What's the Matter With Idaho?

Of the 50 states, three territories, and 10 provinces that make up the United States and Canada, all but one have legalized some form of either medical or recreational cannabis.


Of the 50 states, three territories, and 10 provinces that make up the United States and Canada, all but one have legalized some form of either medical or recreational cannabis. The last holdout is Idaho, where prohibition remains in full force. But that could change in 2020. Activists in the Gem State are currently gathering signatures in hopes of (finally) placing a medical marijuana initiative on the state ballot.

NEXT: Review: A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I think this article is a bit off. Wisconsin has not legalized medical marijuana and seem unlikely to change. The fact that CBD oil is available in Wisconsin should not be seen as progress. I would like to see legalization of medical marijuana as the very least.

    1. Also three territories, and 10 provinces didn’t legalize marijuana, the Federal Government did.

  2. Marijuana is NOT legalized in any US State. Another lie forwarded by Democrats.

    Weed was de-regulated in many states. Every state where this happened has more restrictive regulations and more taxation on weed than most products in those states.

    Maybe weed is partly the reason why so many Americans have short-term memory.

    1. That and if you still consider the Controlled Substances Act not some unconstitutional steaming pile of garbage, then marijuana is still illegal as far as the federal government is concerned.

    2. And there are more than 3 US territories. At least 5 are well known.

  3. Different is bad? What about the concept of the states pursuing alternate avenues?

    1. Yes, we should leave Idaohoians alone… If 51% of the politicians there, are scared shitless that legalizing POT might take the famous POT out of peerless Idaho POTatoes, then who are we to stomp on the democratic rights of the 51% of the Idaho politicians?

    2. Different is bad?

      In the upside-down world of Reason mag, apparently it is.

      1. The fuck kind of logic is that. ” Hey, sure state A hasn’t banned slavery, but let state A experiment with an alternate avenue.”

        1. Well, slavery is just an arbitrary social convention, I guess, so if 51% of the voters have blessed it, then who are we to question democracy? We do NOT want to get into the business of over-turning election results, do we?

    3. Different is bad? What about the concept of the states pursuing alternate avenues?

      There’s also a recurring fallacy with Reason writers that a law enacted where people and LEOs are thin on the ground is just as oppressive if it had been enacted in any major urban center.

      I wonder what the pot consumption and pot busts per capita is like in Idaho compared to other states. Total cost and cost per capita of the whole affair would be interesting as well. ID may be more oppressive by the letter of the law, but if it’s throwing fewer people in prison than CA *and* are charging the taxpayers less to keep those people in prison, it gets kinda hard to say that they’ve written their laws wrong.

    4. Reason is libertarian; while it does advocate for federalism, it doesn’t place that above individual freedom. I think it’s reasonable to have a different opinion, but it’s not the maximally free proposition.

  4. Ok, total tangent; why the pluperfect hell is Idaho “the Gem state”?

    1. “Idaho is known as the “Gem State” because the only other location on the planet which has a greater variety of gems is Africa. More than 72 different kinds of precious and semi-precious stones can be found throughout the state, particularly in mining sites and stream beds.”

      I can find star garnets almost daily if looking.

      1. yeah but blue astroturf wtf

        1. Maybe it’s made from sapphires!

    2. Idaho is also the most mountainous of the lower 48. Imagine mountains like a wrinkled bedsheet, then pull it flat. If you did that to Idaho it would be bigger than Texas.

    3. Because there is a Pimp and a Ho?

  5. So once Idaho decriminalizes pot does that mean Reason’s raison d’etre is complete?

  6. Remember how you spent the entire 8 years of Obama’s administration dumping tens of thousands of refugees into Idaho to cleanse it of the scourge of Republicans? Well it turns out the Islamic fundamentalist psychopaths you love so much aren’t that into weed. But on the bright side, they do love fucking 5 year old girls.

    1. It’s weird how “refugee Isalmic fundamentalist psychopaths” are so homogenous when WE are all so different. They clearly deserve our scorn. Unless “we” includes damn libtards, I guess, then different is bad. Or something.

      1. That is what the demagogues do.
        WE are all individual people with our own strengths, quirks, and faults.
        THEY, on the other hand, are a nameless dehumanized blob of pure evil which must be resisted.

        It is just as bad when right-wingers do it towards foreigners, as when left-wingers do it towards billionaires.

        1. Or when you do it on a daily basis towards literally anyone who doesn’t genuflect to communist sociopaths like you do.

      2. And besides, it’s pretty absurd to claim that the reason why Idaho hasn’t moved from pot prohibition is because of those pesky refugees. Idaho is one of the most conservative states in the entire country, with or without refugees.

        1. And yet other conservative states have all legalized the libertarian’s holy sacrament. I wonder what’s unique about Idaho? Somebody should write an article about that.

          1. I wonder what’s unique about Idaho?

            They’ve got a lot of Mormons and racists. Is that the answer you are looking for?

      3. Why are you defending kiddy-diddlers?

        1. This is Reason. You can’t swing a dead cat without finding a defender of kiddie fuckers. Aside from immigration it’s their entire raison d’être. Which is handy since they so nicely coincide.

