« New study concludes "conservative estimate" of erroneous US capital convictions has been over 4% | Main | Ohio concludes condemned murderer experienced no pain during troubled execution »

April 28, 2014

"Legalizing marijuana has been good for Colorado, voters in the state say 52 - 38 percent"

The title of this post is the first line of this notable press release discussing the results of a notable new Colorado poll.  Here is more from the press release:

Legalizing marijuana has been good for Colorado, voters in the state say 52 - 38 percent, but 52 percent of voters are less likely to vote for a candidate for office who smokes marijuana two or three days a week, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today....

Legalized marijuana has been bad for the state, Republicans say 63 - 28 percent and voters over 65 years old say 62 - 28 percent. All other listed groups say it's good for the state....

"Colorado voters are generally good to go on grass, across the spectrum, from personal freedom to its taxpayer benefits to its positive impact on the criminal justice system," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University poll. "But if you are a politician, think twice before smokin' them if you got 'em," Malloy added.

I tend not to put too much stock in a single poll, and a lot could change concerning public opinion regarding legalized marijuana in the weeks and months ahead. But the demographic breakdown of the results in this poll are quite interesting and reveal that, relatively to the general Colorado population, independents, women and persons under 50 all most strongly believe that legalizing marijuana has been good for the state. These numbers confirm my sense that supporting legalized marijuana may now help a politician attract key swing voters more than opposing it.

Cross-posted at Marijuana Law, Policy and Reform.

April 28, 2014 at 06:14 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Legalizing marijuana has been good for Colorado, voters in the state say 52 - 38 percent":


Factors which may be in play:
1) More people feel a pressure to conform than not, so if the media has been less than partial …
Most would admit that often at a point clearly prior to the public forming an informed opinion, reporters choose a side & present this as the prevailing line.

2) Study upon study have shown that rather than a willy-nilly random or individual bias,
most Western media reaching Americans (e.g. AP, Reuters, NBC) has a modernistic, progressive, ‘liberal democratic party’ prejudice.

Hence, besides hidden partiality on the panoply of issues, one hears “right-wing extremist”, “chicken hawks”, fundamentalist, anti-abortionist, Christian evangelical, and the like – including “Republican”, and cringes, whereas research has shown that the (D) label and critical markers less frequently accompany a progressive.

2 admissions:
1 study:
• “There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying,
and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong.”
— ABC News White House correspondent Terry Moran talking with radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, 5/17/05.

• “I’ll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at the Post as well. But the conservatives
I know here feel so outnumbered that they don’t even want to be quoted by name in a memo.”
— Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell in her November 16, 2008 column.

“About a third of national journalists
(32%), and 23% of local journalists, describe themselves as liberals.
Relatively small minorities of national and local journalists call themselves conservatives
(8% national, 14% local).

Internet journalists as a group tend to be more liberal …
39% are self-described liberals and just
9% are conservatives.”


Posted by: Adamakis | Apr 29, 2014 9:51:51 AM

Should marijuana be a controlled substance? What's the point of having controlled substances such as the ADHD drugs which are similar to narcotics, but allow marijuana to be prescribed scott free, of course there are herbal supplements and many OTC supplements which are unregulated, but its a great question. The point of prescriptions and to an extent controlled substances is an economic question, similar to "your lack of health insurance affects me", the issue not be extended broadly works like this, a prescription drug is meant to treat or cure a disease, and the cost of production, means that economic wise it makes sense to regulate it, sort of like if the government produces and gives away medical equipment and an unqualified person uses it and breaks it , then the government or industry is forced to create new ones.

I don't mean to interpret it broadly as some hard-liners would to say that drugs have consequences and so society as a whole, rather the basis of prescriptions and regulation in general. After all , is there a huge difference in prescription and recreational marijuana, and given stimulates are regulated and similar to banned narcotics, what do folks think, I'd love comments.

Posted by: alex | Apr 30, 2014 2:40:12 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB