Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

CNN Finds Most Americans Want to Legalize Pot, Demonstrating It Is Just As Unreliable As Gallup

Jacob Sullum | 1.7.2014 11:18 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Senate Judiciary Committee

Last October, after a survey found that 58 percent of Americans want to legalize marijuana, anti-pot activist Kevin Sabet said the results must be wrong, because it was inconceivable that so many people disagreed with him, and whoever heard of this "Gallup Poll," anyway? Just kidding. Sabet actually said Gallup's sample was too small, although it was just as big as the samples used in two other surveys that he deemed more trustworthy (possibly because they put support for legalization below 50 percent). Now CNN reports that in its latest poll 55 percent of respondents said marijuana should be legal, while 44 percent said it should not. CNN notes that the results "are similar to [those of] a Gallup poll conducted in October."

Sabet also complained that Gallup "asked about marijuana use, not sales and production." CNN asked about distribution as well as consumption, and 54 percent of respondents said "the sale of marijuana should be made legal." As I pointed out last fall, other recent polls likewise have found majority support for legalizing the marijuana business. Apparently Americans are not as terrified as Sabet thinks they should be by the prospect of "Big Marijuana."

While it's true that some recent polls do not find majority support for legalization, the overall trend is unmistakable:

According to the CNN poll and numbers from General Social Survey polling, support for legalizing marijuana has steadily soared over the past quarter century—from 16% in 1987 to 26% in 1996, 34% in 2002, and 43% two years ago.

Gallup has found a similar increase:

Public support for legalization more than doubled in the 1970s, growing to 28%. It then plateaued during the 1980s and 1990s before inching steadily higher since 2000, reaching 50% in 2011.

Consistent with this trend, polls typically find an inverse correlation between age and support for legalization. Here is the age breakdown in the CNN poll:

Two-thirds of those 18 to 34 said marijuana should be legal, with 64% of those 34 to 49 in agreement.

Half of those 50 to 64 believe marijuana should be legal, but that number dropped to 39% for those age 65 and older.

Maybe the Gallup and CNN numbers exaggerate support for legalization. Perhaps the 50 percent threshold won't really be crossed until next year or the year after. But one thing is clear: Sabet is losing.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Jerry Brown's California High-Speed Rail Is So 20th Century

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason. He is the author, most recently, of Beyond Control: Drug Prohibition, Gun Regulation, and the Search for Sensible Alternatives (Prometheus Books, September 2).

PoliticsPolicyWar on DrugsMarijuanaDrug LegalizationPublic OpinionDrug PolicyDrugs
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (42)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Doctor Whom   12 years ago

    A certain quote attributed to Pauline Kael comes to mind.

    1. Rich   12 years ago

      Please enlighten me.

      1. Andrew S.   12 years ago

        In 1972, she's said to have said something to the effect of "I don't know how Nixon was elected. Nobody I know voted for him". I don't think she actually said it, but hey.

        1. Some call me Tim?   12 years ago

          It was more that she didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon and how this demonstrated the bubble the media lives in. It was more self-aware than amazement at his election.

          1. Mainer2   12 years ago

            'I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them.'"

            1. Rich Grise   12 years ago

              The two people I know of who voted for Nixon passed away in 1998 (Dad) and 1999 (Mom).

    2. Rich   12 years ago

      Ima guess it's "This movie is a toupee made up to look like honest baldness."

  2. Calidissident   12 years ago

    To me, Sabet seems like the most pathetic sort of statist. I can at least understand the sort of person who dedicates themselves to implementing universal health care, or event the person dedicated to keeping crack or meth illegal, even if I disagree with them. I can't understand how someone could care as much as Sabet does about keeping marijuana illegal.

    1. Rich   12 years ago

      *** clutches pearls ***

      My God, it's for the CHILDREN!!

    2. Spartacus   12 years ago

      He cares because he earns a good income off of prohibition.

      1. Rich   12 years ago

        This.

        "But that's incidental!"

      2. Calidissident   12 years ago

        True. But isn't this the guy that won an award when he was in high school for anti-marijuana activism? How sad was his childhood?

        1. anon   12 years ago

          He definitely wasn't part of the Kool Kids Klub.

    3. Spartacus   12 years ago

      To amplify a bit, from Wikipedia:

      "It is noted that he has a personal financial interest in perpetuating his theories, such as promoting his anti-marijuana book on his website, and the speaking and consulting fees he receives. His appointment as assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Florida is under scrutiny by groups opposed to Sabet, such as Alnernet.org, who note he has no education, no experience, no credentials, and no background in psychiatry."

      1. Rich   12 years ago

        Oh.

        Well then: assistant "professor" of psychiatry.