          1. Citations please… Of…

            A) defending kiddie-fuckers.

            B) Statistics (real, reputable ones, not made-up bullshit) showing that immigrants are more likely to be kiddie-fuckers than native-borns humanoids.

            Or are you just totally full of hateful shit like many conservative Trump-fellating morons?

            1. “ defending kiddie-fuckers.”

              He didn’t actually say that, did he?

              Is your lack of reading comprehension that severe?

              1. “This is Reason. You can’t swing a dead cat without finding a defender of kiddie fuckers.”

                Yes, I can read. “Reason” with a capital “R”… Not Reason commentators specified, either. So I’m still waiting for the citation-link to such an animal. It’s not coming, because James Cameron’s pants are on fire!

                1. ” Not Reason commentators specified”

                  Not Reason commentator excluded either. Or are your really trying to argue that the comment section at Reason isn’t part of Reason?

                  Because that is too stupid, even for you.

                  And your argument is tacit admission that even you recognize the presence of ‘defenders of kiddie fuckers’ in the comment section.

                  1. From the top of EVERY commentary section:

                    “Editor’s Note: (deleted) 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 or Reason Foundation. …”

                    Can YOU read? Once in a billion blue moons, some moron might comment along the lines of supporting NAMBLA and kiddie-fucking. “Reason” does NOT support this, never has, never will!!! James Cunt-Cameron’s allegations are SOOOO far exaggerated as to be outright and total lies!

                    So… SHOULD Reason be responsible for comments from commentators, or not? It is morons like YOU (and James-Cunt) who want to blur these lines… Claiming forum as the property of The Hive, to be smeared into “collective property” and then micro-managed by The Collective Hive, for The Collective Good, that are going to regulate free speech out of existence!

                    1. LOL.

                      Tell you what, the next time you demand that someone provide support for an argument they never made just accept it when someone calls you on your strawman bullshit.

                      That the powers that be include a disclaimer would have merit had he been the one to say “” (or “Reason Foundation”) rather than you. But he didn’t limit his statement in such a manner, much to your detriment. You were the one who foolishly tried to put specifics of “” to his more general use of “Reason.”

                      We both read what he said. Your first reply to me was a direct attempt to exclude commentators. Even though I never specifically mentioned them as a concern.

                      Now why would you do that?

                    2. “Your first reply to me was a direct attempt to exclude commentators.”

                      Liar, liar, pants on fire!!!

                      All morons are allowed to post as many lies as they want… This forum is the property of… Which is the way it should be, and the way that I (for one) like it.

                      I merely call liars, liars when I see them. It is NOT a good thing, when lies are left to deceive people, with NO ONE calling “bullshit!” when they see bullshit.

                  2. Communism is the BEST possible system, and a Stalin-like being should install total robotic control of all human minds, to Glorify the State!

                    Look above, SEE what I found on!?! It PROVES that Reason supports communist mind control! You can NOT swing a dead cat around, at Reason, w/o hitting a total supporter of mind-control via Stalinism!!!

                    Now would you call me HONEST, or would you call me pants-on-fire?

      4. Yes there’s certainly no such thing as culture or commonly held values among people who voluntarily subscribe to the same religious, moral, ethical and political systems. That’s why we need to legislatively subjugate Christians to fags. Or something.

        Hey, maybe if you deflect enough nobody will notice that the hordes of fundamentalist psychopaths you love make a routine practice of fucking children. And honor killings. And female genital mutilation.

        1. good luck trying to convince Jeff that religions gonna religion. He would rather walk out his front door to a goat getting slaughtered than admit that some people are better than others

          1. Some *individuals* are better than other *individuals*, that is true. Donald Trump, overall, is a better individual than Jeffrey Dahmer. We know this by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each one.

            But what some want to do here, is to declare that some *groups of individuals* are inferior to other *groups of individuals* without assessing each individual, but instead looking only at group characteristics. By this measure, Donald Trump and Jeffrey Dahmer are about the same, since they’re both straight white males. Is that the argument you want to make?

            “Oh no, not US, we are all special unique individuals, but THEY, THEY are a shapeless horde of evil!”

        2. the hordes of fundamentalist psychopaths

          You mean Christians?

          Oh no, you mean Muslims. I get it.

          Christians are to be judged based on nuance and careful reading of scripture and deference to their own interpretation of their faith. Muslims are to be judged based on broad-brush denouncements and cherry-picking the worst elements of their faith as representative of the whole.

      5. I think you answered your own point.

        Let’s have a look at it, shall we?

        It’s weird how “refugee Islamic fundamentalist psychopaths” are so homogenous when WE are all so different.

        WE are all so different. That’s a given. So why would refugee Islamic fundamentalist psychopaths be so homogenous?

        Well, they’re all Muslim according to what they say–that’s a really big level of homogeneity with every other Muslim that would, by necessity, exclude all non-Muslims.

        And then, they’re refugees. This would separate them from all Muslims who are NOT refugees.

        Already we’ve excluded most people in the world AND most Muslims.

        These though, are self admitted fundamentalists.

        Which makes the resulting group even smaller.

