Skip to main content

California Marijuana Initiative Lead Narrows, Poll Finds

Submitted by Phillip Smith on (Issue #648)
Drug War Issues

California's Proposition 19, the tax and regulate cannabis marijuana legalization initiative, continues to lead in the latest SurveyUSA poll of likely voters, but with a smaller lead than two previous SurveyUSA polls. The latest poll has the support for the initiative at 47%, with 43% opposed and 10% undecided.

July and August polls from SurveyUSA had support for Prop 19 at 50%, opposition at 40%, and 10% undecided. The poll numbers suggest that the opposition is managing to peel away some people who had previously indicated they would support the measure.

The initiative, sponsored by Oakland medical marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee, would legalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by people 21 or over. It would also allow adults to grow up to 25 square feet of pot and possess the resulting harvest. It would give cities and counties the local option of taxing and regulating marijuana sales.

According to the poll, Prop 19 has majority support among men (54%), but not women (40%); people under 50 (51%), but not those over 50 (43%); Democrats (51%), but not independents (49%) or Republicans (39%); and whites (52%), but not blacks (40%), Asians (39%), or Hispanics (38%).

With now less than two months until election day, it seems more clear than ever that the Prop 19 campaign is going to come down to the wire. Turnout will be key, especially among young voters. The 18-to-34 age group supports Prop 19 by 59% to 33%. The only demographic in the poll that exceeded that was liberals, with 61%.

Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.


Some person (not verified)

A difference of three percentage points may not actually mean anything, as it's within the error range of most surveys.  So this is not clear evidence that support has literally declined (although that could still be the case). 

When the actual voting does occur, presumably the undecided will not vote, which would put the 'yes' votes over 50%, presuming it matches this survey exactly, while paradoxically making the vote even closer.  But people who answer these surveys never turn out to vote in full.  The question is which side will turn out in higher numbers.  Sadly, this is just too close to call, but that just makes it more important for everyone who can vote for this to do so.

All the 'Yes' voters in California really need to pressure as many of their friends into voting as they possibly can.

Sat, 09/04/2010 - 4:01am Permalink
denbee (not verified)

Did they pole the disenfranchised who probably have never voted, or seldom voted?  I suspect that millions of these creatures will be coming to the poles in mass, bless their hearts!  This is about FREEDOM and right to make personal choices, that harm no one else, in our lives without fearing arrest.  Issues dear to the heart of a people who have been in hiding for so many years.  This is about the return of sanity and the death of ignorance.  This is about stopping the arrest and criminalizing of millions our sons and daughters for using a substance proven to be safer than just about anything else we consume.  This is all about getting the government back to governing and ending their attempts to control every friggin aspect of our lives.  As adults, what we consume while harming no one else, especially in our homes, should never be the concern of our government.  I suspect that, because of all of the above, you will see California vote overwhelmingly to legalize cannabis this year.  This is also a referendum on States rights vs Federal rights, an very important factor to consider!  The Federal Government exist only through the graces of the States, a fact that seems to have been forgotten many, many years ago. 

Sat, 09/04/2010 - 10:06am Permalink
Parentof4 (not verified)

If you are going to legalize marijuana, wait till all my children are 21 years and older and that will be in ten years. After that, I would not care if the entire states is stoned because my children will be adults and out of my hair and care and can decide for themselves. Right now, I have a HEALTHY 18 year old who has a medical marijuana card and getting stoned every night. I am very ANGRY at the medical marijuana laws not being regulated. It totally destroyed our family and our relationship with our teen.  My teen says all his teen friends have medical marijuana cards and he said it is SAFE to use pot. My teen said it is all legal and if they get caught by police, they won't go to jail. Just show the police the medical marijuana card. I said, what about growing up with the DARE program to JUST SAY NO to drugs?  All the other teens who just turned 18 are recruited to get their medical marijuana cards as if this is their first step to adulthood. We can kick him out of the house but he will just turn to harder drugs. The emotional toll of this on the family is great. The expenses and time paid for the counseling and therapies are great. We never expected this and thought my children will grow up drug free. Whenever I see his drugs, they are flushed down the toiled. The paraphernalia are hammered to pieces and thrown away. I feel like the DEA of the house. The teen's three younger siblings know what he is doing. One is allergic so when he smokes, the sibling suffers with allergies all day because they bunk in the same room. I agree with medical marijuana but keep it out of the hands of the healthy teens and recreational users. Medical marijuana destroyed my family. If marijuana is legalized now, all my children will be potheads and they will have no future. That's why if you want to legalize this, do it in the next ten years when my children are all grown up and over 21 years of age.

