Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

According to Gallup, American Support for Cannabis Legalization is at an All-Time High

posted by martyb on Saturday October 28 2017, @01:28AM   Printer-friendly
from the next-up?-legalize-pans! dept.

takyon writes:

64% of Americans now support the legalization of cannabis, an all-time high since Gallup first asked the question in 1969. Also for the first time, a majority of Republicans (51%) support legalization, up from 42% last year:

As efforts to legalize marijuana at the state level continue to yield successes, public opinion, too, has shifted toward greater support. The Department of Justice under the current Republican administration has been perceived as hostile to state-level legalization. But Attorney General Jeff Sessions could find himself out of step with his own party if the current trends continue. Rank-and-file Republicans' views on the issue have evolved just as Democrats' and independents' have, though Republicans remain least likely to support legalizing pot.

Also at NPR, The Hill, NORML, and Reason.

Related: New Attorney General Claims Legal Weed Drives Violent Crime; Statistics be Damned
4/20: The Third Time's Not the Charm

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
According to Gallup, American Support for Cannabis Legalization is at an All-Time High | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 55 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @07:37PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @07:37PM (#588762)

    I don't think people remember Dr Donald Tashkin.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html [washingtonpost.com]

    " "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

    Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought."

    https://youtu.be/GJmQ16cGBHU [youtu.be]

    Interview of Dr Tashkin with Lanny Swerdlow of Marijuana News

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday October 28 2017, @07:46PM (2 children)

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Saturday October 28 2017, @07:46PM (#588766) Journal

    Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

    Everyone can tell that medical science with low sample sizes, p-value hacking, and lots of unknown variables is going to produce contradictory results. That's why I said the science isn't settled.

    You just admitted that the same guy has found evidence in both directions, believes cannabis is potentially harmful, and that it has "cancer-causing effects" (of variable/unknown concern). And you're calling me forgetful? Put down the reefer!

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @07:54PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 28 2017, @07:54PM (#588771)

      "Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood."

      so 2240 people is a low sample size? OK

      thanks. I'm not a previous anon. I lurk and I've read SN.

      You are just being rude and obtuse.