Drug War

Independents Driving Pro-Legalization Sentiment in Colorado

|

Speaking of the positive influence of political independents, a Public Policy Polling survey of Coloradans released 10 days ago shows that the pot-legalizing Amendment 64 is (unusually for marijuana initiatives) gaining support there, and that the positive trend line is due "almost entirely" to the politically non-affiliated. Excerpt:

When PPP polled the state in mid-June, support for the so-called Amendment 64 narrowly outpaced opposition, 46-42.  In PPP's first poll of likely voters in this fall's election, almost two months later, support has grown to 47-38.  This movement is entirely because of independents, who were already in favor of the amendment by a 49-40 margin; they now support it by 30 points, 58-28.  Democrats are still slightly more in favor (59-22) than Republicans opposed (26-61).

Whole report here. If Colorado (or Washington, or Oregon) votes to legalize marijuana this November, one of our longest national nightmares may finally be seeing the beginning of the end.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Crack is Wack Say Brazilian Drug Dealers, Christian Girl Faces Death Penalty in Pakistan, Libertarian Party Touts Gary Johnson as Spoiler

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.

  1. If Colorado (or Washington, or Oregon) votes to legalize marijuana this November, one of our longest national nightmares may finally be seeing the beginning of the end.

    Or the final complete and utter destruction of the Tenth Amendment.

    1. I concur. This could just as easily lead to civil war, as the DEA decides to raid entirely legal marijuana dispensaries.

      1. Like dope smokers have the motivation to wage a civil war.
        C’mon!

      2. At the very least this’ll lead to a constitutional showdown at SCOTUS, not only in terms of 10th Amendment reach but to whether or not banning drugs is constitutional on a federal level. Talk-show host Andrew Wilkow – a conservative one at that – regularly points out that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the power to outlaw the sale or use of drugs.

        1. Anyone else find it funny that they needed an amendment to make booze illegal but felt no such necessity banning other drugs?

          The slow slide down the slippery slope…

        2. whether or not banning drugs is constitutional on a federal level.

          That’s good and settled, under the Plenary Commerce Clause.

          The Prohibition amendment had to be passed because the Plenary Commerce Clause was not adopted by SCOTUS until after Prohibition.

          1. Oh, that’s right. The Nazgul decided that the Constitution wasn’t a document to limit government power, because, although the founders took the time and effort to write and ratify it, they included a little blurb that nullified it.

            I forgot.

            1. Enumerated powers and unlimited rights has become enumerated rights and unlimited powers.

            2. Their job is legitimating the state, much like Congress’s job is to help the president pursue his agenda. If either fails in its duty, of course, the president has every right and obligation to simply proceed without them. /progressive /neocon /fascist

  2. Or, the po-po will just ignore the legalization, and keep on keepin’ on in “collaboration” with the DEA to enforce federal law. Its funny; apparently local LEO are not to enforce federal law (on immigration), except when they are (under the WOD).

    Those assets aren’t going to seize themselves.

    1. But, but, this administration is SO dreamy…who cares if it’s inconsistent?

  3. There have been a few stories lately in which the DEA and local Drugz Squad have collaborated to “allow” drug defendants to plead guilty in state court and pay a big fat fine ransom which is funneled directly to the local door smashers, obviously in order to strengthen their fealty to the Uberstate.

  4. I’ll bet Budweiser isn’t happy.

    1. I’d think Miller-Coors would be the larger complainer in Colorado.

    2. Back in the dim mists when, err, friends of mine drank Bud/Miller/Coors, they never noticed smoking pot cutting into their beer drinking. If anything, I believe they would have said the cottonmouth actually supported beer intake.

      1. Yes, we did a study in my undergrad days that suggested that beer and pot were complementary goods, rather than competitive ones.

        1. Yes, we did a study in my undergrad days that suggested that beer and pot were complementary goods, rather than competitive ones.

          I have a feeling that a lot of undergrads did that same research.

          1. Replicable research is good research.

            1. The science is settled!

              1. (thoroughly settled. at least till the next commercial break.)

        2. This sounds like something that could use a lot more study.

  5. On a more serious note, in Montana we didn’t get enough votes to put our cannabis-legalization initiative on the ballot. But, of course, there were enough signatures for the Repeal Citizens United ballot initiative.

    Hrmph. And they say Montana is libertarian.

  6. nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the power to outlaw the sale or use of drugs.

    Settled law, dude.

    Conservative originalist jurist Scalia sez, “Kommerce Klaus to the rescue!”

  7. they say Montana is libertarian.

    “They” being the collectivist busybodies newly arrived from California, among other places.

    1. On the conservative-douchey side, we have a law against being gay. It’s just not enforced.

      Seriously.

      1. When I was a child visiting the relatives, the nice man giving tours somewhere told me Montana could still hang people for horse theft.

        1. So gay Montana horse thieves are in real trouble.

          1. What? They are illegal. How could they possibly exist?

        2. When I was a child visiting the relatives, the nice man giving tours somewhere told me Montana could still hang people for horse theft.

          I believe that in Texas you have the right to shoot a man if…IF you catch him in bed with your wife. Not sure on the status of shooting your wife.

