4 ms·

> ...illustrates how out of touch legislators are with voters. If there was a nationwide referendum on legalizing (not just decriminalizing) it would pass in a

> ...illustrates how out of touch legislators are with voters. If there was a nationwide referendum on legalizing (not just decriminalizing) it would pass in a landslide today. In your own echo chamber, that may be true, but I hope you understand, there's a large number of voters (myself included) who oppose legalization. They may not be as vocal about it online, but their votes count just as much as yours.

jfengel 6y ago
More. They're the majority-of-the-majority, which is a minority, but enough to stop all legislation. The system of checks and balances is designed so that any change requires overwhelming support, and even a fairly small opposition can block anything from happening. The votes of people in favor of the status quo always count more than the votes to change, by a factor of perhaps 3 (since they need to be only 26% in order to be the majority-of-the-majority). More, really, since they need to control only one of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
qw3rty01 6y ago
It's not just an echo chamber, there's actual data: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s... https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-inches-new-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-... That's not to say people who oppose the legislation's vote doesn't matter, but it's overturned by the majority that favor it.
- curiousgeorgio 6y ago
  It's important to keep in mind that it's not as clear as many of these headlines make it sound. By the numbers in the links you provided, those supporting legalization for medical use only (which I do) represent a significant portion (> 1/3) of those lumped into the broader "support legalization" category. At the same time, many people interpret that broader category as supporting legalization of recreational use, which nationwide, has just 59% support. Also important to note that public support is much lower in some states, and as a federal republic, those individual states have (and should continue to have) the power to decide for the citizens who live there.
  - dwaltrip 6y ago
    59% vs 41% is a respectably large margin. That's 18 points. Additionally, that number will almost certainly be higher in coming years. The shift we have seen in recent decades seems very robust. I would argue this is due to the American public realizing that many of the arguments in favor of prohibition were exaggerated or downright false.
  - souprock 6y ago
    For medical use only, it is already legal at the federal level. The generic name is Dronabinol. It is marketed as Marinol and Syndros. Demanding brownies and joints for "medical use" is just straight up dishonest. You'll notice that drugs for legitimate medical use are not supplied in either way. (oh, it's time to eat a glaucoma prevention brownie...)
    - curiousgeorgio 6y ago
      > Demanding brownies and joints for "medical use" is just straight up dishonest. 100% agree.
grecy 6y ago
> there's a large number of voters (myself included) who oppose legalization After seeing what has happened in Colorado (and many other states) and the entire country of Canada, I'm curious to learn why you oppose legalization? I don't use it, and personally don't really care, but I see it like same-sex marriage - let people do what makes them happy and lets move onto actual important issues.
- curiousgeorgio 6y ago
  > I'm curious to learn why you oppose legalization For starters, a 20% increase in violent crime and significant increases in hospitalizations[1] directly related to marijuana use are two concrete examples. There are many more less-direct negative effects (e.g., insurance rates increasing for everyone due to marijuana-related accidents/injury) that probably aren't immediately reflected in public data, but are still detrimental to society. [1] https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2018-SB13-283_Rpt.pdf https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2018-SB13-283_...
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    Not sure where you're seeing a 20% increase in violent crime in this data, but per page 160 of this, violent offense rates per 100,000 population are pretty stable from 2008-2016, with a tick up in 2017. That may or may not be related to legalization, since AFAIK Nebraska didn't legalize anything lately and they also had a tick up in violent crime in 2017 [0]. [0] https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/explorer/state/nebraska/crime https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/explorer/state/nebr...
  - amalter 6y ago
    This is a very interesting document, but where does it discuss a 20% increase in violent crime? I read the section about organized crime involved with cultivation and assume that bring some violent elements. While this is an ostensibly neutral collection of data, it reads to me very favorably about effects of legalization. Surprisingly even vehicle fatalities decreased significantly over the measured time period.

jfengel 6y ago

More. They're the majority-of-the-majority, which is a minority, but enough to stop all legislation. The system of checks and balances is designed so that any change requires overwhelming support, and even a fairly small opposition can block anything from happening. The votes of people in favor of the status quo always count more than the votes to change, by a factor of perhaps 3 (since they need to be only 26% in order to be the majority-of-the-majority). More, really, since they need to control only one of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

qw3rty01 6y ago

It's not just an echo chamber, there's actual data: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s... https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-inches-new-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-... That's not to say people who oppose the legislation's vote doesn't matter, but it's overturned by the majority that favor it.

curiousgeorgio 6y ago
It's important to keep in mind that it's not as clear as many of these headlines make it sound. By the numbers in the links you provided, those supporting legalization for medical use only (which I do) represent a significant portion (> 1/3) of those lumped into the broader "support legalization" category. At the same time, many people interpret that broader category as supporting legalization of recreational use, which nationwide, has just 59% support. Also important to note that public support is much lower in some states, and as a federal republic, those individual states have (and should continue to have) the power to decide for the citizens who live there.
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  59% vs 41% is a respectably large margin. That's 18 points. Additionally, that number will almost certainly be higher in coming years. The shift we have seen in recent decades seems very robust. I would argue this is due to the American public realizing that many of the arguments in favor of prohibition were exaggerated or downright false.
- souprock 6y ago
  For medical use only, it is already legal at the federal level. The generic name is Dronabinol. It is marketed as Marinol and Syndros. Demanding brownies and joints for "medical use" is just straight up dishonest. You'll notice that drugs for legitimate medical use are not supplied in either way. (oh, it's time to eat a glaucoma prevention brownie...)
  - curiousgeorgio 6y ago
    > Demanding brownies and joints for "medical use" is just straight up dishonest. 100% agree.

grecy 6y ago

> there's a large number of voters (myself included) who oppose legalization After seeing what has happened in Colorado (and many other states) and the entire country of Canada, I'm curious to learn why you oppose legalization? I don't use it, and personally don't really care, but I see it like same-sex marriage - let people do what makes them happy and lets move onto actual important issues.

curiousgeorgio 6y ago
> I'm curious to learn why you oppose legalization For starters, a 20% increase in violent crime and significant increases in hospitalizations[1] directly related to marijuana use are two concrete examples. There are many more less-direct negative effects (e.g., insurance rates increasing for everyone due to marijuana-related accidents/injury) that probably aren't immediately reflected in public data, but are still detrimental to society. [1] https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2018-SB13-283_Rpt.pdf https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2018-SB13-283_...
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  Not sure where you're seeing a 20% increase in violent crime in this data, but per page 160 of this, violent offense rates per 100,000 population are pretty stable from 2008-2016, with a tick up in 2017. That may or may not be related to legalization, since AFAIK Nebraska didn't legalize anything lately and they also had a tick up in violent crime in 2017 [0]. [0] https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/explorer/state/nebraska/crime https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/explorer/state/nebr...
- amalter 6y ago
  This is a very interesting document, but where does it discuss a 20% increase in violent crime? I read the section about organized crime involved with cultivation and assume that bring some violent elements. While this is an ostensibly neutral collection of data, it reads to me very favorably about effects of legalization. Surprisingly even vehicle fatalities decreased significantly over the measured time period.