Skip to comments.Is Weed Here To Stay? New Colorado Polls Rank the Dank Highly
Posted on 04/29/2014 3:56:09 PM PDT by PoloSec
If Colorado is any indication, marijuana legalization might be a winning issue but may pose a problem for Republicans. A new poll released by Quinnipiac University shows that adults there agree with the recent decision to make weed legal in that state.
Colorado voters said that they support legalization by a margin of 54 to 43 percent. However, not every group is down with the doobie: 63 percent of Republicans disapprove of marijuana legalization, along with 62 percent of voters older than sixty five.
If those trends hold true elsewhere in the country, it means that ending marijuana prohibition might be a solid strategy for political candidates but most Republican voters are still not on board. It seems that there is a split between traditional conservatives, and more libertarian-leaning types who want government to leave weed alone.
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 a spokesperson from Quinnipiac University. Some of the most-cited benefits include a decrease in government spending for enforcing marijuana laws.
According to the most recent poll, around half of voters say theyve tried marijuana. The survey also shows that a majority of people in Colorado do not believe that legal pot has made driving more dangerous. Interestingly, while many voters are fine with smoking, most indicated that they are less likely to support a political candidate who is a marijuana user themselves.
Amendment 64, which legalized marijuana for adults in Colorado, was approved in 2012.
Skunk is not junk. High rank for the dank! LOL
hopefully they all feel the same away about guns come 2016!
This is one the libertarians get right. Smoking weed is not to be encouraged, but neither is drinking or cigarettes. Just because something is unhealthy doesn’t mean we should ban it and needlessly create a criminal black market and an excuse to expand the police state.
This is one of areas the libertarian influence in the Republican party could be a good thing. Would hope this is an area traditional conservatives could compromise so long as libertarians are willing to do the same and back off some of their kumbaya, peacenik isolationist and naive defense policy positions.
I agree with the premise, but I would adjust the belief that marijuana is inherently unhealthy. The government didn't classify it as Schedule I because it was unhealthy. Marijuana is now being studied in universities in our country and could introduce a bevy of treatments for disorders that pharmaceuticals cannot palliate.
On the same token, there are some very nascent studies investigating the effects of low-dose nicotine as a stimulant and the possible positive effects on the body as a stimulant in the same way that caffeine has been shown to provide a boost. With the burgeoning e-cigarette market, people are getting their nicotine fix while saving their bodies from the deleterious effects of smoked tobacco.
And let's not forget that alcohol, obviously in moderation, has been shown to improve some bodily functions and has been linked to cardiovascular health, at least specifically with red wine.
As with anything: alcohol, food, marijuana... everything in moderation.
Points taken. I think we’re in agreement on this issue for probably many reasons.
Marijuana smoke smoke contains a similar range of harmful chemicals to that of tobacco smoke (including bronchial irritants, tumor promoters and carcinogens) (Hoffmann et al, 1975). As inhaled smoke comes into contact with airway and lung before being absorbed into the bloodstream, it is likely to affect the respiratory system (Novotny et al, 1982).
Risk of respiratory effects from inhaling marijuana smoke are heightened by the more intensive way in which marijuana is smoked -- when smoking marijuana compared to tobacco, there is a prolonged and deeper inhalation and it is smoked to a shorter butt length and at a higher combustion temperature. This results in approximately 5 times the carbon monoxide concentration, 3 times the tar, and the retention of one-third more tar in the respiratory tract. Higher levels of ammonia and hydrogen cyanide have also been found in marijuana smoke, compared to tobacco (Moir, et al., 2008; Wu et al., 1988; Tashkin et al., 1991; Benson & Bentley, 1995).
A 2011 systematic review of the research concluded that long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of some respiratory problems, including an increase in cough, sputum production, airway inflammation, and wheeze similar to that of tobacco smoking (Howden & Naughton, 2011). However, no consistent association has been found between marijuana smoking and measures of airway dysfunction. Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use has not been associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function (Pletcher et al., 2012); the effects of heavier use are less clear.
Additionally, many marijuana smokers also smoke tobacco, which further increases the harm. Numerous studies have found that the harmful effects of smoking marijuana and tobacco appear to be additive, with more respiratory problems in those who smoke both substances than in those who only smoke one or the other (Wu et al, 1988).
The association between smoking marijuana and lung cancer remains unclear. Marijuana smoke contains about 50% more benzopyrene and nearly 75% more benzanthracene, both known carcinogens, than a comparable quantity of unfiltered tobacco smoke (Tashkin, 2013). Moreover, the deeper inhalations and longer breath-holding of marijuana smokers result in greater exposure of the lung to the tar and carcinogens in the smoke. Lung biopsies from habitual marijuana-only users have revealed widespread alterations to the tissue, some of which are recognized as precursors to the subsequent development of cancer (Tashkin, 2013).
On the other hand, several well-designed and large-scale studies, including one in Washington State (Rosenblatt et al, 2004), have failed to find any increased risk of lung or upper airway cancer in people who have smoked marijuana (Mehra et al, 2006; Tashkin, 2013), and studies assessing the association between marijuana use and cancer risk have many limitations, including concomitant tobacco use and the relatively small number of long-term heavy users particularly older users. Therefore, even though population-based studies have generally failed to show increased cancer risk, no study has definitively ruled out the possibility that some individuals, especially heavier marijuana users, may incur an elevated risk of cancer. This risk appears to be smaller than for tobacco, yet is important to know about when weighing the benefits and risks of smoking. (Tashkin DP, 2013). More research on marijuana smoking and cancer is needed. -
Thousands of years of it’s use has helped make Hindus and Arabs what they are and have been, Western Civilization is slipping into darkness as we also turn inward, and less driven to seek the stars and our Christian faith.
Great just what I want.... doped up bunch of dolts who will pull the lever for the best weed giver.....
It is unfortunate that the only successful pushback against out of control Government, seems to be in the marijuana world. I have been on the side of doing something different than the “War on Drugs”, at least for Marijuana, however, after the last two incidents regarding those eating Marijuana and then murdering your wife, or jumping off the Motel balcony because of MJ intoxication just maybe there is more to the equation. Nice of MT, OR, CO, and others to do the research.
Dope is a mind altering drug.
It makes liberals.
Smoking dope may be the number one reason for what gas happened to our country.
A non-stoned nation doesn’t elect an Obama.
I never said that, kabar. I gave up marijuana years ago, as it was not just illegal but expensive. I don’t advocate anyone use it, but I know cancer patients and survivors who use it as a palliative with none of the nasty side-effects of pharmaceutical pain killers or appetite stimulants.
I’m a pipe and cigar smoker myself, and I find it very relaxing. While I’ve never inhaled tobacco smoke, I understand the effects on my body and have accepted that as a potential end game for me.
I don’t care. Let them smoke their life away. It’s their life.
Also, did you read what you posted? I don’t mean that to be confrontational, but what you posted here doesn’t exactly buttress what I think you’re trying to claim here. Yes, while marijuana is still an inhaled substance and a lung irritant, it appears, based solely on what you posted here, that there’s barely a tangential link to marijuana as an agent to cancer of the lungs and furthermore the aggravating factor in lung cancer incidence among marijuana smokers is that many of them also smoke tobacco.
Again, not defending the use of the product considering its legality; I just wanted to understand from where you were arguing on the matter, as I’m unclear after having actually read the passage you posted.
Take the polls in front of the weed shops and you’ll always get a “high” ranking. If online post the polls on websites like this and get high rankings:
It is their life until one of them crosses left of center and kills my wife and kids. At that time they have violated the rights of my family and me. That is when I go find them and they will never do it again.
Same thing when it comes to cell phones and texting while driving. Stupidest damn thing in the world and if anything like that happens to me or mine then I do not give a damn what the law says.
The American Lung Assn says this:
Tobacco vs. Marijuana
Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains cancer-causing chemicals. There are 33 cancer-causing chemicals contained in marijuana. Marijuana smoke also deposits tar into the lungs. In fact, when equal amounts of marijuana and tobacco are smoked, marijuana deposits four times as much tar into the lungs. This is because marijuana joints are un-filtered and often more deeply inhaled than cigarettes.