Sat, 09/04/2010 - 12:37pm Permalink
Julian (not verified)

In reply to by Parentof4 (not verified)

Would it not make more sense then to support nation wide legalization of medical marijuana and recreational marijuana? I mean if your concern is your families access to the drug it would make most sense that you would support national regulations on it so that there could be one national governing body of how the drug is dispensed. Your children aren't getting Opiate Cards, or Benzo Cards, or Ritalin Cards are they? Of course not. Because they are drugs that are regulated on a federal level ensuring that they are only dispensed as needed in accordance with nationwide regulations on what diseases and symptoms deem them necessary. Your complaint is actually that there is not enough regulation around the drug and, not as you are claiming here by opposing a law to regulate the drug, that there needs to be less regulation. If your son is using drugs that he has access to, laws that limit access would be key to what you desire. What you are actually saying is "I don't want my son to have access to this drug" so why not spend your time pursuing that goal instead of hindering it? Could your time not be better spent attempting to change the current medical marijuana laws in your area? Or, could your time not be better spent contacting the doctor through which your son received his medical marijuana card and expressing your concern that he is abusing the drug instead of using it and see if there is an alternative? Doctors are well known for attempting to curb the abuse, misuse, and addiction of drugs they supply for medical reasons. I know this because I work for a drug rehabilitation center and we are very involved with medical professionals in our area.


More over, would your son be using marijuana if he didn't have a card for it and just hiding the fact that he is using it from you? At least in this situation you are aware of the negative actions your son is taking and can attempt to curb it our at least help create a safer situation then one he could be in if he was out on the street purchasing marijuana from a guy in an ally that has all the incentive in the world to also get your son to try and buy harder drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines. As undesirable as it may be for your 18yr old to be smoking marijuana at least he is less likely to be put in situations that could lead to addiction to hard drugs, murder, rape, serious prison time, or the revoking of any future financial aid.


Also, the DARE program has been proven to cause more minors to use drugs do to the fact that it gives misleading information which causes teens to distrust all the information given to them from similar sources. Case and Point. If someone tells a teen that marijuana will cause him to become a murdering psychopath with a melted brain and he goes to a party and gets drunk and tries marijuana because he is to drunk to think straight and wakes up the next morning having not murdered anyone and without a melted brain he realizes it was a lie and then begins to spread the notion that the DARE program is lying and no longer trusts programs like DARE and ends up using drugs or encouraging others to use drugs. Another worth while endeavor could be to pursue the DARE program to update their education system to reflect the scientific and medical truth behind drugs instead of fear mongering in an attempting to scare the drugs out of them.


So in conclusion. Always think about what it is you  truly want and what will truly get you there. If you want your kids to have a hard time getting drugs. Support laws that make it harder for kids to get drugs, don't oppose them. And, Oppose current laws that make it easier for your kids to get drugs or support amending them but don't ignore why your kids have easier access and blame something that is attempting to help restrict children's access to the drug because you have lost faith in a system due to its corruption. Stand up for what is right, don't whine because you wish it was easier. Myself and millions of people like me have been fighting for years to help keep Marijuana out of the hands of kids and out of the hands of illegal drug dealers who make a profit off of making your children and mine drug addicts through early drug use stunting their brain growth and causing ahedonistic mindsets. We have spent and will continue to spend countless hours fighting for regulations that pull our police away from arresting responsible adults and allows them to target those people who would sell your children drugs, who would manipulate laws to provide your children with drugs (your complaint), who would use your children as drug traffickers and sells because they know children would get a reduced sentence. So if you want your kids to have a safer life, a better life, and a life free of drug dependence. Fight for what will lead to that end. Don't give up and say "Well, the system is so corrupt why should I even try? There is no hope! They'll never be able to keep my kids safe with laws! Let's just go back to wasting 15.5 billion dollars a year attempting the impossible because at least then I Felt Safer." That is fear and doubt talking and those are not means to a righteous end. Believe in all that our country has accomplished and believe it can accomplish even more. Look at the reduction in cigarette abuse by minors and adults in this country over the past 40 years. We were credited by the UN as having the most successful program for reducing tobacco use across the board. They even said in their 2009 world drug report that if every civilized country controlled other problem drugs in a similar manor (Marijuana for instance) it could show similar results with a reduction of new users, reduction of current users and a reduction of use by minors.


