different responsibilities of the different parties and become crazy blaming the wrong people. Even the MSM gets these things wrong on a continuous basis, but apparently, the MSM exists to sell papers and not provide the true news of the day,

      2. Is “cowardice” the correct word for currying favor with the rich e.g. men like McConnell and Ryan pleasing alt right billionaires? Isn’t it more of a design flaw reinforced by gerrymandering and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United?

  19. Tobacco use is down considerably from its heyday when every movie star smoked, tobacco ads featured tennis players and other sporty types, doctors were featured in magazines touting the beneficial health aspects of smoking, etc. Education, civil lawsuits, and a realistic profile of pot would curtail usage more than any law(s). Criminal prosecution for driving while drunk, coupled with the cost of it or an accident has done more to curtail drunken driving than outlawing alcohol.

    Pot has been around for long enough that it is a fixed element in society. The negative aspects laid on by making it illegal compound the negative aspects of using pot. When you disconnect authority from reason you lose the benefits of education and responsibility. The authority can only be implemented for the misuse of pot, as with alcohol. Add education and pot will be like alcohol, sometimes evil and destructive, but a substance to be controlled, not outlawed.

    The stubborn stupidity of Sessions and the rest of the conservative, backward looking, close minded parts of America cost us all. If Sessions is an instrument of the Presidency then the focus must be on Trump. Trump has already illustrated by pulling a few strings that Sessions is his puppet. The question is; is Trump crafting some ‘deal’ artfully or is he simply an idiot; perhaps both.

    1. The stubborn stupidity of Sessions and the rest of the conservative, backward looking, close minded parts of America cost us all.

      The Legislative branch writes the laws and the Executive branch enforces them. What you call stubborn stupidity is the executive branch actually enforcing the law. That’s their sworn duty, something you apparently haven;t grasped. Enforcing the law is not an endorsement of the law. The poisonous endorsement of a President to assume powers not granted by the constitution leads to the ignorant assumption that every President has the power to simply decide what laws to enforce. That’s why JT warned about the uber presidency. President Obama had a Democrat-controlled Congress to pass new laws on both immigration and this issue regarding legalizing marijuana. Nothing happened. Instead the the stubborn stupidity of Congress allowed the President to ignore federal law on both issues. And as you progressives are learning the hard way, when you ignorantly support the President having powers not granted by the constitution, you better win elections. Because the next President may not share your worldview.

      1. Olly, that was a good lesson of American civics something Issac seems to know little about. I understand he is Canadian. Why did he leave Canada for the US?

        1. Why did he leave Canada for the US?

          Good question. issac is fond of saying there are other, more advanced democracies… He either believes his lot in life is still more suited to this country or has the potential to be more suited to his worldview. Given his tirade against President Trump and this administration doing their constitutional duty, I’m going with the latter.

      2. Olly

        Re, “The Legislative branch writes the laws and the Executive branch enforces them. What you call stubborn stupidity is the executive branch actually enforcing the law. That’s their sworn duty, something you apparently haven;t grasped. Enforcing the law is not an endorsement of the law.” Your statement illustrates the selective bias found in those defending this travesty of a Presidency/government. Interpretation and bias colors all ‘sworn duties’, ‘simply enforcing’ this or that, etc. That Sessions is attempting or alluding to ‘enforce’ laws against the evolving acceptance of pot is primarily Sessions and probably Trump and has little to do with their jobs or duties. Another person, with different viewpoints, in Sessions’ position, would just as ‘rightfully and justly’ let the natural tendencies of Americans, 61%, evolve into a condition/position where Congress would b be obligated to rescind the illegality of pot or something of the sort. In other words, don’t be so naive. The written structure of the sacred essence of America is always open to interpretation. Read some American history. This latest move by Sessions is all Sessions and probably a dose of Trump.

        The second amendment is a prime example of selective interpretation. Gun advocates constantly haul out the second half and point and say, as if reading a bible, ‘See’. Not that long ago the NRA pointed to the entire amendment and advocated strict controls on weapons available, obligatory education, and judicious limitations on permitting. In one fell swoop, overnight, the moneyed oligarchs took over and the sacred text was read from right to left, leaving out the left. In other words, ‘Don’t be so naive.”

        1. That Sessions is attempting or alluding to ‘enforce’ laws against the evolving acceptance of pot is primarily Sessions and probably Trump and has little to do with their jobs or duties. Another person, with different viewpoints, in Sessions’ position, would just as ‘rightfully and justly’ let the natural tendencies of Americans, 61%, evolve into a condition/position where Congress would b be obligated to rescind the illegality of pot or something of the sort. In other words, don’t be so naive.

          I’m aware that in your worldview, the ends justify the means. That is certainly no way to secure the rights of the people equally. What you propose is a pure democracy. Whatever laws 51% of our population determines they will follow, well then that’s the laws that will be enforced. Eventually, Congress may get around to changing the law to make legal what to that point a majority of the population has already ignored. Of course you haven’t bothered with the unintended consequences of empowering the citizens to ignore the laws they don’t like. And of course you completely fail to recognize how you progressives have obliterated the idea of equal justice.

          1. Issac thinks it fair for 2 foxes and a hen to vote on what they will eat for lunch.

            He has no idea of why the Constitution was written the way it was.

Comments are closed.