      2. R C Dean   12 years ago

        he has no education, no experience, no credentials, and no background in psychiatry.

        Sounds like tenure track, to me!

  3. MP   12 years ago

    One of the most positive aspects of the WA / CO legalization process will be to show the states don't devolve into Somalia. Of course, there will be an endless parade of OMGZ 2 YEARZ OLD WID THC anecdotal stories to try and prove otherwise. But the lack of true issues will finally, and firmly, entrench legalization into the public consciousness.

    1. Rich   12 years ago

      the lack of true issues will finally, and firmly, entrench legalization into the public consciousness.

      I've been hearing this for decades.

      And "public consciousness" =/= "legalization".

      1. MP   12 years ago

        I've been hearing this for decades.

        Yes, but we've been tip-toeing around it with all of this Decriminalization / Medical Marijuana bullshit.

        1. Rich   12 years ago

          And "we" still are.

    2. Jordan   12 years ago

      Well, we already have that example in the form of Portugal. Of course, most Americans probably couldn't find Portugal on a map, so your point probably still stands.

      1. UnCivilServant   12 years ago

        I don't think we could get much support behind the legalization of Portugal. Those Iberian states are a tad controversial.

        1. Jordan   12 years ago

          Clearly, we need a War On Portugal! As a bonus, the Keynesian stimulus effect of carpet bombing their cities will boost their ailing economy.

    3. waffles   12 years ago

      Hey man, did they ever find the cookie?

  4. AgrarianBarbarian   12 years ago

    Republicans are stupid. If they came out in support of legalization, they'd sew up the youth vote for the next two generations, win the next 4 or 5 presidential elections, and knock the whole Ruy Texiera / demographic demise narrative on its ass. At the same time, they wouldn't "lose" the base - who are they gonna vote for, the Democrats? Plus, its ideologically consistent. All the arguments for drug prohibition are identical to the ones for gun control. It's impossible to be both "pro-gun" AND "anti-drug" without refuting your own best arguments. Mark my words, the party that gloms on to this first will OWN the next 20 years.

    1. Rich   12 years ago

      Mark my words, the party that gloms on to this first will OWN the next 20 years.

      LP FTW!

    2. wareagle   12 years ago

      you're asking a political party to give up state power, state control over an activity that a good many see as borderline evil.

      It would make good sense to say "look, we've spent umpteen billion in this drug war and prohibition was no more successful this time" but a lot of cronies in LE depend on drug money for all their shiny toys. And when has good sense factored into political decision-making?

    3. R C Dean   12 years ago

      Mark my words, the party that gloms on to this first will OWN the next 20 years.

      Yeah, no. The Free Shit Brigade won't switch parties no matter what, so your hope of poaching committed Dem constituencies is zero.

      You might pick up some "undecided"/unaligned types, and probably will on net, but enough to guarantee a generation of dominance?

      No way. Might pick up a few close elections in one cycle.

  5. Hugh Akston   12 years ago

    Is there any form of life lower than a professional anti-pot activist?

    1. Rich   12 years ago

      A *drunk* professional anti-pot activist?

      1. CE   12 years ago

        Is there any other kind?

    2. Smilin' Joe Fission   12 years ago

      Epi's mother... or so I've hear...

    3. Brett L   12 years ago

      The people who think MADD doesn't take drunk driving seriously enough?

  6. Francisco d Anconia   12 years ago

    Speaking of pearl clutchers...

    For the makers of electronic cigarettes, today we are living in the Wild West -- a lawless frontier where they can say or do whatever they want, no matter what the consequences.

    Big Tobacco desperately needs new nicotine addicts and is up to its old tricks to make sure it gets them. E-cigarettes are being aggressively marketed to children with flavors like Bazooka Bubble Gum, Cap'n Crunch and Cotton Candy. Joe Camel was killed in the 1990s, but cartoon characters are back promoting e-cigarettes.

    Nicotine is a highly addictive substance, whether delivered in a conventional cigarette or their electronic counterparts. The potential harm from exposure to secondhand emissions from e-cigarettes is unknown. Two initial studies have found formaldehyde, benzene and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (a well-known carcinogen) coming from those secondhand emissions. We commend New York City recently for banning the use of e-cigarettes indoors.

    Ohh nohz!

    1. John   12 years ago

      I love how "addictive" is just assumed to mean "harmful". So what if it is addictive? Exercise is addictive too for some people.

      1. MP   12 years ago

        I'm not sure there's anything that's pleasurable which is not addictive.

        Which is why the whole Addiction = Disease is so asinine. FFS, life is all about moderation. Push to the edge in anything and you'll increase the risk of adverse consequences.

