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. So let me get this straight you want to take our pot from us BUT we can keep our guns? Yet more guns aid in killing people every day than pot ever has?!
    Blame the person not the substance or object. I dont understand these people. We just started bringing opiate addiction to light and they focus on a plant that has saved lives, THAT has no withdrawls (actually helps that too) thats worst side effects are being hungry as hell at 4am and taco bell is closed BUT you arent saying a damned thing about big pharma or doctors profiting off of HIGHLY dangerous substances that are killing our family and friends?! Every mind altering drug that is legalized and regulated by the government is far far more dangerous than weed will ever be. You know how weed becomes dangerous? Its when you keep it illegal and left to meth dealers to dish out to your teenage grandkids AND then slap heavy fines, incarceration and a ruined background report leaving those teenagers a lifetime of working at Mc Donalds. Do you see the common bond between all these issues? Its PEOPLE making bad decisions with these inadament objects that think feel or care about you as much as the mayo on your waiting for a heartattack burger does. If a person wants something they are going to try and get it and bc of simple rule of supply and demand they’ll get it. So why don’t we stop using already stretched resources to fight something someone will get anyway and fund what America and its current president truly needs, better mental health resources. Educate and bring awareness to this sector of America.

    1. Thanks, David….
      I can’t post a link from this device……if there is a way, I haven’t figured out how to do it.

      1. I use a Samsung Galaxy S4. It has the Android operating system. To copy a link to the clipboard, hold your finger on the link at the top until the list of options appears. After copying to the clipboard and on the message you are formulating, hold your finger on the screen on a new line until the list of options appears.

        1. Thanks, David.
          -I’ll try going through these steps, and see if I missed a step, or “took a wrong step”, when I’ve tried this before.
          I think I use that same set of instructions to post a link on a few emails I’ve sent.
          I found that it works on an email I’m sending, but I was stumped when it came to attaching a link with a comment.
          It looked like it required manually typing in an address, but it also looked like doing that would sent the link to JT or Darren, not attach it to a comment here.

  2. David Benson, you made a lot of statements on a subject, but when it came to the particulars you seemed to bow out without a word. Maybe your reply was lost. I will repeat my comment to give you a second chance.

    “You need to define that shortage.

    Is it skilled or unskilled labor?
    If it is unskilled labor perhaps the salaries are not high enough to draw people or perhaps those people you wish to draw from are already earning more than enough (many causes). There are things such as buses and trains that can take the unemployed from one area and move them to another.

    Of course, some companies complain they don’t have enough labor in their field and they import labor only to fire American workers (I think Disney has done that along with a lot of the hi-tech firms that might be relatively near your area. Let’s have some dialogue on this subject.

    Maybe we need to stop funding so many universities and start preparing students for the workplace.”

    Your argument was ” There is also a shortage of people to do all the available work.” and you made it seem you had found a problem that couldn’t be solved so I took advantage of common knowledge to help solve that problem for you.

    1. “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all.”
      — Thumper

      1. “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all.”

        I didn’t say something nice or not nice. I merely provided an enhancement to the idea of a shortage or non-shortage of labor along with solutions to the problems raised. They apparently demonstrated a flaw in someone’s ideology possibly yours. I guess what this demonstrates is that sometimes one’s quest is not for solutions but to permit correctable problems to survive in order to preserve the need to exercise one’s ideology.

        If that is not true you can let me know why. If it is true you need not reply and I will be glad to provide solutions for you anytime ideology interferes with solving the problem.

          1. “I can’t find anything nice to say.”

            Sure you can David. You were concerned about available employees in your area which is an important issue. I pointed out that there were unemployed people elsewhere that could move to your area to solve three problems.

            1) need for labor in your area
            2) unemployed labor in another area
            3) tax money being spent on the unemployed.

            Instead, some want to bring in foreign labor to satisfy their employment needs so they can pay them less but that means the total bill is the salary of the foreign laborer + costs of a citizen that is unemployed + social costs of the laborer and his family.

            It is less expensive in the total sense to hire American workers that are unemployed even if a higher wage is paid.

