Most Californians oppose legalizing marijuana - Reuters poll

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05210230.htm


* Poll shows most Democrats support legalization

* Republicans strongly against, independents divided

* Prop. 19 would let local governments regulate sales

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 5 (Reuters) - Hopes that California will become the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana appear to be turning into a pipe dream.

Voters plan to oppose a measure on the Nov. 2 ballot to legalize marijuana use by 53 percent to 43 percent, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday that showed a big change of sentiment from June.

[TCE]

Say wha!?!?

[RideTheDirt]

bullshit

[james1906]

I'm guessing the police unions are running scare tactics, where the sheeple think their kids are going to get raped on the way to school because somebody's high.

[MozoVote]

Cannabis legalization tends to poll better in automated questionnaires. People shy away from telling a live interviewer that they'd vote to legalize it.

[hillbilly123069]

That's the sober part that voted. Most of the stoners are not aware of the polls.

[Dr.3D]

That's the sober part that voted. Most of the stoners are not aware of the polls.
And they probably won't get off their asses and vote either. :D

[HOLLYWOOD]

Total BS!

Spin the Truth... Rothchilds Public Relation Firms: Reuters - AP

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/original/Reuters%20Logo.JPG
http://www.seanpaune.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/ap.gif

[Imaginos]

Bullshit!

[mczerone]

So?

The majority has a tendency to be wrong about many things, why should anyone appeal to their opinion to justify control of others?

Even if "most Californians" want something (in this case a prohibition on a consumer good), they don't have the rights to deprive any other individuals of their rights, including the right to grow, buy, sell, and consume. Stop pretending that they do, stop recognizing unconstitutional* laws.


*unconstitutional here meaning to be against an individual's constitution, comprising their actions as indicator of their values. A written, national Constitution is merely a shadow of the idea that actors should behave according to how they believe life should be lived while recognizing that they are being judged on their "constitution" by all others.

[Bman]

Looks like the fix is in.

[Dr.3D]

So?

The majority has a tendency to be wrong about many things, why should anyone appeal to their opinion to justify control of others?

Even if "most Californians" want something (in this case a prohibition on a consumer good), they don't have the rights to deprive any other individuals of their rights, including the right to grow, buy, sell, and consume. Stop pretending that they do, stop recognizing unconstitutional* laws.


*unconstitutional here meaning to be against an individual's constitution, comprising their actions as indicator of their values. A written, national Constitution is merely a shadow of the idea that actors should behave according to how they believe life should be lived while recognizing that they are being judged on their "constitution" by all others.

Oh but they do. You see, they have the right to vote, and if they vote against the rights of the minority, they will be able to deprive the minority of their rights.

[specsaregood]

Looks like the fix is in.

Possible. Or just like the increased voter turnout among blacks killed gay marriage in CA during the 2008 election, the increased republican/social conservative turnout in this election might do away with prop. 19.

[squarepusher]

Prop 19 isn't legalization, its thinly veiled prohibition. Good for californian's for opposing

[paulpwns]

Prop 19 isn't legalization, its thinly veiled prohibition. Good for californian's for opposing

please explain.

[squarepusher]

please explain.

ok, its been discussed in other threads but here are some highlights
1) creates several new felonies with reasons to send people to jail for marijuana
2) takes away current medical patients rights
3) only allows 5x5 foot space for growing
4) only allows 1oz possession (right now thats a civil infraction in Cali)
5) designed by mega growers to monopolize the market

[speciallyblend]

And they probably won't get off their asses and vote either. :D

yeah forget 72% in our county already voted to legalize almost 6 yrs ago;)

i guess the non-stoners were busy playing playstation and hittin the bong!

[Kregisen]

ok, its been discussed in other threads but here are some highlights
1) creates several new felonies with reasons to send people to jail for marijuana
2) takes away current medical patients rights
3) only allows 5x5 foot space for growing
4) only allows 1oz possession (right now thats a civil infraction in Cali)
5) designed by mega growers to monopolize the market

Not to mention it will be taxed and likely be taxed even more in the future, just like tobacco and alcohol. No one ever votes no on a tax increase for tobacco. it's bad for you! :rolleyes:


I think I still want this passed though....we're definitely trying to choose the lesser of two evils here. I definitely want a state to fight the feds on an issue like this, and I want it legalized.....and once Cali does it, every other state will follow.