          1. I read the deadly force statutes pretty regularly and I’ve never seen that in there.

          2. “Homicide is justifiable when committed by the husband upon the person of any one taken in the act of adultery with the wife, provided the killing take place before the parties to the act of adultery have separated.”

            The Paramour Statute. Not sure if it still on the books or not.

    2. I see it too. I lived in Great Falls 14 years ago and just moved back. Really gone down hill. We have towns banning cell phone use in cars. Open container laws. They are actually enforcing speed limits (increase da revenuez).

      The last best place is going to shit. Might have to buy my own island somewhere.

      1. what, like you have a right to just OWN LAND, man? That’s like, Public Space, and you have to respect all my rights therein. And I say no-smoking.

        I will NEVER stop being pissed-off about the property rights violation that smoking bans introduced.

      2. That’s the problem with democracy by place instead of by political grouping. Much easier for Californian to become a Nevadan than for a Democrat to be accepted into a libertarian or conservative group.

  8. The billboard in the photo reads “Regulate Marijuana.” Ugh.

    Obviously I’d prefer regulated marijuana to illegal marijuana, but my goodness, why does marijuana need to be regulated? People seem to be getting safely high without a government bureaucrat inspecting their dope.

    1. The full title of the ammendment is Amendment 64: The Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act of 2012. It sets an age limit of 21, imstitutes an excise tax and whole bunch of other regulation similar to the existing regualtions on alcohol. I’d prefer neither to be regulated, but that’s a long wait for a train that’s never going to arrive. I’ll take what I can get.

  9. In some weird through-the-looking-glass shit going on here in Washington, pro-marijuana activists are actively campaigning against 502 because all of a sudden, they’re worried about the implications of “tax us, regulate us, set us free”.

    Good times.

    1. Remind me of prop 13 in California. Baptists and bootleggers, pure and simple.

  10. I just hope Ammendment 64 passes to see the look on Obama and Holder’s smug little faces. Also, I’m interested to see how they react. They claimed (i.e. lied) that they wouldn’t raid dispensaries that were in compliance with state law. Well if state law changes to full legalization, then what are they going to do? Continue the raids anyway, thus revealing themselves to be the biggest fucking hypocrits on Earth?

    Likewise, it will be interesting to see what Mittens does if he wins, although he’s never claimed to be anything but a WoD supporter. Unlike Obama who tries to pass himself off as something else.

    1. Likewise, it will be interesting to see what Mittens does if he wins, although he’s never claimed to be anything but a WoD supporter. Unlike Obama who tries to pass himself off as something else.

      Right, which means with Obama there’s at least a chance (Ok, I’m not saying that with a straight face, but run with me here…) you could embarass him into leaving states with legalization laws alone. With Romney you’ll receive no quarter.

      1. True, but anyone who votes for Obama just because he might be marginally better in his 2nd term (after being horrible in his 1st term) than Mittens on TEH EVUL WEED needs to have their fucking head examined. But then again, any single issue voter should have their heads examined. And when I say examined, I mean their brains should be studied in a laboratory on a petri dish.

    2. Yeah, they will have that look on their faces for about 3 seconds, before they start deploying their goon squads.

      If this passes, I predict that lots of dogs will be shot in Colorado in the following months. Election won’t make a difference, except maybe… if Romney wins, will he be just as bad as Obama on the WOD, or worse. Just as bad is a certainty, worse is a very real possibility.

      I am really, really hoping against hope that plenty of states will legalize. If that happens, the shit is really going to hit the fan, and I think that is our only hope of pushing back against the police state.

  11. I’m interested to see how they react.

    Just take a look at statements made by the various U S Attorneys attempting to exclude any testimony regarding the status of medical marijuana in state law.

    “Because fuck you, that’s why.”

  12. Even if the voters of Colorado approve the measure, it remains to be seen whether the feds will allow it to be put into actual practice. A constitutional provision would be a surer course:

    http://whatdirectdemocracymigh…..-of-drugs/

    1. I don’t think the feds will block it. They will let it take effect, and then they will do the same thing they are doing with the medical pot dispensaries, only this time it will be against any random citizen that they want to use force against. They will probably use this as an excuse to hire thousands of new DEA officers, and buy lots more militarized police equipment. Probably deploy thousands of drones over those states to catch those pot smoking menaces that the people have voted to unleash on society. You will be seeing lots of pot crazed flesh eating zombie stories in the news.

  13. I would not be surprised if somebody out there is playing the, “That woman looks normal. She could be driving YOUR CHILDREN to a soccer game right now! THAT”S why we cannot legalize marijuana!” card.

    1. There is a lot to that concern, especially if the bills contain provisions to make driving while under the influence of marijuana illegal. And I am sure that they will. Which is why it seems that some people are against legalization. How can you tell if someone is high outside of just a judgement call? The tests for pot can show positive even if the person has not smoked for days, or even weeks. So effectively, this would mean that anyone who smokes weed, even occasionally, will not be able to drive without risking jail time and huge fines, even though they may not be under the influence at all.

      1. Or, they could set up an actual impairment standard where the cops and prosecutors actually had to do some goddam work to demonstrate why the person was a danger to operate a vehicle.

  14. It’s a good start to redeeming the 10th Amendment… You’ve got to start somewhere.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.