            It am not saying that we shouldn’t have immigration, which because of our fertility rate is a necessity. Rather I am saying immigration should meet the needs of American citizens first and that immigrants should be legally immigrating here to assimilate.

            You now have the opportunity to act in the fashion described above: “If that is not true you can let me know why. If it is true you need not reply and I will be glad to provide solutions for you anytime ideology interferes with solving the problem.”

            1. Asininely obvious. Stupidly assumes I have any influence on the situation.

              A waste of time to respond to.

              1. In response to the question at hand, David answers, “Asininely obvious.”. That only makes one wonder more why David pursued his line of responses. After all, if it is asininely obvious the questions that arose never would have led to the responses David made. Yet, David also states “Stupidly assumes I have any influence on the situation.” That is true. Generally, to obtain influence (at least positive influence) one requires knowledge of the existing realities and cannot simply react to one’s ideological dreams.

                “A waste of time to respond to.” Of course, it is a waste of time to respond when one is making comments without the requisite knowledge and without a desire to learn such knowledge.

                I wonder what the point is of your existence?

              1. “Off topic as well.”

                David, it was you claiming to cite employment statistics to Andrew while never actually citing them. Were you off topic then?

                  1. You were admittedly off topic. When it is you who are off topic don’t blame anyone else especially when your remarks created a situation that required correction.

                    1. “Only in your fevered imagination.”

                      That means something I said earlier must have been wrong, but we both know what I said was correct. Admit it and be done with it. All I did was demonstrate a good solution to a problem you mentioned. You should have said thank you.

  3. “Reason is the life of the law; nay, the common law itself is nothing else but reason – the law which is perfection of reason. ”

    – Edward Coke

    A prodigious black market for a substance exposes the unreasonable laws against it.

    Prohibition and its repeal comprise a model of unreasonable law.

    Substance restriction is as egregious as substance abuse.

    Bad behavior and misdemeanors must be blamed on individuals not on a substance.

    Can government/elitists write a law against walking through a forest and eating a mushroom?

    Does the Constitution preclude the freedom and right to eat mushrooms in the forest?

  4. It’s good to know that the Constitution provides for the dictatorship of the superior elite who have the authority to tell each citizen precisely how to live his life.

    Or not!

    If the Supreme Court were not nullifying, anti-American, Marxist elitists, the Constitution would be implemented and Americans would fully enjoy the freedom of ingestion, among an infinite number of rights and freedoms, and the entire welfare state would be annihilated.

    What the he– happened, America?

  5. My initial thought is six-fold. What partisan group conducted this poll? What predisposed results were sought? How many were polled? Where were they polled? Why only “sixty-one percent?” No, unintended political consequences?

  6. Amazing
    Weed is not an issue. They say it is a states right to decide these things. The will of the people is supreme. . . unless you are talking about those states whose “people” said marriage is limited to opposite sex couples. Then again hou many of you would rather ” impose” your will on business owners telling. Them NO smoking allowed rather than telling NON smokers to take there money elsewhere.

  7. In the very liberal state that I live in, the democrat politicians in their infinite wisdom have agreed to allow the total sales tax on pot to reach a grand total of 20%. At 20%, I’d consider buying this stuff on the street. Besides that I could probably negotiate a better price than at the star approved dispensary.

    1. I Bob,….
      – This has been cited as a major factor in keeping the black market pot dealers in business.
      ( The price discrepancy, with the taxed legal product maker the cheaper, untaxed street product more price competative).
      I haven’t closely followed the more recent developments over the couple of years, but there was a substantial tax in Washington State that made the legal product far more expensive than the black market product.
      The state may have recently made some adjustments in taxation to narrow that gap…….they were discussing that issue, but I don’t know if there was actual follow-through.
      California is discussing a pot tax as high as 45%.
      If they actually implement a tax anywhere close to that level, the black market dealers will be overjoyed.

      1. Tom, right on. Looks like too many have forgotten the past & we are now repeating it with another prohibition that has dismally failed. The war on some drugs is more dangerous & has cost more human life than the stuff that is prohibited. Plus the badly lost drug war has led to militarized police, drug wars between cartels & is VERY expensive! Billions every year! What a waste on all levels!!