Thank you for your time and I hope this helps you realize change is possible and that it is people like you who are able to make that change.

Sat, 09/04/2010 - 2:36pm Permalink
OldTimer (not verified)

In reply to by Parentof4 (not verified)

The CA proposition does in fact state that the drug is only to be legal for those *over* 21, *not* your 18 year old. It seems to me it specifies exactly what you ask for ...


Sat, 09/04/2010 - 2:50pm Permalink
Generic (not verified)

In reply to by OldTimer (not verified)

Well, it's not EXACTLY what she is asking for -- she wants everyone to WAIT 10 more years until HER kids are grown up... then she doesn't care.

Sounds like typical narcissistic and self centered behavior, which leads to turning all parental problems and responsibilities over to the "Nanny State"...  YOU RULE YOUR OWN HOUSE, KICK HIS A$$ TO THE CURB IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT HE IS DOING.

I contend this:  at 18 HE IS AN ADULT.  He can serve on a jury, he can sign contracts, he can join the military, he can purchase rifles, he can go to a doctor and not tell you about it... the list goes on short of alcohol and pistols in most places.  If you don't like his behavior, throw his butt out on the street.  Once he lives "the real life" where he has to spend his money on rent, food, and gas -- weed won't be as much of a problem.

Mon, 09/06/2010 - 9:05am Permalink
Anonymous2 (not verified)

In reply to by Parentof4 (not verified)

As a person (28 years old) who has had problems with marijuana in the past, and who has now stopped smoking it, my advice is this:

       1)Tell your son to do his best to avoid paranoia.

       2)Tell your son to do his best to avoid paranoia.

       3)Tell your son to do his best to avoid paranoia.

       4)Tell your other children the same.

It is the essence of any problem associated with marijuana (and problems can be serious for some people). He will listen to you, I guarantee it. You will be able to help him; I guarantee it. When he realizes you understand, he will listen to you. Do not go on about any other dangers. There really are no other dangers (except for gaining weight and bronchitis), and if you tell him there are, he will know you are wrong and you will lose credibility with him. But if you tell him about the danger of paranoia, he will listen to you. He might not stop smoking (at least not right away), but he will listen to you, and you will have helped him dearly.

Please believe me; I really do know what I'm talking about. I'm sorry for being presumptuous, but I really do know what i'm saying. 

Sun, 09/05/2010 - 3:26am Permalink
Medicinal Mike (not verified)

In reply to by Parentof4 (not verified)

It sounds to me like you are the one in the house causing all the harm. You are the one frustrated. Not your son. Try this ho'oponopono healing on yourself about him -I am sorry, Please forgive me, Thank you - I love you. That can clear the emotional crap you have, up. Next I strongly suggest you do some research on Cannabis and as a parent thank your lucky stars he chose the safest drug on the planet. He can not kill himself with it, he can not OD. As a human being you can not control any other human. You can try your best to be a good parent. He is an adult (18 is adult in my eyes), now you have to love and trust him and his judgement. If you can not then the issue is all yours and has nothing to do with him. Good luck.   

Wed, 09/08/2010 - 2:26pm Permalink
Medicinal Mike (not verified)

In reply to by Moonrider (not verified)

 Thanks. I am a professional Psychic who has been doing readings for 29 years. In that time you can quickly spot where the emotional energy is going to and where it is coming from. As a parent, you do the best you can and hope for the best. I was out of the house at 17, that is why I know an 18 year old can be an adult. Best of luck.

Mon, 09/13/2010 - 12:38am Permalink
Enabler (not verified)

In reply to by Medicinal Mike (not verified)

Actually, if the parent ignores this DRUG problem of the TEEN (not over 21 year old), then the parent is guilty of enabling the teen to do drugs. In other words, according to the therapist, the parent is an enabler if the parent says nothing and just says "I love you." The parent does not know if the teen is doing hard drugs because there was no drug testing that took place. So the parent cannot say that what the teen is doing is safe.  The teen could have been caught doing other drugs by the police or other people. All the parent can do is kick the teen out of the house for a rude awakening. I know parents who ignored the alcohol problem of their teen and just said, "We love you, son." The teen grew up to be an alcoholic and smoker his entire life because he thought it was okay. When he finally sobered up, it was too late, he died at 45 years of age.

