I’ve been fascinated by a recent Reason-Rupe poll on the marijuana issue, which is forcing me to rethink some of the stereotypes that are hard to shed. Ironically, the poll results reminded me that I need to stay in the Republican Party, despite my differences with what the majority of the party seems to think.
On the marijuana issue, Republicans are hardly the federalists they like to imagine they are:
Republicans usually make the case for federalism, but in all three instances—smoking, growing, selling—Reason-Rupe finds higher numbers of independents and Democrats embrace the federalist argument that the federal government should stand down in states that have legalized marijuana.
What is going on there? Is it really accurate to frame the argument as federalism? I mean, Democrats are philosophically as anti-federalist as you can get, and try as I might, I just can’t bring myself to characterize their tendency to prefer liberalized state marijuana laws to the antediluvian, Anslinger-era federal approach as “states’ rights.” The liberal philosophy abhors federalism (and states’ rights), and in general the conservative philosophy considers them important principles.
What that means, of course, is that liberals who oppose federal interference with liberalized state marijuana laws and conservatives who support federal interference with liberalized state marijuana laws are both being hypocrites.
The Reason-Rupe poll also finds a majority of Americans, 53 percent, agree that marijuana should be treated the same as alcohol, while 45 percent disagree. Fifty-eight percent of independents and 57 percent of Democrats favor treating marijuana like alcohol. Meanwhile just 35 percent of Republicans favor treating marijuana like alcohol, 62 percent oppose doing so. Interestingly, a majority of Independent-leaning Republicans favor treating marijuana like alcohol while fully partisan Republicans are the only political group in opposition.
I see the above as an excellent argument for me to remain in the GOP. That 35% category needs all the help they can get.
As to the pro-legalization category, that is an even smaller minority in the Republican Party. For whatever reason, a large majority of Republicans are against legalizing (relegalizing is the correct word) a substance that has been criminalized since the 1930s Reefer Madness campaign. A majority of Democrats also oppose relegalization, but the numbers are much closer:
Overall, Reason-Rupe finds 49 percent oppose legalizing marijuana for recreational use and 47 percent support legalizing it. That finding is within the poll’s margin of error, which is plus or minus 3.8 percent. Democrats narrowly oppose legalizing marijuana (48-46) and Republicans overwhelmingly oppose legalizing marijuana (70-25).
But get this! Independents in both parties favor legalization.
Including Independent-leading Republicans. And men!
Yet Independents, including majorities of both Independent-leaning Democrats and Independent-leaning Republicans favor legalizing marijuana for recreational use 71-28 and 53-46 respectively. Similarly, men favor legalizing it (52-45) but women oppose it (53-42). All age groups 64-years-old and younger support legalizing marijuana but people 65 and older oppose it (67-29).
What’s up with the marijuana gender gap? The roles are dramatically reversed on this issue, in apparent defiance of the common stereotype that women are more “liberal” than men.
Are they? Any ideas? Might it be that women are more likely to think that jailing people for pot protects the children?
Such thinking is not liberal.
(But perhaps I shouldn’t give voice to such ideas. Wouldn’t want the GOP to promote Nanny State policies, would we?)
Comments
8 responses to “Another reason I have to remain a Republican”
Leaving the Republican Party has freed my thinking.
I’m still registered Republican but I now consider myself Independent.
I do think the Republican Party has a future. But I believe that future is 10 to 20 years in the future.
With all the issues the country is facing pot is the one that consumes so much of your blogging. Curious.
Thank goodness there is no chance pot smokers will flood onto the welfare or disability roles and force economic conservatives to subsidize their choices.
Legalization just swaps one set of costs/benefits for another while increasing the demand for subsidized laziness. God knows we don’t subsidize enough lazy people in this country.
Scott,
Well if you don’t think it is important why not give up on the issue? Focus on the issues you care about. Like reducing welfare and disability.
Or are you afraid to tackle those issues directly and so pot becomes a proxy issue.
I have joined the “Libertarians out of the Republican Party” faction of the Republicans. I’m now out of the party and working to take more with me.
I’m working to give you the Party you want. A smaller one.
Medical Marijuana prohibition is a crime against humanity and a violation of the religious precept – heal the sick.
http://classicalvalues.com/2013/02/cb2/
And Scott,
Don’t you think a crime against humanity is a little more important than budget problems? I do.
I have taken a note from the anti-abortion wing of the Party and will not vote for anyone who does not support my position if there is an opponent who does. Sadly for you those are mostly Democrats.
Scott, I take it your comment referred to Simon and not me. It had not occurred to me that marijuana consumed much of my thinking, but your comment made me think that maybe it should. Some self criticism is in order.
Ahem.
Personally, I don’t like pot (it messes with my lungs and I dislike the high), and I have not smoked it since at least 1992, possibly earlier. Plus, the stoner mentality bores me. So, if marijuana were relegalized I would be delighted, but it would not change my personal habits at all.
As to posts, yes, I wrote this one last night because I was intrigued by the poll, and I think this issue — and the gay issue — are hurting the GOP badly.
But I write daily, and your comment caused me to look back over recent posts to see just how obsessed I am on this issue. I wrote this one, and another post about GOP pot politics on Feb. 5:
http://classicalvalues.com/2013/02/may-the-purest-prohibition-party-lose/
On January 10, I briefly snarked about Cuomo’s double standard:
http://classicalvalues.com/2013/01/the-lord-giveth-the-lord-taketh-away/
Actually, I write so little about marijuana that I had to go back to October to find another one — and that was a one sentence post lamenting the fact that I don’t write enough about the issue:
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/10/nice-work/
Oh, then back in July I mentioned medical marijuana in the context of federalism:
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/07/why-constitutional-principles-are-for-the-birds/
Thank God for Simon. Otherwise, this issue would be sorely neglected!
🙂
Thanks!
Neither party has any desire to end the War On Drugs.
They both like the power it gives the federal gov’t.
I don’t give up on the issue because I’ll be taxed to support lazy dope smokers and I’ll have to make up the missed work assigned to the lazy dope smokers and I’ll have to otherwise clean up after the lazy dope smokers. For the people claiming to be economic conservatives legalization just means you will further subsidize more lazy slugs.
Maybe persistent dope smoking leads people to expect the entire WoD budget will be returned to taxpayers after legalization, but that is why they call it ‘dope.’ Even after any legalization there will be limits and those limits will be enforced by someone and those someones will need money, funds, and police powers. I guess be a libertarian means the only reality that counts is the one in your imagination and you’re only responsible for the consequences you like.
Is libertarianism really about anything beyond political/moral exhibitionism? It seems the best state for libertarianism is to be permanently out of power so their ideas are never tested and they are immune from consequences.