        So far most of the states where pot is legal have added too many expensive regulations & taxes. We need to kill off the black market, not keep it flowing because the BM doesn’t have the high overhead. [Pun optional, ;-)]

        Then there is the ‘legal’ Rx crap that is killing more people than the illegal stuff. ‘Legal’ does NOT default to safe. I have a back disease & severe insomnia. I could easily get Rx drugs through my Dr, I use pot because it won’t kill me, make me addicted or cause me to become a serial killer, unless you count Bran Flakes & oats. 😉 Oh, different kinda cereal. 😀

        Also badly neglected is the past thousands of years of cannabis use worldwide that has NOT resulted in the decimation of the human race. We must also remember that before cannabis was made illegal that the USA did not have the drug problem we have now.

        Anyone look up the success of Portugal in their change of tactics regarding drugs? They have had good success with their decriminalization program.

        Don’t forget everyone, that the smoked pot was not the real target when cannabis was prohibited. WR Hurst & Henry Anslinger’s target was really industrial hemp. Problem was, no one could get high off of hemp. There was no reason to prohibit hemp. Oh my! What to do…Oh, I remember, they had a flash of black light! So they fooled people into thinking that ALL cannabis was dangerous! So, we got the Reefer Madness movement & a LOT of yellow journalism. If you look at the cannabis that is smoked & hemp, they look the same. That physical property was used to conflate the two forms of cannabis & the deception was ON! .

        In other words, Congress & the general population was had by a lie…let the rest of US not be so easily deceived.


  8. David, I am neutral because the question of legalized pot is a yes or no issue on this blog when in reality it is a much more difficult question.

    Are you a smoker where one’s intellect is dimmed and one forgets about the unintended consequences?

      1. If the issue is purely states rights and the state is not forced into picking up the mess because of all sorts of welfare dictated by the Feds, then you have a point. As I said the question is not simply a yes and no regarding pot. I’ll accept the Constitution and states rights, but I can’t accept the constant violations of the Constitution and states rights except for the consumption of illicit drugs.

        1. I don’t understand the last sentence as it admits of multiple interpretations.

          1. I think the interpretation is quite clear. You can’t advocate states rights only when it suits your desired ends. Some sort of principles are required.

            1. Yes, those are found in the subsequent amendments to the constitution.

              1. If you believe that David, then you do not know your Constitution and its amendments. People have varying views on the Constitution something understandable, but you can’t pick and choose based on the outcome you wish because that would be unprincipled. Of course, some people are exactly that and for the most part, we know who they are. I hope you are not one of them.

  9. Hardly anyone “eats” pot. They all “smoke” it. Smoking pot or tobacco is bad for the lungs. Tobacco is worse. But both can give heart disease and cancer.
    Pot smoking is dangerous. A hazard to your health. Does that mean anything to you?
    Guns are quicker. Go kill yourself fast and do not tie up the medical system with your dumb “habits”.

    1. Your claims re: heart disease and cancer are overstated. The heart disease was reported in one French study in 35 people, almost half of whom were already pre-disposed to heart problems. Further, there was no control group, so the author’s conclusions are meaningless. Kalla’s epi study (which got a lot of media attention but has yet to be published, AFAICT) could not find cause-and-effect and contradicts other long-term studies showing no risk in those who are not concomitant tobacco smokers. It is impossible to know if Kalla and coworkers accounted for all the confounding factors, because again, her data do not appear to be published in a reputable journal. Your lung cancer claim is also specious as the data are mixed. Tashkin’s lab at UCLA is on the forefront of this, and their most recent study with subjects (presented in 2007 or so) showed no increased lung cancer, even in heavy pot smokers. Even the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association make no strong claims about this. What they state is that short-term pot smoking increases bronchodilation, and chronic use increases respiratory symptoms like wheezing, coughing, shortness of breath, etc., which are predictable in anyone who regularly inhales smoke of any sort. All that can be dispassionately stated is that further studies are necessary.


    2. “Smoking pot or tobacco is bad for the lungs.”

      Every sport that people engage in is dangerous. Driving on the roadways causes 40,000 deaths per year.

      “do not tie up the medical system with your dumb “habits”.

      The maximally efficient, private, free market medical system will not be “tied up,” it will cancel your policy.

      What you and all other Marxist redistributionists don’t understand is that the Constitutions holds dominion in America. You may want to do something but you can’t if that action is precluded by the Constitution.

      Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Americans have the right to private property. James Madison defined “private property” as “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.” The “medical system” is free enterprise conducted in the free markets of the private sector. Medicare, Obamacare and Medicaid are all irrefutably unconstitutional. While Congress has the power to tax for “general Welfare,” it has no authority over ingestion or sports activities. Free Americans have the right to conduct free enterprise as private property, freedom of ingestion, freedom of habits, the right to smoke and the right to not be adversely impacted by migrating smoke. Free citizens may buy medical insurance in the free markets and medical insurance companies have the right to configure policies as they deem appropriate. The only thing that bears on the constitutionally, eminently private “medical system” are market forces; not Marxists, liberals or any form or aspect of governance.

  10. Americans have the freedom of ingestion regarding alcohol, nicotine, etc.

    The very same freedom of ingestion applies to every other substance.

    Law must preclude property damage and bodily injury, not freedoms and rights.

    1. Here in Washington state driving while under the influence has been made more severely punished since the advent of legal recreational cannibis. This is working better than the driving while drunk part.

    2. Conflation.

      Driving Under the Influence is comprehensive.

      Better stated: Operation of any type of vehicle while impaired is illegal.


      Americans have freedom of ingestion.

      Driving while impaired is illegal.

      Next question.

  11. While the libertarian in me says that individual states should determine whether marijuana is legalized, some of the most knowledgeable minds in crime have argued that marijuana should never be legalized.

    Among those who have argued against legalization are the following: Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, Jorge Alberto Rodriguez, Pablo Escobar, Griselda Blanco, Roberto Suárez Gómez, Rick Ross, Manuel Noriega, Amado Carrillo Fuentes, Ramon Arellano Félix, Ismael Zambada García, Klaas Bruinsma, Arturo Beltran Leyva, Frank Lucas, Leroy Barnes, Zhenli Ye Gon, Christopher Coke, and Demetrius Flenory.

    Jeff Sessions is only following the advice of some of the most knowledgeable people that the drug industry ever known. Who are we to disagree?

    And now this, in related news:


    1. The freedom of ingestion is a natural and God-given freedom which existed before government was established. The Constitution does not limit rights and freedoms, the Constitution limits government. Read the Constitution and then take some time to digest what you’ve read. Be sure to include reading the 9th Amendment. Americans have freedom of ingestion and unconstitutional laws against ingestion did not exist until the 20th century. Just like unconstitutional central planning, redistribution of wealth and social engineering did not exist before the 20th century. The presumption in laws agaisnt ingestion is that Americans are incompetent and incapable of leading their own lives and that some nebulous intellectual elitist knows what is best. The presumption in the Constitution is that Americans shall and must lead their own lives. The American thesis is freedom and self-reliance, not elitist, governmental control, AKA dictatorship. Aside from simply being wrong, collectivist social engineers demonstrate their hypocrisy by allowing ingestion of alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, acetaminophen, aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Chlorpheniramine, Diphenhydramine, Doxylamine. Pheniramine, etc., etc., etc.

  12. I fail to understand how making cannabis illegal is constitutional. Seems to me that the 10th amendment applies.

  13. Let me introduce a weird spin on this. America is in the grips of an Opioid crisis. There are all sorts of problems tied to this that I won’t enumerate here, but you can visit any mid to small-sized town outside major cities and see the effects. Anyway, does medical marijuana represent a tool by which the Opioid-addicted could be pulled off their current addictions and then could address their pain issues with mj? Opioid addiction typically originates when someone is prescribed painkillers or someone shares painkillers. Would mj serve as a weapon against Opioids?