Fri, 09/10/2010 - 12:38am Permalink
Medicinal Mike (not verified)

In reply to by Enabler (not verified)

In the time I have been in the program, I have heard many things, but blaming the parents keeps coming up. Another person here said something about personal responsibility. What we need to do is teach our children the truth about drugs - all drugs - including coffee, boose, cigs, processed corn sugar,food colouring,salt and white sugar... the list is long. If kids have real knowledge, they could make a better choice (you hope). Not every kid is going to try drugs, but most do. It is that rebel thing going on I guess. My kid is smart and she knows what she needs to know at her age. That is a good thing. I am much more worried about boys sniffing around her, but that is a whole other issue... 

Mon, 09/13/2010 - 12:57am Permalink
primus (not verified)

In reply to by Parentof4 (not verified)

There is a problem in your household and it is YOU.  You have never learned any facts about cannabis and have bought into the lies of the prohibitionists.  You fight your son for consuming cannabis, yet this activity is far less harmful than others which you no doubt would be OK with, such as drinking the drug alcohol.  You can only have influence over your children by maintaining lines of communication.  Your approach of avoiding the truth, flushing his supply and destroying his tools of use is guaranteed to lead to NO communication with him.  If instead, you researched the truth and avoided the black and white thinking which is the hallmark of prohibition, (and, incidentally the thinking pattern of adult children of alcoholics) and discussed with him how he can consume cannabis so that it does not have a negative effect on your other child with allergies, such as consuming outside the home, and being tolerant of his activities, knowing them to be basically harmless, you will again have communication with him.  Your inability to be flexible on this subject is incomprehensible ( a long word that means lacking any logic) and the real cause of damage in your home.  Your son's exploitation of the system is not his fault, but the fault of the system.  If you want to fix things, try fixing the system instead of your son.  It is likely that when Prop 19 passes, many cannabis dispensaries will go broke, because adults will be able to access cannabis legally, therefore not going through the expense and trouble of obtaining medipot.  This will make it more, not less difficult to get a medical pot card and a medical pot supply for your child.  Vote yes on Prop 19.  Do it for the children. 

Fri, 09/10/2010 - 11:59am Permalink
whitefox (not verified)

In reply to by Parentof4 (not verified)

I think you may be over-reacting a little.

The same thing happened with me and my dad.  Trust me.. the more strict you are.  The harder you are on him.  The more he will hate you, and it will not affect one IOTA of how much he smokes.  Do yourself a favor.  Accept the fact that your son enjoys smoking marijuana, and work on your relationship.  Otherwise, YOU, not HIM, will tear the family apart.  Remember, siblings stick together.

Fri, 09/10/2010 - 12:27pm Permalink
Nan (not verified)

In reply to by Parentof4 (not verified)

To "Wait": I'm with you 100%, and can empathize with your situation.  I wonder how many of the pothead advocates have children. While I believe drug users should be in rehab and not prison, I see more efforts to legalize (give them what they want mentality) and less effort toward education and rehabilitation. Something else I have learned in my lifetime, advocates for pot are ALWAYS users themselves (or former users), and they all bray the same arguments. My response is always the same: keep your stinky, foul smelling weed breath and odor away from me and my family, as well as your dullard sensibilities and lack of meaningful work ethics.

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 1:45pm Permalink
borden (not verified)

In reply to by Nan (not verified)

But what does calling everyone who advocates marijuana reform a pot user -- which is not a pejorative to us, but is to you, and is unwarranted stereotyping -- say about you?


Tue, 09/21/2010 - 7:00pm Permalink
Nan (not verified)

In reply to by borden (not verified)

As I stated in my original comment, "Something else I have learned in my lifetime" indicates that my observations are based upon my personal observations and experiences. This is not necessarily a sweeping "stereotype" but is a true statement of actual encounters with potheads. May I also point out that I did not disparage pot smokers or pot advocates by calling them "stupid." 

