Support for Pot Legalization Crosses 50 Percent, With 56 Percent of Americans Now In Favor of Treating it Like Booze

"A solid majority of voters nationwide favor legalizing and regulating marijuana similar to the way alcohol and tobacco cigarettes are currently regulated," reports the polling firm Rasmussen

"A new national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 56% favor legalizing and regulating marijuana in a similar manner to the way alcohol and tobacco cigarettes are regulated. Thirty-six percent (36%) are opposed to such a legalizing and regulating pot." 

That's up nine percentage points from March 2012, when Rasmussen found that "47% [of Americans] now believe the country should legalize and tax marijuana in order to help solve the nation’s fiscal problems. Forty-two percent (42%) disagree, while 10% are undecided." 

Earlier this month, Mason-Dixon Polling & Research reported that "75% of Democrats, 67% of Republicans, and, notably 79% of Independents said that President Obama should respect state medical marijuana laws."

In October 2011, the polling firm Gallup reported that for the first time 50 percent of Americans thought marijuana should be legal, while 46 percent felt that it should remain illegal. 

H/t Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Almanian...still||

    So, you libertarians are the ones who like pot and hate using the army, right?

    That's you guys? Cool...

  • sarcasmic||

    Looks like the Partnership for a Drug-Free America needs more federal funding to educate the unwashed masses on the evils of the devil's weed.

  • Tman||

    Can I get another AMEN for that righteous Penn rant from yesterday?

    My god that was a thing of beauty.

    In case anyone missed it, here-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=g-all-u

  • anon||

    Its beauty was marred by the idiots at TheFoxNation that also viewed it. Holy fuck.

  • Tman||

    I didn't see how FoxNation ruined it nor do I want to. Penn was so right on about how offensive it is that Obama jokes about doing "a little Blow" while 750,000 people are currently wasting away in prison for doing less than that.

    I wish it had a wider audience.

  • perlhaqr||

    It was pretty glorious.

    It seems almost sociopathic that the president can joke about that, given how yeah, it would have utterly destroyed his life if he'd been caught, and he has to know that, and yet he still lets it happen to other people.

  • daveInAustin||

    Penn's rant was indeed beautiful, but it was something that Leonard Pitts has said. The same thing could be said about Biden, Clinton and Gore (and likely GWB). However, the stronger case can be made with Steve Jobs, arguably the most productive man in the country. Steve Jobs actually credits drugs with helping him. How would jail or even "treatment" helped him? How many other Steve Jobs are now rotting in prison because they chose to self-medicate.

  • The Other Kevin||

    It's a good thing that our politicians and candidates are right there, lock step, with what the public wants.

  • Ted S.||

    Congratulations to those of you in states like Pennsylvania and Virginia who will have to go to Marijuana Board of Control stores to get your legal pot.

  • ||

    I already have to go to a county store to buy my bourbon. I could care less if I have to go to a county store for something else. Is that right? No. better than now? Yes. since the revolution hasn't started yet, I'll take babysteps if I need to.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I wonder if they will have a three tier distribution system for weed, too.

  • kinnath||

    Just as long as I can buy from the farmer's market every weekend.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I'm sure someone will be selling Organic Kush.

  • robc||

    If its like booze, the states will decide that.

  • deified||

    Maybe 3-star Michelin ratings? That would be teh Awesome.

  • Dynaflow||

    Ratings systems for the product and dispensaries already exist on sites like www.leafly.com

  • ||

    No big deal. The Pennsylvanians will cross the border and shop in Delaware at Total Weed. Bonus: no sales tax.

  • deified||

    Have you seen the tolls in Delaware? Shit is brutal. Honestly, we all should've declared war on them long ago.

  • John||

    Majority of Americans now ant children to die in auto accidents caused by stoned out drivers.

    You people are monsters.

  • kinnath||

    That's a bonus.

    The real reason is to gut public union membership by putting prison guards and police officers out on the street: unemployed, and unemployable.

  • Xilano||

    And so they can be hit by stoned drivers.

  • ||

    That was good!

  • T||

    I say we let the children drive, too. Give 'em an equal chance against the stoners since they'll have better reflexes.

  • John||

    I have had plenty of people tell me with a straight face that we can't legalize weed because there is no equivalent to the breathalyzer.

    I always ask them, why can't you just do a normal sobriety test, you know walk a straight line, count backwards and so forth? The answer I get is "stoners could pass those". No shit. If they can pass those, what do you care if they are driving?

  • sarcasmic||

    Dammit! Driving while stoned is bad! We know this because it is illegal! If it wasn't bad then it would be legal! Dammit!

  • John||

    That is right. That is why driving on benedryl or a lawfully proscribed drug is just a ok.

  • Brett L||

    Not to mention small dogs on laps, children in the back seat, etc.