    1. I live in a small town and there is no opioid crises here. There is also a shortage of people to do all the available work.

      1. Yours then is a rarity. At present I live in the DC area. I have family that lives near Charlotte in North Carolina. Back in the day, textiles and tobacco put a lot of money into middle class pockets. I remember around 1992 the job people put their names on waiting lists were entry level positions at the Phillip-Morris plant on Highway 29. In 1992 they started you at $15 an hour (big money back then) and once you were in, you were good to go to stay there. Until NAFTA and the anti-tobacco movement of course.

        So, in more recent years, there are lots of people wanting to work but there aren’t jobs that pay the way they used to. Certainly, there aren’t “jobs Americans just won’t do” but there are many more from south of the border (not referring to the tourist attraction) that will work for whatever. The result?

        Lowest bidder who is undocumented gets the job.

        So you end up in a lot of small rown America with aimless young people that don’t have a lot to look forward to…and if someone can charge them a few bucks for a perkocet then…

          1. Again I disagree. I lived in a left coast state from 2005 to 2016. Which left coast state and more specifically which zip code do you reside? I ask so that we can look at stats for your location. I’m not suggesting you are a liar – I can certainly rattle off numerous communities in which these problems aren’t large issues. At the same time, that doesn’t mitigate the impact in communities where there are problems.

            1. Look at the recent unemployment stats for states of selected interest.

              Or the article in TNYT today.

      2. You need to define that shortage.

        Is it skilled or unskilled labor?
        If it is unskilled labor perhaps the salaries are not high enough to draw people or perhaps those people you wish to draw from are already earning more than enough (many causes). There are things such as buses and trains that can take the unemployed from one area and move them to another.

        Of course, some companies complain they don’t have enough labor in their field and they import labor only to fire American workers (I think Disney has done that along with a lot of the hi-tech firms that might be relatively near your area. Let’s have some dialogue on this subject.

        Maybe we need to stop funding so many universities and start preparing students for the workplace.

        1. I’ll bet there are plenty of young black men that would take those jobs if someone could help them move from inner cities to David’s little paradise.

            1. “There has been a slight increase.”

              There, David, you see these problems have solutions and a slight increase can lead to further increases if managed correctly. We should put policy solutions ahead of our outdated ideologies.

    2. Cannabinoid research shows mixed results in regards to aiding opiate-withdrawal treatments. Some shows it can help, other research shows it increases relapse.

      Also, while cannabinoids can treat pain, it is still likely a bandaid rather than addressing the root cause of the pain. It could be used beneficially, perhaps, in conjunction with other treatments.

    3. Ding, ding, ding. Can’t have individuals smoking/eating something to relieve pain that is less addictive than oxycontin. Why do you think Sessions is doing this, besides the fact that he is an “behind the times” idiot who should have never been nominated, let alone confirmed for AG? Glad to hear things are peachy where you live, David Benson. Things aren’t so good elsewhere.


      1. Cape Cod,
        Agreed. I do think crony capitalism is part of the issue.

        There is a terrible opioid problem where I live, too. Needles have been found in kids baseball dugouts prior to games! It is sad.

  14. Noteworthy exemptions from the Schedules of Controlled Substances are alcohol and tobacco:

    21 U.S. Code § 802 – Definitions

    (6) The term “controlled substance” means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

    Adding Marijuana to (6) surely will end this contention. Again, the change is within the purview of Congress.

          1. I don’t follow this. Here in Washington state legal marijuana is going well and the illegal market seems to have finally been put to rest.

            1. David, I am neutral because the question of legalized pot is a yes or no issue on this blog when in reality it is a much more difficult question.

              Are you a smoker where one’s intellect is dimmed and one forgets about the unintended consequences?

              1. So, a person’s failings are the responsibility of the government to prevent? Colonialism has the same view, deny rights to the masses because they are too flawed to improve their lot. But, when if it comes to forcing them to have children that they can’t afford to support, the Republicans are all in for that. And, by “all in”, I mean, after the births, denying families living wages, healthcare and equal treatment under the law e.g. carried interest.