Although I do not agree with their lifestyle or use of this drug, I do not wish to see pot smokers imprisoned because this is not an effective cure for addiction. Decriminalization--yes; legalization--no.

I realize that this organization is likely your "bread and butter," but seriously, why have a blog and allow comments if you are going to engage in name calling when someone expresses a viewpoint that differs from your own?

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 11:39am Permalink
borden (not verified)

In reply to by Nan (not verified)

You still don't seem to realize that you are doing name calling. "Pothead pothead pothead." That's a not too far off paraphrase of a good portion of your remarks here! And you still haven't acknowledged my proof that your stereotyping is wrong. I therefore repeat my recommendation that you look in a mirror. But glad you're at least for decrim.
Thu, 09/23/2010 - 1:54am Permalink
freedomfighter8888 (not verified)

In reply to by Parentof4 (not verified)

JUst SAY NO LIKE NANCY SAID Get a life . Your kids on dope aren't the problem it is you.

Thu, 09/23/2010 - 6:45pm Permalink
qwery123plmqaz (not verified)

you sound like the typical bad parent who drives their kids to use drugs.  you seem to be anxious for your kids to be 21 so you don't have to deal with them anymore.  I bet you think having a glass of wine is ok but smoking a plant is a sin.  people like you are the problem.  stop blaming your problems on a PLANT.

Sun, 09/05/2010 - 3:17am Permalink
Anonymous23542542 (not verified)

In reply to by qwery123plmqaz (not verified)

qwery123plmqaz wrote "you sound like the typical bad parent who drives their kids to use drugs.  you seem to be anxious for your kids to be 21 so you don't have to deal with them anymore.  I bet you think having a glass of wine is ok but smoking a plant is a sin."

The above are typical signs of paranoia.

Paranoia- a disease-like state, characterized mainly with abnormal suspiciousness and crazy ideas.

Sun, 09/05/2010 - 6:55am Permalink
Lev (not verified)

In reply to by Anonymous23542542 (not verified)

Give me a break buddy - you're just totally REEEEACHING here to make an allusion to paranoia - and it doesn't work for me.

That is far from what I'd consider to be a sign of paranoia. To begin with, you should first note that he said "you seem to be" and "I bet you" - both words which would indicate that they were merely speculating and not automatically assuming what they thought was reality (which is what paranoia is all about). Paranoia involves some degree of conviction with ones senses, but what this individual did was simply made an assertion.

Or are you trying to insinuate that speculation is paranoia? Or how about me here asking you questions?

Like I said - you're just reaching. He didn't sound paranoid; he sounded like he was speculating about a possibility; not being utterly convinced in some warped view of reality. Speculation - simple as that.

If you want to preach to us all, you better have more to back it up with than a few vague concepts framed in a way that suits whatever it is you may believe.

So cool it with the know-it-all-ism; we don't care, and you aren't always right.

Sun, 09/05/2010 - 12:56pm Permalink
Annapurna1 (not verified)

the reason being that the political environment of the 2010 midterms is simply too far on the right...voters who would otherwise vote "yes" may also be concerned that the radical repugnican congress will cut off state funds if CA legalizes a small but significant consolation.. SB1449..which decriminalizes possession of small amounts of marijuana..has passed the state legislature...

Sun, 09/05/2010 - 3:01pm Permalink
Giordano (not verified)

In reply to by Annapurna1 (not verified)

I think any cut in federal funding to states during the worst recession since the Great Depression would further negate the federal stimulus funding needed to keep the economy afloat.  Existing stimulus funding is already thought by some economists to be too little too late.  Short answer:  it would be political suicide for any politician to cut funding if Prop 19 passes; other than state, county and municipal law enforcement funding that’s wasted on marijuana prohibition.  The enforcement money that's saved can be diverted to fixing problems where it’s really needed in California. 

Sun, 09/05/2010 - 3:50pm Permalink
Julian (not verified)

In reply to by Annapurna1 (not verified)

Maybe you have not noticed that the old GOP is not the new GOP. In the last few years it has been a turn over from primarily religious radicalism in the GOP to more Civil Libertarian views. Not one Republican voted against lowering the penalty for crack, in the house or the senate. Not a single one stood up and said "I Cannot Allow This SOFT ON DRUGS Bill To Pass!" They agreed that it needs to be changed because they don't want to upset their new followers. The GOP is attempting to collect young voters, which means they are shifting their views again. The "Christian Right" is dying off and is slowly being replaced by Civil Libertarians. November in California is a test. Do you doubt that most every politician is watching prop. 19 like a hawk? If, as the polls suggest, this causes a larger 18-30yr turn out in support of it then the presidential election did, every politician that wants to be elected president in 2 years is going to wonder "if that many new voters turned out to support just this one topic, how many will turn out to vote for me if I promise to support that topic? Could this give me the surge votes I need to be President?" The fact that no one in the federal government who has any credibility has openly condemned this says it all in itself. I mean even the crazies in the republican party support this: Glen Beck & Sarah Palin being the most notable.  Politicians want to be on the winning team. Not the Ethically right team. Not the humanitarian team. Not the greatest good for the greatest number team. They want to be on the team that wins, and that is the team that sells out to the voters and promises to give them what they want. Their only job is to make you say "Hey, I like that guy! Let's elect him."


This is politics. People would stab their own mother in the throat after accusing her of being a spy if they thought it would get them the votes they needed. This is America, This is how we do politics.

Mon, 09/06/2010 - 3:13pm Permalink
Moonrider (not verified)

In reply to by Giordano (not verified)

What little of our economy has remained afloat is in spite of rather than because of the "stimulus".  Anyone who thinks differently knows too little of economics to be thought of as an economist, including that ill educated jerk, Krugman.  And the States must get off the federal money teat if our union is to remain a viable union of sovereign states.  

The federal government really had, HAS NO Constitutional authority to criminalize the use of any substance, it has accomplished this atrocity by bribing the states with their own citizens money, and the state governments fell for it hook, line and sinker.  Note that government, at all levels, takes 2/3 of the union's taxpayers' money, leaving so little for families to provide for themselves; this MUST stop and the only way it will is for the States to take back their power and protect their citizens from federal taxation.  

The federal government is supposed to function on the funds from sources outlined in the Constitution (tariffs, etc.).  If it were put back in the chains of the Constitution, it would not need the income tax, nor all the borrowing nor the confiscation of citizens' property, and the People would be much more free.  

It really is easier to control the government closest to the people, local and State, which is why the Founders intended that the federal government remain small and limited in its powers, and with the People having the greatest power.  This is also why the 9th and 10 Amendments were phrased so clearly, so as to reiterate the limitation of federal power written into the enumerated powers of the federal government.

California (and every other State) needs to tell the federal government to back off, via the 10th Amendment, and demand the return of ALL the citizens' tax monies sent to the federal government.

Mon, 09/06/2010 - 5:49am Permalink
KIng Pothead (not verified)

In reply to by Moonrider (not verified)

And which college did you go to for your economics degree?  Bumphuk Community College?  I "think differently" and  think I'll trust my knowledge of economics and that of "that ill educated jerk" Krugman over the braindead Libertarian nonsense you tea bag idiots spew.

Things would have been much, much worse without the stimulus spending.  Without it, we would have seen much higher unemployment.  The only problem I had with stimulus spending is THEY DIDN'T SPEND NEARLY ENOUGH.  Paul Krugman is one of the wisest economists this nation has and he and many others believe the stimulus package should have been at least twice what it was.  Some say three times more.  Unfortunately, Obama & Co. are a bunch of nutless wonders who naively believed they could work with republitards.  So while the stimulus did save jobs and help us avoid even harder times, it didn't contain enough money for new job creation.

And to top it off, I see you are an expert on the constitution (rolling eyes).  I know you rigid black and white thinking types would like to abide by the constitution the same way you do the old testament, but that is not practical.  Why is it you people can't realize the constitution is 230 years old and needs to be brought up to speed with modern society?  It would be distastrous to try to run the country in the way you choose.  But it's pointless to try to talk to paranoid, anti-government nutjobs.

For future reference, just remember this forum is supposed to be for drug related issues.  Not for insane tea-baggers to attempt to discredit one of the best economists  this nation has or go on looney anti-government rants.

Thu, 09/09/2010 - 7:49pm Permalink
Medicinal Mike (not verified)

In reply to by Annapurna1 (not verified)

You seem to forget the huge amount of anger out there towards the Federal Government (especially the DEA) and many people who would normally not vote, will, just to send a big F- U to the feds and to reassert states rights vs. fed rights. Free Marc Emery while you are at it please.