  • niobiumstudio||

    Not if you can't pass the sobriety test. Doesn't matter if it is a legal substance or not. http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency.....30320.html

  • sarcasmic||

    I have had plenty of people tell me with a straight face that we can't legalize weed because there is no equivalent to the breathalyzer.

    On a serious note, my wife is in that camp. And my response is similar to yours when the subject comes up.
    But there's no convincing a moralist drug warrior. When you win the logical argument, all they do is get angry.
    That's like me trying to convince you that your god is a work of fiction - a pointless endeavor.

  • Zeb||

    Your wife must have some other really excellent qualities to make up for that nonsense.

  • sarcasmic||

    ;-D

  • Lord Humungus||

    "it's a man, baby!"

  • robc||

    You should try withholding sex until she changes her mind.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    I've heard that a few time recently too, but only recently. Must be the talking point of some dunderhead beginning to back pedal just a tiny bit.

  • John||

    The whole "we must ban it it is the Devil Weed!!" line of thinking is so indefensible, even they can't say it anymore. So they have to have some kind of a fall back position.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Because it's bad" doesn't cut it. That's a moral defense, not a logical one.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah I hate that argument. I wouldn't trust the driving skills of someone getting stoned for the first time or something like that, but I can honestly say that I am not the least bit worried about experienced, regular pot smokers driving. It is simply not a problem.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't know if I'm getting old or what, but I can't drive stoned anymore. I wouldn't say "can't", but it is damn difficult. Requires all of my concentration, and just isn't very fun.

    So I choose not to.

  • niobiumstudio||

    I feel like an old person whenever I drove stoned. Speed limit is 35, I'm doing 32, hands at 10 and 2, perfectly upright, right lane, signals 200 feet before turns, etc. When I am not, I drive like an asshole.

  • ||

    When I am not, I drive like an asshole.

    Sounds like a good reason to stay stoned, then. :)

  • ||

    Surely there must be technology that can measure marijuana smoke and/or THC in someone's breath, saliva, lacrimal fluid, etc.

  • ||

    Support for Pot Legalization Crosses 50 Percent, With 56 Percent of Americans Now In Favor of Treating it Like Booze

    Too bad the 44% all work in government.

  • ||

    Too true.

  • T||

    Actually, the 44% have all the Narcotics Anonoymous members. Nobody is more anti-drug than the reformed junkie.

  • John||

    ^^This^^ or the family of a failed junkie. I always feel bad for people whose son or daughter or sister or whoever was a degenerate junkie. But I also always want to tell them "not everyone is as irresponsible as your relative was".

  • T||

    I especially like "if it saves just one child/family/person, it's worth it". Cost benefit analysis be damned, grief trumps all!

  • Brett L||

    And yet swimming and driving continue to be legal.

  • Tman||

    As Penn stated in his rant, that's what is so offensive about Obama saying we need to keep drugs illegal and increase "treatment".

    Unless of course you are as awesome as Obama in which case you can do "a little blow" and not need treatment and become president!

    Hooray America!

  • John||

    Can we send Obama to rehab?

  • T||

    Sure! Once a junkie, always a junkie, right?

  • John||

    He wouldn't get a security clearance after admitting such.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    So rehab dings you for a clearance, but just using (and disclosing) doesn't?

  • sarcasmic||

    So rehab dings you for a clearance, but just using (and disclosing) doesn't?

    Depends on the drug. If you admit to smoking a little weed back in the day, they often give you a pass.
    If you admit to ever once using something like LSD or heroin, no fucking way will they give you a clearance. Hell, they may never speak to you again.

  • niobiumstudio||

    Not true, there are a ton factors that go into whether your drug use is a problem and grounds for denial of clearance. Obama wouldn't be caught under any of the disqualifying factors: http://www.clearancejobs.com/c.....clearances

  • Tman||

    How awesome would it be to watch Obama just go full retard if he loses the election and he turns in to a junkie a few years later.

    Good times.

  • T||

    Michelle wouldn't let that happen. She'd beat the coke right out of him.

  • deified||

    I saw Michelle knock out Mike Tyson with one punch this one time. I think it was back in '87.

  • RBS||

    I imagine it would go something like this: Michelle files for divorce, writes a book that airs all their dirty laundry, vicious custody battle for the little snowflakes, Obama spirals out of control, in ten years he's photographed crawling out from under a pier somewhere on the Gulf looking like Denzel Washington's character from He Got Game.

  • John||

    RBS, I think there is probably some truth to all of that, except that Michelle would never write the tell all. She would never betray the cause like that. And Obama will never be poor. But the divorce and custody battle could certainly happen. I could also see Swoshi and Molusha or whatever their names are meeting a bad end, as in being found in a college dorm room with a needle stuck in their arm dead.