But is it worth voting no now and trying to get a much more reasonable bill in place in the future?

[squarepusher]

Not to mention it will be taxed and likely be taxed even more in the future, just like tobacco and alcohol. No one ever votes no on a tax increase for tobacco. it's bad for you! :rolleyes:


I think I still want this passed though....we're definitely trying to choose the lesser of two evils here. I definitely want a state to fight the feds on an issue like this, and I want it legalized.....and once Cali does it, every other state will follow.

But is it worth voting no now and trying to get a much more reasonable bill in place in the future?

well, tbh i hope it doesn't pass, but i'm kind of neutral either way, and don't plan on voting one way or another.

The good result is that it would have nationwide/worldwide positive consequences possible, even if it is a bad version of prohibition

[johngr]

ok, its been discussed in other threads but here are some highlights
1) creates several new felonies with reasons to send people to jail for marijuana
2) takes away current medical patients rights
3) only allows 5x5 foot space for growing
4) only allows 1oz possession (right now thats a civil infraction in Cali)
5) designed by mega growers to monopolize the market

Alcohol prohibition was never reapealed, either. I get the idea that, in addition to not wanting their taxing monopoly threatened, one of the reasons for not allowing home production of spirits has to do with its potential use as a fuel.

[Kýrie eléison]

ok, its been discussed in other threads but here are some highlights
1) creates several new felonies with reasons to send people to jail for marijuana
2) takes away current medical patients rights
3) only allows 5x5 foot space for growing
4) only allows 1oz possession (right now thats a civil infraction in Cali)
5) designed by mega growers to monopolize the market

And once again I am confused as to the true intent of Proposition 19, as a CA resident and of age voter. Fucking laws just can't be straight forward. :mad:

[LibertyVox]

I have a question for you guys.

What if someone wants to walk naked on the street, can a local body legislate against walking naked on the commons?

If so, can't it legislate against marijuana? or at least smoking it in public?

Also, what if the legislation was done only at town levels not state.

Is there a word for this kind of arrangement?

[Southron]

Perhaps this Prop 19 passing would be more of a moral victory than a real political victory?


Alcohol prohibition was never reapealed, either.

This is true. Moonshine is essentially still illegal except in small quantities as "fuel".

[squarepusher]

this is kind of cool though, i have to admit

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/10/05/californias-first-marijuana-factory/?ref=nf

[Bman]

I have a question for you guys.

What if someone wants to walk naked on the street, can a local body legislate against walking naked on the commons?

If so, can't it legislate against marijuana? or at least smoking it in public?

Also, what if the legislation was done only at town levels not state.

Is there a word for this kind of arrangement?

Most people here advocate personal rights, however, some advocate state rights. If you look at the constitution battles like this are in the scope of the constitution at state and local levels.

[LibertyVox]

Most people here advocate personal rights, however, some advocate state rights. If you look at the constitution battles like this are in the scope of the constitution at state and local levels.

I recognize the fact that state rights are a better alternative to a large Centralist Federation. Likewise legislating at the city or town's level is even better IMO.

But what if say you were a Californian? Say you were on the side of legalizing mjuana, and at the ballot your side lost. Would you accept it? Or is there a moral argument to be made that even though the right to smoke mjuana has been legislated away legally, this should not be the case because it is dangerous etc...
Or is it just a simple matter of POV? i.e. majority wins, just like elections.

What about the case I just talked about above: the right to walk naked in the commons? Few of us would say yes we should be able to walk naked down to the local B-Z mart. How is this different than legislating against mjuana (at least smoking it on the commons)?

[Bman]

I recognize the fact that state rights are a better alternative to a large Centralist Federation. Likewise legislating at the city or town's level is even better IMO.

But what if say you were a Californian? Say you were on the side of legalizing mjuana, and at the ballot your side lost. Would you accept it? Or is there a moral argument to be made that even though the right to smoke mjuana has been legislated away legally, this should not be the case because it is dangerous etc...
Or is it just a simple matter of POV? i.e. majority wins, just like elections.

What about the case I just talked about above: the right to walk naked in the commons? Few of us would say yes we should be able to walk naked down to the local B-Z mart. How is this different than legislating against mjuana (at least smoking it on the commons)?