Wed, 09/08/2010 - 2:33pm Permalink
stigmatized (not verified)

Cali is begging the govt for a huge bailout, they need this just like my state Mich does. If your kids aren't smoking pot they are drinking, some will do both no matter what. Facts are in, pot doesn't kill. Everything else does. It's time to step into the future and decriminalize altogether.

Sun, 09/05/2010 - 9:03pm Permalink
Pissed off at … (not verified)

In reply to by stigmatized (not verified)

Looking to drugs to cure the state problems is so stupid.  If the government could control their spending in the first place we would not have this problem.  There will not be the kind of tax windfall that everyone thinks.  If people grow indoors how will you tax.  Are they going to perform raids on homes?  This is a result of reckless spending and greed.  Things need to fail before they can be corrected. 

Mon, 09/06/2010 - 12:42am Permalink
McD (not verified)

In reply to by stigmatized (not verified)

"It's time to step into the future and decriminalize altogether."

Well, yes and no: you're thinking of legalisation, not decriminilisation; decriminilisation won't do any good, because it does nothing to change the need to use illegal supplies and suppliers.

Decriminilisation works out as a sort of half-arsed, half-backed stop gap, which was really only necessary for countries years ahead of their time, like the Netherlands and Portugal. Now that we're (more or less) all on the same page, we can get on with making things better, moving straight up to a level where genuine harm reduction may be achieved.

Tue, 09/14/2010 - 11:08am Permalink
Mat delfave (not verified)

... and start dealing with substance abuse problems as the Medical problems they really are. Whether it's alcohol, nicotine, pot, or even sex, not everyone becomes an addict. And the few that do shouldn't become the "lowest common denominator" that drives our laws, freedoms, economy, and our public policy.

Mon, 09/06/2010 - 6:01pm Permalink
TaxMan1000 (not verified)

If Prop 19 passes, tax the stoners, potheads, junkies, pot users/sellers.
1.$1000 fee per year per square foot for permit to cultivate pot up to 25 square feet.
2.$2000 fee per year per square foot for permit to sell pot in the stores or shops.
3. If permit was not obtained, criminal will pay for the fee owed plus 25% late fee per year plus add 50% as penalty per year.
4. Sales tax for pot is 30%.
5. Pot accessories will be taxed at 30%.
6. Those who grow more than 25 sq ft will pay stiff penalties of $10,000 per additional sq foot that is out of compliance. Pot out of compliance will be destroyed.
7. Driving under the influence of pot will be $5,000 per incident.
8. Accidents and damages caused by use of pot will have a $30,000 penalty per incident in addition to paying for the damages to humans and objects/structures.
9. Death due to use of pot will allow the criminal to go to prison for life in addition to $500,000 in penalty.
10. Reeking smell of marijuana in public places will incur a $1000 penalty per incident.
11. etc.

Wed, 09/08/2010 - 1:46am Permalink
Jeff Brown (not verified)

Marijuana has been used for thousands of years in many cultures for its many beneficial uses. Food, shelter. clothing, energy, medicine, paper etc. etc. Popular Mechanics called it a Billion dollar crop in 1938 because of its many uses. The Presidents own Commission of Marijuana in 1972 recommended that adults be able to use this plant without any penalty.  The DEA's own law judge called it one of the safest medicines known to man in Marijuana Rescheduling Petition (1988) Its time to end this insanity of persecuting those who would use this plant for whatever. What happened to freedom in supposedly the freest country on earth? one love

Thu, 09/09/2010 - 7:12pm Permalink
Biff Clinton (not verified)

The Prison and Pharmaceutical and Alcohol Empires are getting nervous about Prop 19. And don't forget the Mexican Drug Cartels that have bought off the Federal Government.

I say tell them all to take a hike and vote for Prop 19. The future is now. The past is a failure.

"The War on Drugs including Marijuana Prohibition is the most destructive and dysfunctional social policy in America since Slavery"

Fri, 09/10/2010 - 2:13am Permalink
maxwood (not verified)

The anxious Parentof4 (Sep. 4) wrote:

"Whenever I see his drugs, they are flushed down the toiled (sic).  The paraphernalia are hammered to pieces and thrown away.  I feel like the DEA of the house."