  • mr simple||

    I could also see Swoshi and Molusha or whatever their names are

    Racist!

    But seriously, the needle thing might be a little improbable, but a Playboy spread (at the proper age) is likely, I think.

  • John||

    Sorry Mr. Simple, but even Playboy has standards. And those girls aren't meeting them.

  • mr simple||

    Meh, they gave Patti Davis (Reagan) a pictorial. If they think it will sell, they'll do it.

  • ||

    When you have polling that has a nine point swing in three months, the words "solid majority" does not apply, because that is evidence that the polling has a really wide margin of error.

  • Xilano||

    So, more Americans support legal marijuana than gay marriage now. I wonder when Obama will evolve on this one. I'm guessing when he exits the Oval Office (whether that be this term or the next).

  • Hugh Akston||

    Ding ding ding ding!

    Obama's views will evolve as soon as the spotlight starts to fade.

  • aelhues||

    I'm a conservative, and a Christian, and you will never catch me smoking pot, but I would absolutely support legalizing pot, controlled just the same way alcohol is.

  • John||

    Do you think it is unChristian to smoke pot? Is it worse than wine? And they certainly drank that in the bible. The didn't run out of wine at the wedding at Cana because everyone was responsibly drinking proper watered down not really alcoholic Roman wine.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    I'm starting a rumor, right here and now, that "Frankincense and Myrrh" is actually ancient code for Pot. At least that's what I heard.

  • A Mathematician||

    Don't forget about Moses encountering a burning bush and then getting mild audio hallucinations.

  • Rick O'Shay||

    Wasn't one of the ingredients in the annointment oil recipe God gave to Moses "kana bas"? Which is probably cannabis.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    nice find man. You didn't even have to make your facts up!

  • aelhues||

    No, I don't think pot is worse than wine. I don't smoke pot, because I have a strong personal aversion to smoking...cigs, pipes, cigars, pot...whatever. It's hideous.

    To my way of thinking, even if I thought it was immoral, I wouldn't necessarily support it being illegal. I don't think there is much point in having morals, if the only reason people live up to them is because if you don't, you are punished.

  • A Mathematician||

    Brownies smoking

  • A Mathematician||

    ugh the greater than sign didn't show up

  • deified||

    What kind of mathematician are you?

  • perlhaqr||

    One that's defeated by squirrels, apparently.

  • John||

    What is a good reason for living up to morals? "Because it is the right thing to do"? What does that even mean? And since when is self satisfaction a more noble motive than avoiding harm?

  • mr simple||

    What are you arguing against, John? I'm pretty sure he's just saying that he's not from a group that you would normally associate with pot smoking, but he thinks it should be legal.

  • John||

    I don't disagree with him about Pot. I just find it odd that avoiding harm is a bad motivation for being moral. Really? What is a proper motivation for being moral?

  • Zeb||

    The golden rule is a good place to start. Of course, even then, what is moral comes down to each individual's judgment of what is good or desirable. And I don't think aelheus was saying that avoiding harm was the motivation, but avoiding punishment. I don't think that many people woudl argue that putting yourself in harm's way to save your child or something like that is not the moral thing to do.
    I think that if your only motivation for behaving morally is to avoid punishment, then you are not a very moral person.

  • aelhues||

    I'm not going to say that it isn't a useful tool (legalism), but I'm opposed to government trying to make me a better person. The only moral laws, should be those that are clearly necessary, and accepted by the vast majority of citizens, laws such as those against murder, theft, and breaking contracts.

  • aelhues||

    Scripture teaches, in the new testament, that we shouldn't have to worry about legalism, because we are called to a higher, spiritual standard. The reason to live up to ones morals, should be similar to the reasons to achieve most anything. Individuals don't dedicate much of their growing years to winning a gold medal in the Olympics in order to avoid harm. I didn't take silly, difficult and random classes in college in order to avoid harm.

    I live up to my morals to achieve what is admittedly a fuzzy concept, of a better me. A me that improves the lives of those around me, and inspires those I care about to aim for the same thing.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I live up to my morals to achieve what is admittedly a fuzzy concept, of a better me. A me that improves the lives of those around me, and inspires those I care about to aim for the same thing.

    I agree with your understanding of spiritually.

  • robc||

    And to add to what aelhues said, for those of us that believe the soul is immortal, its good to take care of it. Can our behavior on Earth effect our immortal soul? I think it can.

  • John||

    I think so to Rob. But I am an existentialist like that.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I don't think there is much point in having morals, if the only reason people live up to them is because if you don't, you are punished.

    Did you just describe the mentality of a vast majority of Jews, Christians, and Muslims?