                Or, is your comment the inception stage for clarification about Republicans, the little r’s vs. big R’s?
                FYI, people who aren’t among the richest 0.1%, are losing by voting Republican.

                1. “So, a person’s failings are the responsibility of the government to prevent? ”

                  Where did I say that? Linda, do you have a reading problem?

                  …And a concentration problem for the next statement is…

                  “Colonialism has the same view, deny rights to the masses because they are too flawed to improve their lot. ”

                  It sounds like you head has been pumped full of sound bites that you can’t even place in proper order.

                  ” after the births, denying families living wages, ”

                  That is exactly what Obama was doing along with the Democrats, denying families. By killing an economy you deny families.

                  “FYI, people who aren’t among the richest 0.1%, are losing by voting Republican.”

                  I don’t have love for either party, but those working folk dependent upon a job and a paycheck sure helped themselves if they voted for Trump.

                  1. Today, ChuckTtodd summarized the economy in 2017, without the liar-in-chief’s spin. The report wasn’t on Fox so, you don’t know what conclusions have been drawn by economists who are not in the employ of the Republican donor class.

                    1. Linda, Don’t know what he said and don’t really care. The economy has improved dramatically though some fools can’t open their eyes. If and when he deals in the raw data rather than the spin I will listen.

                      In the meantime, I think there are some oligarchs that are following you.

                    2. The Republican donor class spends its time in gated communities, distant from the 99%. Their lobbyists pay off the politicians in D.C. Their only interest in my community is an opportunity to bankrupt labor and Main Street, similar to Russian oligarchs.

                    3. “Republican donor class”? How much did Hillary Rotten Clinton charge donors for a plate of God knows what at her campaign dinners? (Hint, it was upwards of $36,000 per plate). “Behind gated communities”. Ever been to DC where the Obamas live behind a wall they just recently built around their spread?

                    4. Riddle me this…if the oligarchs goal is to bankrupt Main Street and labor, where do they get more money from? I mean, once workers and average communities are broke, where do they turn to for more money since broke people and communities can’t buy stuff?

                      Linda, this is called the fatal flaw in your argument unles you can defend it.

                    5. “Allan The “howling” in a response below to Nash (older comments). 8:59”

                      Linda, your howling is non stop so I can never tell which particular comment you are howling about or why.

                    6. Allan,
                      Economist Picketty, documented your point in his unassailable research. As illustration of your point, Bill Gates has wealth equivalent to 750,000,000 people and still, he invests as an individual, not his foundation, in the largest for-profit seller of schools-in-a-box, which has a projected 20% return. A parent in a nation where the Gates’ product is sold, was quoted as saying, “Don’t make money on our poor backs”.

                    7. “Economist Picketty, documented your point in his unassailable research.”

                      Linda, Picketty has been highly criticized by many economists including those that specialize in areas Picketty was commenting on. They have demonstrated that a good deal of his information (along with his conclusions) is faulty. That doesn’t mean there is total disagreement. It would be good for you to either quote or restate the point of mine that you refer to since despite your example I am not sure what it is you are trying to say.

            2. As of 2016 ( 4 years after legalization) the black market for pot in Washington State was described as “still thriving”.

                1. It was repoted in The Atlantic, Seattle Weekly, and Reason.com amoung other publications.
                  There is a search engine called “Google” that you can use.
                  Key words “Black market for marijuana still thriving after legalization in Wsshington State”.

              1. Andrew WS,.. – I just noticed your comment.
                The estimates I’ve seen of the black market/ market share of Washington pot sales range anywhere from 30-50%.
                By its nature, the amount of illegal sales is tough to estimate.
                When I have time I’ll try to remember to provide a citation…I think the most detailed estimate was in the publication WestWorld..
                ..they provided estimates for srveral states.

                1. Andrew,..
                  It’s actually WESTWORD,not Westworld.
                  The July 25, 2017 edition has an article by Herbert Fiego, entitled “How big is Colorado’s bkack market for pot.
                  But it provides estimates for Washington and Oregon as well.

Comments are closed.