What the DEA and parents like this are doing is supporting the #1 genocidal drug conspiracy by training all children interested in smoking-- or cannabis-- to avoid Harm Reduction Utensils (you will get caught!) and stick to easy-to-hide, easy-to-dispose-of $igarette rolling papers-- the time-honored ($trillions of advertising over the decades) secret sacred $igarette way of hot-burning overdose smoking, with heat shock, carbon monoxide and combustion toxins (just add tobacco, or breathe some tobacco fumes while smoking the joint, etc.) so that every year in the USA alone some 900,000 more youngsters are recruited into chronic long-term addiction, creating the financial power base of predatory corporations which support politicians-- especially Republicans-- like "crack down on pot" Giuliani (see 2008 Presidential campaign contribution statistics).

Code language: PARA     PHERN    ALIA

                     paranoia    infernal     alien

Get it?  That is "their" word for a vaporizer, a single-toke one-hitter-- anything which does not promote life-shortening $igarette addiction which pays $30-bn. "taxe$" to politicians and bureaucrats in the USA alone.  (Pakistan gets 10% of all government tax revenue from $igarettes, Russia 8%, etc.)

Fri, 09/10/2010 - 6:23pm Permalink
Bongstar420 (not verified)

I find it odd that people seem to think that chronological age is what determines an individuals competency and responsibility with something that is perceived, whether warranted or not, to be a dangerous thing. You can do something that is thought to be dangerous as long as your old enough.....Pffttt. Reality check. I have met a lot of "adults" that are barely competent enough to operate a motor vehicle, drink alcoholic beverages, or take the prescription meds a doctor has given them "permission" to have. Why can't we have a simple proof of competency testing regime that is available to anyone who wishes to apply for a license? As long as an individual can prove that they are competent and responsible, why should they be barred from having something? Make black markets untenable by distributing superior products to all responsible and competent individuals. Irresponsible and incompetent people will be unable to generate resources sufficient enough to support the risk of operating in a black market.

Sat, 09/11/2010 - 6:56pm Permalink
Daniel Palos (not verified)

Is personal responsibility only ok when it comes to income transfers (of money), as is claimed by those who advocate reducing social spending due to its perceived effect on personal responsibility instead of eliminating public policies which have never worked, in the history of our republic (i.e. Prohibition), and have only served to deny and disparage individual liberty and the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States.

Why not create a recreational drug category, and insist on personal responsibility from those persons who are most likely to consume those products? 

If there is no need for insisting on personal responsibility concerning legal drug use, why should we confide in the sincerity of anyone who insists on personal responsibility concerning reducing spending of money and income transfers for social welfare programs?  It could even be viewed as a form of fiscal irresponsibility to Prohibit that form of Commerce since the historical precedent of that era, by repeating that historical mistake in modern times; instead of insisting on personal responsibility and simply Regulating commerce.

It seems, to me, that we could be lowering our tax burden and our deficits (or, at least not need to reduce social spending that provides for the general welfare) by regulating Commerce, and insisting on personal responsibility.  Conversely, if we really don't need to lower our tax burden or our deficits, because we have "plenty" of money being generated through Commerce; why any clamor to reduce social spending (of money) that can provide for the general welfare and generate revenue from general forms of taxation instead of more direct forms of taxation?

Sun, 09/12/2010 - 2:38am Permalink
iko iko (not verified)

It seems to me that those who do not want marijuana legalized for those over 21 fall into two groups.  The first being the religious right who grew up believing the lies that the anti-drug coalition has been pushing down the throats of America for years, and the second being the alcohol, tobacco and of course the pharmacy corporations.  The biggest reason for marijuana being illegal is that it is a weed and can grow almost everywhere.  Corporations can't control the growth of it so that can't control the market.  They can't make massive profits off of it so they push alcohol and pills on America.  How many families have their children on anti-depressants and other pharmaceutical drugs.  It seems strange to me that the American Medical Association states that marijuana has no medical use, but they manufacture and sell marinol a synthetic marijuana pill.

If only America would wake up and see that if marijuana was legalized for those over 21 the small farmer could make a living wage, the rural communities would have increased taxes from the sale of the crops, and of most importance the drug gangs that push harder drugs as well as marijuana would see a cut in their revenue.

Wed, 09/15/2010 - 1:56pm Permalink

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.