For the first time since Gallup began keeping count, 50 percent of Americans believe marijuana should be legalized. That’s according to its newest poll, released Monday, which also shows that 46 percent still believe the drug should be illegal.

Nonetheless, that’s a far cry from the 1970 numbers, in which only 12 percent of Americans supported legalization.

And bear in mind, we’re not talking about medical marijuana here: this is outright legalization. A previous Gallup poll found greater strength — 70 percent in favor — for providing people pot whose pain and symptoms it could help relieve.

Gallup also broke down its data:

Support for legalizing marijuana is directly and inversely proportional to age, ranging from 62% approval among those 18 to 29 down to 31% among those 65 and older. Liberals are twice as likely as conservatives to favor legalizing marijuana. And Democrats and independents are more likely to be in favor than are Republicans.

More men than women support legalizing the drug. Those in the West and Midwest are more likely to favor it than those in the South.

Interestingly, the numbers of pot legalization proponents have really gone up, doubling in the past 15 years. In 1995, about one in four people was in favor of it being legal. Things really caught fire in 2009. These days, even Washington lawmakers have entertained the possibility of legalizing it.

I’m curious what the sweeping approvals of medical marijuana laws around the country has done to expose the nation to the drug (some 16 states now have laws on the books). My curiosity is less about the notion there’s more legal marijuana in the country, and more about the idea that more people know someone who’s found marijuana effective in curbing their pain.

Rather than debate the age-old question of legalization, my inquiry to you, readers is this: do you believe the medical marijuana movement has advanced the wider legalization movement? Why or why not?

Share on Facebook

More and more people in Washington are going and getting their medical marijuana authorizations. Indeed, around the country, 16 states now allow people with qualifying conditions to possess marijuana, despite its longstanding federal prohibition.

That hasn’t stopped federal agencies from chiming in over medical marijuana issues. The latest blowup concerns a medical marijuana patient’s right to bear arms.

A memo to federal firearms licensees from the assistant director of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is lucid in its belief medical marijuana patients are prohibited from having guns, according to a recent article in USA Today.

The memo states, “any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.”

I’m interested to hear from folks on the Kitsap peninsula regarding this topic. Should having a medical marijuana authorization prohibit someone from having guns?

Share on Facebook

Turns out Washington’s not the only state where issues over medical marijuana are being litigated. The American Civil Liberties Union earlier this month filed an appeal to a federal judge’s decision to throw out a Michigan case of a medical marijuana patient fired from Wal-Mart for his use of the drug.

In January, we covered our state supreme court’s hearing on a similar case in which a woman was fired from Teletech in East Bremerton for using medical marijuana to relieve migraine headaches. The woman is authorized under law to use medical marijuana.

She sued; her case was thrown out at the county and court of appeals level and it was taken for review by the state’s highest court. We are still awaiting their opinion.

Here’s the press release from the ACLU:

GRAND RAPIDS, MI – The American Civil Liberties Union today said it will appeal a decision by a federal judge to dismiss its lawsuit filed in June against Wal-Mart and the manager of its Battle Creek, Michigan store for wrongfully firing an employee for using medical marijuana in accordance with state law. The patient, Joseph Casias, used marijuana to treat the painful symptoms of an inoperable brain tumor and cancer.

Michigan voters in 2008 passed the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, which provides protection for the medical use of marijuana under state law. But in a 20-page ruling today, U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Jonker said the law doesn’t mandate that businesses like Wal-Mart make accommodations for employees like Casias, the Battle Creek, Michigan Wal-Mart’s 2008 Associate of the Year who was fired from his job at the store for testing positive for marijuana, despite being legally registered to use the drug. In accordance with the law, Casias never ingested marijuana while at work and never worked while under the influence of marijuana.

The ACLU will appeal today’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Share on Facebook

THE CASE BACKGROUND: Jane Roe (not her real name) was fired from TeleTech in East Bremerton in 2007 because she failed a drug test. However, she was legally using marijuana as medicine under state law to treat migraine headaches. She sued after losing her job.

The case was thrown out of Kitsap County Superior Court. It was appealed by Roe’s attorneys to the court of appeals, who ruled that the state’s medical marijuana act does not protect patients in employment situations.

This morning, the state’s supreme court will hear from attorneys on both sides and debate this issue: does the state’s medical marijuana law provide any protection to legal medical marijuana patients in the workplace? We’ll cover it live beginning at 10:30 a.m.

I’ve also posted the video here, via TVW, of the arguments so you can also hear them for yourself.

Share on Facebook