        And, lastly, from inside that small group of ‘WE’ who are refugee, fundamentalist Muslims we exclude all who are not psychopaths.

        And there you have it. The subset of “refugee Islamic fundamentalist psychopaths” is homogenous because we’ve added qualifiers that make it a very specific group–instead of a blanket condemnation of all Islam.

        A fact Jeff ignores.

        1. These though, are self admitted fundamentalists.

          They are? Every single one?

          Why don’t you stop with the broad-brush generalizations for a moment? What is so hard about that?

    2. Your link says nothing about the perpetrator at all, let alone their religion. I’m sure you’ll keep your fingers crossed, though!

  7. I’ll tell you what’s the matter with Idaho.

    Progressives have become so militant in their authoritarian solutions to everything that their opponents have become reflexively opposed to everything that appears to be progressive.

    Meanwhile, Californians are flooding into places like Boise like carpenter ants–and they have all these great, new ideas–that invariably boil down to trying to make Idaho more the California they fled.

    Maybe the people of Idaho like the way their lives are already and has been for a long time, and they see the encroachment of progressives politics a la California as a threat to their way of life.

    Here’s a hint on how to overcome that kind of resistance: When marijuana was being legalized in places like California, it had to be legalized over the objections of the progressives in power–and I’m not just talking about Sacramento. Barack Obama raided state legal recreational marijuana dispensaries hundreds of times during his first term. The people of California had to legalize marijuana by referendum because the progressives who run California refused to do so. It was much like what we see happening with progressives in in New Jersey and New York shutting down marijuana legalization today. Progressives don’t think you should be allowed to drink sugary soft drinks. Why would they let you ingest marijuana?

    Make it clear to the people of Idaho that marijuana is a individual liberty issue–rather than a culture war issue backed by progressives–and they’ll be far less reluctant to get on board. Progressives ruin everything that way. Being progressive is all about using the coercive power of government to force people to make sacrifices against their will for what progressives see as the common good, so anything associated with them (rightly or wrongly) is assumed to be about that.

    In reality, the war on drugs is just as progressive as Prohibition was and the temperance movement. Some progressives want to legalizing marijuana because they think it’s a culture war issue like abortion or gun rights. It isn’t. If it’s an issue like gun rights, it’s only insofar as people should be free to own and use the stuff like they should be free to own and use a firearm–so long as they don’t use it to violate anyone’s rights.

    1. The immigration of Californians to Idaho is a good thing. Immigration is always good. This will raise housing prices and the cost of living for the people there, thus meaning higher GDP for the state and nation. They should be glad. Stop clinging to a bygone past that is best left in the dustbin of history.

      All hail GDP. Sacrifice yourselves and your countrymen on the altar of Mammon.
      –Reason’s Upcoming Article.

    2. “Make it clear to the people of Idaho that marijuana is a individual liberty issue”

      I’m sure the people of Idaho are fully aware that marijuana is an individual liberty issue. Just like meth, heroin and cocaine. Perhaps the Idaholese just don’t care about it as much as you do. The vote overwhelmingly for progressives whenever given the chance.

    3. I definitely agree that the best way to overturn dumb shit like prohibition is through referendums – and I mean “best” in the moral sense, not in the tactical one (although it’s probably that too).

    4. The thing is a LOT of the Californians (and others) moving into Idaho are moving there because they want to live in a more conservative area.

  8. So Idaho hasn’t rushed to adopt the hyper-taxed, hyper-regulated pseudo–semi-decriminalization approach to marijuana like all the other states???

    And Reason/Boehm is confused about this. I can certainly see why they are confused about this.

    1. reason staff get confused about a bunch of things.

  9. If the people of Idaho vot by referendum to legalize or decriminalize marijauna, I bet that the state legislature would overturn it as one of their first orders of business. They have done that with plenty of other things. The mormons and big business interests that run Idaho see marijauna as a threat. However, many regular people have no issue with it and see it as a personal liberty matter. There are actually a lot of libertarians in Idaho, but sadly not a majority.

    1. Those factions are certainly significant. I would say another concern is the general recognition that ‘legalization’ in other states hasn’t really accomplished much more than expansion of state governments.

      This sort of thing will simply not pay for itself across the state. Most of Idaho is simply too big and too sparsely populated.

    2. Well, at least caffeinated beverages are legal.

  10. Jeepers Cripes, even Mississippi is ahead of Idaho!

    1. Racist much.

      1. (No, not really – I’m merely employing the tools I learned at the SQRLSY School of Rhetorical Devices.)

        1. was funny.

    2. Jeepers Cripes, even Mississippi is ahead of Idaho!

      That’s what Reverend Kirklebunny said.

  11. You’re living in your own Private Idaho
    Living in your own Private Idaho
    Underground like a wild potato

  12. want to applaud Idaho for remaining singular.

  13. Idaho grows only legitimate crops, not ingredients for mind-altering drugs.

  14. Also, those Boise area people who want pot can drive to Ontario, Oregon and shop. The sheriff of the Idaho county right across the border from Ontario has declared he just isn’t interested in busting people coming across the border with marijuana.

  15. Thanks for sharing this blog If you looking for cheap tickets you can visit my blog

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.