I don't have time to get into this tonight, but ask yourself this question. What right does government have to tell you what you can and cannot do with your own body?

[LibertyVox]

I don't have time to get into this tonight, but ask yourself this question. What right does government have to tell you what you can and cannot do with your own body?

My knee jerk answer is of course it shouldn't tell me anything. But I already realize that. That's why I asked about walking naked in the commons.

I do remember reading about the Naked Guy In Berkeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Martinez), but that does not really help me make up my mind.

[RedStripe]

http://i56.tinypic.com/1z303r9.jpg

[klamath]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that too many pot smokers believe it is their right to stone the non smokers around them, because it is such a good medicine that everybody should be required to injest it.

[squarepusher]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that too many pot smokers believe it is their right to stone the non smokers around them, because it is such a good medicine that everybody should be required to injest it.

lol

[silentshout]

This poll is an outlier..every poll conducted recently has the "pro" side winning by a decent amount. Of course, this is the one that will get pushed.

[Chieppa1]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that too many pot smokers believe it is their right to stone the non smokers around them, because it is such a good medicine that everybody should be required to injest it.

Why is it that I never bump into any of these pushy, aggressive potheads? I mean, I know Rand Paul was one in college but.....:p

[HOLLYWOOD]

And once again I am confused as to the true intent of Proposition 19, as a CA resident and of age voter. Fucking laws just can't be straight forward. :mad:

Now you know why most of these politicians are Lawyers... most are unethical as any mafioso member. (All due respect to Italians and the Mob);)

[furface]

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollPrint.aspx?g=610b53d5-5fd1-4039-b4c7-4ae7aad0efdd&d=0

[dannno]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that too many pot smokers believe it is their right to stone the non smokers around them, because it is such a good medicine that everybody should be required to injest it.

That's impossible..

You know, cannabis helps protect against dementia and Alzheimers... just sayin..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1087544/Cannabis-stop-dementia-tracks.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071014163644.htm

[dannno]

I knew so many people in college who would hang out with other people while they were consuming cannabis.. I mean, not everybody fucking hot boxes their room 24/7, in fact I usually only smoke one little bowl when I smoke the herbs.. but anyway, people who really, really didn't want to smoke cannabis would sit in the same room. They never got high.... yet here Klamath thinks that you can get people in the apartment next door high just from a WHIFF of the aroma!! This is complete insanity and an assault on reason.

[Acala]

My knee jerk answer is of course it shouldn't tell me anything. But I already realize that. That's why I asked about walking naked in the commons.

I do remember reading about the Naked Guy In Berkeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Martinez), but that does not really help me make up my mind.

The problem is in the nature of the commons. "Public" ownership of property ALWAYS creates problems of competing and conflicting uses. The tragedy of the commons is not limited to grazing. There is no way around it except to eliminate the commons. When property is privately owned, then the owner makes the rules. You want nudity on your property? You got it. You want burkhas only? You got it. And then you get to decide on which private property you wish to spend your time. Problem solved.

[libertybrewcity]

I would be very disappointed if prop 19 didn't pass. I am definitely voting yes though! To be honest I would rather see prop 19 pass than almost anything else as far as candidates go.

[devil21]

I don't know if the poll is bs or not but I know of people in the Cali cannabis industry that are against legalization themselves simply because it will take a big chunk out of the prohibition-inflated profits.

[dannno]

All the polls I've seen show Prop 19 passing by a healthy margin.

I honestly don't know how it is going to affect the landscape, I don't think anybody knows, but I see it as a huge symbolic victory if it passes.

[specsaregood]

All the polls I've seen show Prop 19 passing by a healthy margin.

While I would expect it to pass, based on CA's population at large. If this election cycle results in a huge drop of liberal or democrat voters and a surge of social conservative tea-ocon voters I could see how it might be defeated.
ie: difference between registered voters vs. likely voters...


I honestly don't know how it is going to affect the landscape, I don't think anybody knows, but I see it as a huge symbolic victory if it passes.
I'm in complete agreement on passing = victory; but will a defeat be seen the same way?

[dannno]

While I would expect it to pass, based on CA's population at large. If this election cycle results in a huge drop of liberal or democrat voters and a surge of social conservative tea-ocon voters I could see how it might be defeated.
ie: difference between registered voters vs. likely voters...

Ya I'm not sure how that's going to play out.. cause there will be a LOT of people going to the polls just to vote on Prop 19 who might not vote for other politicians, or they might just vote Democrat, who knows.. I think unfortunately Prop 19 will hurt John Dennis' chances, ironically, considering he wants it legal and Pelosi does not.. but no other races in CA that I'm concerned with, except that Boxer might be ousted..




I'm in complete agreement on passing = victory; but will a defeat be seen the same way?

Ya, I think it will.. one of those things, if CA can't pass legalization, how can any other state?

[Dr.3D]

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollPrint.aspx?g=610b53d5-5fd1-4039-b4c7-4ae7aad0efdd&d=0



4
California voters may also vote on several propositions. On Proposition 19, which would change California law to legalize marijuana and allow it to be regulated and taxed,
Certain to vote yes?
Certain to vote no?
Or not certain?

All
Gender Age <50 / 50+ Race Party Affiliation
Margin of Sampling Error: +/-3.9% Male Female 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ 18-49 50+ White Black Hispani Asian/O Republi Democr Indepen
Certain Yes 48% 54% 43% 61% 47% 50% 36% 52% 44% 51% 47% 45% 42% 35% 57% 53%
Certain No 41% 38% 44% 30% 45% 38% 48% 39% 43% 40% 37% 45% 42% 57% 30% 36%
Not Certain 11% 8% 13% 9% 8% 12% 15% 8% 13% 10% 16% 10% 16% 8% 12% 11%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Composition of Likely Voters Incl. Le 100% 50% 50% 18% 34% 27% 20% 53% 47% 60% 6% 21% 13% 34% 42% 22%

Looks by that poll it would pass as of 4-Oct.

[jmhudak17]

Not a Californian but I would love to see Prop 19 passed. Would be a great step.

[loveshiscountry]

Instead, Peterson plans an aggressively organic indoor growing campaign at the facility for its cannabis – a product, interestingly enough, that sells at about the same price per ounce as gold.


1200-1400 an ounce? That's real aggressive. That's three to four times aggressive the going rate. .... I mean, ya know, from what I've over heard people saying and stuff

[Stary Hickory]

Well I hope it passes. I don't like Marijuana or think it the least bit healthy as a habit but the state or FEDs have no say in how a man deals with his own body. The whole notion of telling us we can't smoke a certain plant is ridiculous and governments ought to be ashamed. This would be ONE thing CA could do that I can agree with.

[MozoVote]

Nevada failed to pass a similar legalization initiative with around 44% in 2006. Even if CA cannot pass prop 19 I think it'll be above that, and set a new high water mark of support.

[libertybrewcity]

It might be hard in a pro Republican year. Out of all the states though, California is the place to do it. They have had great success with medical marijuana, so they are already a step in the right direction. I think this will fail if Meg Whitman and Fiorina get the pre-Swarzenegger Republicans turned Independents out to vote.

The youth need to turn out heavily too. If this was 2008 it would have passed with flying colors. The youth and blacks will not turn out in as great of numbers.

I am voting for it though, and will be watching it closely come November.

[libertybrewcity]

Nevada failed to pass a similar legalization initiative with around 44% in 2006. Even if CA cannot pass prop 19 I think it'll be above that, and set a new high water mark of support.

I remember hearing something about that. I hope it is on the ballot sometime in the next couple of elections, maybe 2012? California and Nevada would have a great west coast bloc.

[MozoVote]

Oh I disagree on turnout. California is the one state where the youth vote will be there. Awareness of Prop 19 is far above the candidates among young people.

It may not be a Republican wave, either. The national party committees may stop aiding Whitman if it's clear she is not competitive and that funding is more critical elsewhere.

[LadyBastiat]

And they probably won't get off their asses and vote either. :D

Nonsense! Now, it might be the only vote they ever cast.... :p

[dannno]

Instead, Peterson plans an aggressively organic indoor growing campaign at the facility for its cannabis – a product, interestingly enough, that sells at about the same price per ounce as gold.


1200-1400 an ounce? That's real aggressive. That's three to four times aggressive the going rate. .... I mean, ya know, from what I've over heard people saying and stuff

Well that used to be a saying back around the turn of the millennium when gold was actually $300-$400/oz

Apparently that person hasn't been tracking the price of gold for some time.