  • John||

    Same question for you, what is a good reason to live up to morals?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I can respond as a Buddhist in that we follow the precepts of the Buddha as defined by the Eightfold Path because we believe do so will make our lives better, i.e. happier, safer, more spiritually rewarding. We do not believe in a cosmic scoreboard of rewards and punishment.

    I guess I agree with both of you. Avoiding harm leads to a sense of satisfaction, we refer to this sense of satisfaction as sukha as opposed to dukkha.

  • John||

    As a Buhdist you are acting it seems for two reasons. 1. You think what you are doing represents the truth. 2. You feel your actions are in your own best interests because it will hopefully allow you to attain enlightenment and end the cycle of suffering.

    In my mind those are perfectly acceptable reasons for acting in accordance with your moral code. But they are nor more or less acceptable than avoiding eternal damnation. Which is better depends on one's metaphysics.

    My point is to point out how tiresome it is for people to claim that adhering to a particular moral code as a result of one's metaphysical beliefs is somehow illegitimate and less moral than "being good for its own sake" whatever the hell that means.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    My point is to point out how tiresome it is for people to claim that adhering to a particular moral code as a result of one's metaphysical beliefs is somehow illegitimate and less moral than "being good for its own sake" whatever the hell that means

    I think we have to agree to disagree. Think of it this way. Yes, when you are young, you do what your parents tell you because you are afraid of punishment. However, as you mature, you follow your parents' advice because you respect them, acknowledge their wisdom, and you love them. Doing good because it is good seems to me to be a more mature understanding of spirituality than hell-fire and brimstone. That having been said, of the "People of Abraham," doctrinally, Christians seem to argue more for doing good for goodness' sake as opposed to fear of "Big Daddy" then Jews and Muslims teach.

  • John||

    Doing good because it is good seems to me to be a more mature understanding of spirituality than hell-fire and brimstone.

    I find "doing good for good's sake" just another way of saying that simple minded German axiom of the categorical imperative. First, it doesn't really mean anything. And second, to the extent that it does, when you get right down to it, you are saying that you are doing good because it is your will that you do so. You are following your will. There is really nothing sophisticated about it.

    I think Nietzsche completely took apart Kant. And Nietzsche was exactly right. In the end, if you can't appeal to a higher authority for your morality, then you are just appealing to your will. It is good because I will it to be good.

  • T||

    However, as you mature, you follow your parents' advice because you respect them, acknowledge their wisdom, and you love them.

    This strongly depends on one's parents.

  • aelhues||

    :) Quite likely.

  • robc||

    Do you think it is unChristian to smoke pot?

    Depends on what you mean by "unchristian" and even then I think its situation dependent. Do I see any problem whatsoever with a cancer patient smoking pot? No.

    Just to get stoned? Yeah, a little. Maybe.

    Alcohol at least shows some positive results, health wise. I doubt pot does. Although I could be wrong, maybe for high stress people, regular weed would be healthy.

    Then again, if you are getting high like the wedding party at Cana as a irregular thing, then probably not.

  • John||

    I think the sin comes from the lack of moderation not necessarily the act itself. If you are drunk, wine is a sin.

  • robc||

    Partly that, but IMO the sin comes from acting against the way God wishes you to act.

    That can change from person to person.

  • aelhues||

    Sin is defined in places as, acting out of accordance with the will of God. However, the way I interpret that, in relation to things like alcohol consumption, is that we shouldn't harm ourselves, or others, but should strive to be a positive example. I do occasionally drink alcohol. In part, why I do is because I believe I am showing my kids that it isn't the alcohol that is bad, but a persons choice to abuse it. I stress personal responsibility and free will as extremely important for a person who strives to be moral.

  • T||

    Jesus is just alright with weed.

  • ||

    I may very well have been in the no for these questions because I don't want it to be taxed and regulated just like alcohol because those regulations suck. Obviously I would take legalization with regulation over what we have though.

  • Zeb||

    I wonder how they phrase the question. Is it "do you think pot should be taxed and regulated like alcohol?" or "do you think that would be better than what we have now?".

  • robc||

    I want pot regulated like booze, but I want booze regulated like we all want pot to be regulated.

  • ||

    Are any of you over at Radley's site? Peter Moskos posted over there defending the NYC cop threatening firearm anal rape. he called itGood policing." What a douche.

  • ||

    Insert a sapce and a " where applicable.

  • Doctor Whom||

    If life imitates art, then government imitates poorly written BDSM porn.

  • deified||

    Poorly written? Dude deserves a Pu-litzer.

  • BoscoH||

    Anheuser Busch Tree, St. Louis, Missouri

  • Brett L||

    You obviously meant Anheuser Shrub.

  • BoscoH||

    This is gonna be like Helmann's and Best Foods, Carl's Jr. and Hardee's. Depends on which side of Humboldt you live.

  • ||

    Next time someone brays "There's no militarization of police!" show them that picture.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement