According to the government's National Survey on Drug Use and Health, majorities of every age group below 60 (with one anomalous exception) tell surveyors they have smoked pot sometime in their lives. Given that the surveys ask people to admit to illegal behavior, it's almost certain that the actual numbers are higher, though just how much higher we can't tell. While there are surely some people who have smoked pot but believe fervently that it should be illegal, the fact that half the electorate got high and survived suggests an ample constituency for legalization efforts.My cohort is that last one on the right, and we are rapidly dying off. Ironically we "came of age" in the 1960s and considered ourselves on the cutting edge of a new trend. What I find most interesting about the graph above is not the "lifetime use" in red, but the decline in "past year" consumption with age. As noted in the text, the numbers may not be precise, but it is likely the trend is true. Why the falloff? Lack of access? Health concerns? Loss of interest? Concerns about job and family interactions? Interesting.
Text and graph from an article in The American Prospect, which also offers this graph/text:
This November, voters in Washington, Oregon, and Colorado have the chance to do something radical: legalize marijuana for recreational use. In all three states, activists secured enough petition signatures to place initiatives on the ballot to essentially treat cannabis like alcohol, regulating its distribution and taxing it...Via The Dish.
One poll shows the Washington initiative passing by a 13-point margin, while a poll in Colorado predicts an even bigger margin in favor. These polls should be read skeptically, but they suggest the strong possibility that at least one of these initiatives could succeed.
If that happens, it will raise a whole slew of questions for the country about personal liberty, the costs of the drug war, and the relationship between the federal government and the states. But the momentum is clearly with those who would undo some of our nation's restrictions on marijuana...
Let's say one of the marijuana initiatives wins at the ballot box in November. What happens then? This is where things get complicated. No matter what a state decides, marijuana is still illegal under federal law. While Barack Obama's Justice Department said in its first year that it wouldn't go around arresting people who were complying with their state's marijuana laws, he turned out to be nearly as much of a drug warrior as any of his predecessors. Obama has never advocated removing marijuana from Schedule 1, the classification that puts it alongside heroin and cocaine as drugs that "have a high potential for abuse" and "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."..
The only thing that would make things less complicated would be legalization, or at least decriminalization, on a national level. Despite the clear direction of public opinion, that seems a long way away.
My rational, logical side says that this is a no-brainer. It's analagous to prohibition, creating a whole infrastructure of gangsters to supply the demand of a relatively harmless mind-altering substance. It goes against my father's belief that it's impossible to legislate morality.
ReplyDeleteThat said, my personal experience trumps my rational thinking. One of my daughters and her first husband regularly smoked marijuana, including during my daughter's pregnancies and around the children from infancy on. The children have had numerous problems throughout their lives. One grandson was first arrested at 6 for throwing rocks at a policeman. I witnessed him trying to kill or seriously injure his older brother. My granddaughter began pulling out her hair at three. The oldest grandson began using drugs at approximately 10, and was diagnosed with schizo-affective disorder by the time he was 19.
I know there is no direct evidence that the use of marijuana is responsible for all the problems my grandchildren have, including on-going substance abuse. However, I believe as devoutly as any religious fanatic that the marijuana use demonstrably contributed to, if not caused, these problems.
My daughter and her two husbands also drank alcohol and used other drugs, but marijuana was the ubiquitous drug of preference. Any suggestions as to how I can reconcile my feelings with my rational mind?
As one from the far right on the graph, I hope the past year figures are lack of access. When your not in the younger bar ages it is hard to have the contacts. There is no way to understand the logic of so much money spent in the war on drugs after the country has gone through the same scenario with prohibition. How long can people put up with the crime and violence caused by huge illegal profits that could not only be stopped but sent to the gov's coffers with one stroke of a legalizing pen. It baffles me to what lengths society will go to impose their beliefs on others.
ReplyDeleteIt is very sad to see that the debate of legalization is put in such simplistic terms. It is not an easy choice.
ReplyDeleteBeing from Holland I can see both sides. There are many people who can smoke an occasional joint as many others have an occasional drink. However, there is a small group of people whom inflict a lot of damage to their lives with soft drugs being a gateway to hard drugs. It is a very difficult question whether the pleasure of a many outweighs the misfortune of a few.
It is also interesting to note that the Dutch are currently making access to soft drugs harder by turning the (in)famous coffeeshops into Dutch-members-only clubs. It is too early to say if this effectively gets rid of the many stupid tourists who can't handle a bit of drugs.
The answer to "what would happen then?" can be hinted at by looking at the reaction of the Feds to California's and other states' medical marijuana laws. They will come in and attempt to shutter or run out of business any dispensary. I'm not opposed to decriminalizing pot, but I think that the proposals so far take a pie-in-the-sky crack at doing so - nothing grounded in reality.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, decriminalizing drugs will generally take the glamour out of the equation, but for the short term, I suspect that those who do not like the smell or the effects of the smoke will have a hell of a time with people who (in San Francisco already!) think it's their duty to desensitize the rest of us to the presence of the stuff. Quite annoying.