        1. wareagle   12 years ago

          disease became a way of moving some things under the blanket of insurance. Addictions have been known to get out of hand. Some folks need help to get back on track.

        2. Smilin' Joe Fission   12 years ago

          Exactly. I'm addicted to eating food. I have a biological impulse to eat food. Is that harmful in and of itself? No. Not controlling that addiction and eating large amounts of food regularly is. But food is not the problem, lack of self control is the problem. And that is a personal problem that is nobody else's business.

          1. John   12 years ago

            My father in law ignored his doctors and never changed his diet such that he has gotten Type II diabetes so badly that he is losing his sight and hearing and a lot of other parts of his health. He was never enormously overweight. But he had a genetic pre disposition for it and just never changed his diet and now is left with this.

            I fail to see how the cost, pain and grief he has inflicted on himself and his family via eating is any different or better than if he had been a heroin addict all of these years.

            Basically, you can harm yourself with virtually anything if you choose to. There is nothing special about drugs. We just like to think there is because the people that abuse them like to have an excuse for their poor decisions.

        3. anon   12 years ago

          Push to the edge in anything and you'll increase the risk of adverse consequences.

          Yes, this is true for hookers & sex in general too.

      2. Francisco d Anconia   12 years ago

        I've been trolling over at teh CNN the last few days. I've noticed a trend. (Although I'm surely biased)

        There seem to be more libertarian commenters than I've ever seen before. I was commenting on a story yesterday about the Millennials whining about wages. $15 min wage...

        They got their asses handed to them in the comments.

        I glimmer of hope...or self delusion. Either way it made me happy.

        1. John   12 years ago

          I think it is a glimmer of hope. My guess is that those "libertarian" commenters are not really libertarians as much as apolitical people who have, because things have gotten so shitty, finally taken an interest in politics and come to the conclusion a lot of things the government is doing is idiotic. And that is a good thing.

          1. Francisco d Anconia   12 years ago

            I welcome them.

    2. anon   12 years ago

      Nicotine is a highly addictive substance, whether delivered in a conventional cigarette or their electronic counterparts. The potential harm from exposure to secondhand emissions from e-cigarettes is unknown. Two initial studies have found formaldehyde, benzene and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (a well-known carcinogen) coming from those secondhand emissions. We commend New York City recently for banning the use of e-cigarettes indoors.

      Calling bullshit.

      1. mad libertarian guy   12 years ago

        Calling bullshit.

        What do you mean? I'd bet they really do commend NYC for banning ecigs indoors.

  7. Dave Krueger   12 years ago

    If you subtract out everyone who benefits from the drug war (drug enforcement cops, prosecutors, judges, treatment industry workers, prison workers, parole officers, bail bondsmen, liquor industry workers, drug dog industry workers, and pharmaceutical employees), the numbers are probably a lot more favorable to pot legalization.

    1. CE   12 years ago

      Another example why net tax recipients shouldn't get to vote, only net tax payers.

  8. CE   12 years ago

    When Colorado doesn't degenerate into anarchy, madness and face-eating, it will be hard for other states to argue against it. Especially when they realize all of the tax and tourism dollars they are leaving on the table.

  9. ImanAzol   12 years ago

    I've never heard of a Kevin Sabet, therefore it doesn't exist.

  10. Paul Pot   12 years ago

    The Sabets of this world fail to acknowledge 2 things.
    Prohibition is a total lie.
    And most people have first hand experience with marijuana or the people who use it.
    And as reform spreads, more people have experience with it and so support for reform keeps growing.
    Mr. Sabet has chosen to side with the losing team.
    Now that we have three real world models for legal marijuana, it will be impossible to hide the lie of prohibition.
    Marijuana will be legal in most western nations by the end of the decade.

  11. Rich Grise   12 years ago

    Somebody should ask this lame-brain to please point out which of the 18 Enumerated Powers authorizes Congress to throw people into iron cages for smoking dried flowers.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

They Fled Socialism and Came to the U.S. Legally. Now the Trump Administration Is Trying To Deport Them.

Billy Binion | 8.8.2025 5:19 PM

A Terrible Environmental Law Finally Did Something Good: It Paused Construction of Alligator Alcatraz

Autumn Billings | 8.8.2025 4:28 PM

From Terror Sanctions to Military Strikes? Trump's Cartel Policy Sidesteps Congress

Matthew Petti | 8.8.2025 2:15 PM

Trump's Tariffs May Soon Make Car Insurance More Expensive

Joe Lancaster | 8.8.2025 1:20 PM

The FBI Has No Business Tracking Down Texas Democrats

Tosin Akintola | 8.8.2025 12:35 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!