Marijuana smoke is also an irritant to the lungs, and frequent marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems experienced by people who smoke tobacco. These include coughing and phlegm production on most days, wheezing, bronchitis, and greater risk of lung infection.
Should there be bans on smoking weed in bars, restaurants, etc.?
Should we legalize heroin, crack, etc. using your same rationale?
Having once been a chronic marijuana smoker, I can confirm that coughing, wheezing, and phlegm are a part of life for a pot smoker.
I appreciate your clarification. I was genuinely confused, and you helped me to understand better. Smoking is smoking regardless of the ignited inhalant.
Don't get defensive. I am not claiming anything. I am just posting some information on the impact of smoking weed on the respiratory system. There are plenty of data out there. My point was that smoking tobacco is supposed to be harmful to one's health, but smoking weed doesn't seem to be held to the same standard. In fact, for young people it is the cool thing to do. Hell, the guy in the WH was part of the Choom Gang and even used cocaine.
Again, not defending the use of the product considering its legality; I just wanted to understand from where you were arguing on the matter, as Im unclear after having actually read the passage you posted.
From what I have read, the jury is still out on the link between cancer and marijuana. Obviously, it does cause respiratory problems. You are ingesting chemicals into your lungs that are not healthful. More studies need to be done if legalization is the way forward. There are also studies on the impact on the brain.
Sounds like Natural Selection to me.
Who cares? Think about it. Do stoners vote? I doubt it. So, its very possible that making marijuna legal will benefit Repubs.
Again, thank you for the clarification.
I have never smoked or used marijuana. At 71, it is too late to start.
Actually they do vote as the referendum in Colorado proved. Democrats are now organizing in other states to get the legalization of marijuana on the ballot in time for the midterms. They view it as a way to turn out the youth vote, which could help their candidates.
Pathetic little potheads. They make the pursuit of a fleeting feeling more important than their own intelligence and freedom.
So what would you do about marijuana laws?
Keep them as is?
Would you propose any change whatsoever?
First, don’t go libertarian on drugs. “We favor the repeal of all laws creating crimes without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.”
Libertarianism is where you come from isn’t it? So any discussion of drugs with a libertarian means all and any drugs, and the marketing of them.
I'm not able to discern your position from that comment.
I know you have immense dislike for libertarians, but we don't know if you would alter any existing drug laws, and how.
I understand your position in general. I often think "there ought to be a law!", and sometimes think "if I were in charge...".
But then I remember all law is ultimately enforced through the barrel of a gun...and trim things down to what I think is REALLY important.
Thousands of years of use by Hindus and Arabs, and thousands of years of Western Civilization refusing to adopt Cannabis as an intoxicant, says a lot.
Some issues are much bigger than they way they are being treated by the left and libertarians, the end of marriage is one of those.
Perhaps, simply, overturn the Washington and Colorado laws legalizing?
It would make more sense for you to just get to making your point, this isn’t a chat room.
Many people believe marijuana is bad and should be restricted in some form, or completely illegal in absolute terms.
But few are willing to say what they think the rules ought to be over the fellow citizens, and fewer still would be willing to enforce such views themselves.
Especially within the context of Constitutional parameters.
When dealing with libertarians, the point at the end is always the same, and on so many issues, the left was there first.
What point is that?
The one that says there is no Constitutional basis for Federal drug law outside of borders?
The one that says States have the Constitutional authority to decide these things for themselves?
Or where the statist do-gooders always end up: Federal restriction on those legitimately harmful things they think should be banned...in spite of the Constitution?
LOL, from Washington and Colorado, suddenly to federal.
When dealing with libertarians, the point at the end is always the same, and on so many issues, the left was there first.
I agree any State should be able to institute any law on drugs they choose within their own lawmaking process that does not interfere with the Constitution or the legitimate rights of the other states.
If a state were to institute a law to make the use, possession or sale of marijuana punishable by death, I would support their authority to do so.
As I point out about libertarians, they support many of the same things as the regular left, and they support them, and oppose conservatism, at all levels of government.