The top graph illustrates how people get wiser with age.
ReplyDeleteAs far as personal choices go.
But based on the lower graph, I don't believe the first graph either.
There is no way that 48% of the population supports legalization.
Maybe it was the way the question was posed.
"Do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal, or not?"
Yes, Or Not.
Biggest waste of time ever.
I will support legalization if it can be shown that legalization will result in Fewer people using Marijuana, and or other dangerous drugs.
Right now, I'm not convinced.
Uhh, gbradley:
DeleteMarijuana is not, nor has it ever been a "dangerous" drug, or at least no more so than booze. In fact, it was the efforts of businessmen back in the 1920's and/or 1930's that classified marijuana as an illegal drug, and nothing in marijuana itself that caused it to be so classified.
"Maybe it was the way the question was posed."
DeleteThis would only make sense if the question were not posed the same way across all measured time points.
Sure, in absolute terms this could lead to an artificial inflation in the estimates but that would presumably happen across the board. That is,unless all the respondents in the later time points magically got less intelligent and/or were more easily confused than those in the earlier time points.
The real point of the second graph is to show the swing in public opinion, which by opinion poll standards, is large.
I'm voting with Barbwire on this matter, having known 4 people, including my father, who became diagnosed with what was then called paranoid schizophrenia back in the late 60s. I smoked it for years, myself, and without those ill-effects, but isn't it a form of gambling or, to put it kindly, risk assessment, as to whether or not to continue smoking it? The statistical probability is that some small but specific percentage of pot smokers - I have heard it's about one in twenty - will end up with ruined lives, at great cost to their families and friends, themselves and the society which has to deal with and care for them. I don't think that booze can be such a direct cause of such mental illness, although it also has huge costs if abused. But later in life, I came to the view that the human condition is better without any such intoxicants. Closer to our natural state. No matter what, the outcome pales into insignificance compared to the awful things done to women in the name of "culture" in some countries.
ReplyDeleteBarbwire,
ReplyDeleteI would be inclined to think that it wasn't the marijuana that created/caused/contributed to the troubled grandchildren, but rather the environment that your daughter and former son in law provided. If a parent is willing to drink, smoke, etc openly in front of their children I would assume that they were lacking in overall parenting skills (leading, discipline, structure, etc), thus creating troubled children.
Maybe self-medication with marijuana is a symptom of (sometimes subclinical) mental illness. It's well-known that the mentally ill (schizophrenics in particular) consume far more than their share of cigarettes and alcohol; why not pot, too?
DeleteAnd re: the family connection: we know that many mental illnesses are strongly predicted genetically.
How many of people debating this actually understand, that laws offer protection not from substances but from the people selling them. Laws determine the extent of how much one person can exploit the stupidity/weakness of another.
ReplyDeleteHow many people understand that like parasites or diseases, the least harmful substances tend to be the most widespread, and thus most influential and in need of attention and regulation.
Anecdotally speaking(as one of the almost right-hand tower), much of the recent lack-of-use is not simply lack-of-access (out-grown our dealers), but that we have better things to spend our money on. Remember: back in the '60s [in NM], a lid was only about $15-30. Now?
ReplyDeleteNow you have the internet to tell you what it should cost -
Deletehttp://www.priceofweed.com/
As another from the far right, I enjoyed smoking pot in the 60s, but stopped doing it before the end of that decade because it interfered with getting things done. That is, a good high would give me a two day case of not wanting to do anything productive, and I couldn't justify that.
ReplyDeleteThe second graph is headed "do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal or not?"
ReplyDeleteSo what is it telling us?
Legal? or Not?
If I answer yes to the question, or no to the question, the answer still tells you nothing as to my views, because the question is worded ambiguously.
For the graph to have any meaning it would need, perhaps, two lines, one for those who voted for legalisation, and one for those who voted 'not'.
As it it, I can only assume it represents simply all of those who voted, both yes and no.
I don't know why, but I was surprised to read that your "cohort is the last one on the right." This blog is so well done I guess I assumed the younger generations were the only ones tech savvy enough to do it. Anyway, keep up the awesomeness and know that you are reaching an audience far and wide.
ReplyDeleteLet's try to get some current data. We went 35 years w/o access to marijuana, and now that we are living in a state where it's legal, we want to know if we are weird. BTW, my mother's assisted living nurse told me that she wished all the 90+ residents had access to at least some CBD.
ReplyDeleteYou're commenting on a post I wrote six years ago. Sure, there's way more current data available, but I'm not going to go back and update old posts.
Delete