Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Polls show Support for Prop 19 Waning
Christian Science Monitor ^ | 10/30/2010 | SoCal SoCon

Posted on 10/30/2010 10:17:43 AM PDT by SoCal SoCon

In the latest news from my home state, aka La-La Land of the Loony Left, last week's polls showed that the initially high support for Prop 19, which would legalize recreational marijuana, have dropped below 50% .

(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: cainitiatives; commerceclause; moralabsolutes; prop19; tenthamendment; wickard
See also (http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/Legalizing-marijuana-in-California-would-not-substantially-cut-cartel-revenues--study-finds-76326-1/),
1 posted on 10/30/2010 10:17:45 AM PDT by SoCal SoCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SoCal SoCon

Proponents of Prop 19 claim:
- “Legalization would keep pot away from children. Drug dealers don’t check ID”. Have they ever been to a party of college students? Legalizing alcohol did NOT keep it out of the hands of minors
- “Legalization will make the Mexican drug cartels and the violence they bring go away”. While it would reduce their profits somewhat gangsters will not stop being gangsters unless they have a better alternative. People turn to crime when it pays better than honest work. Mexico’s problem is poverty and lack of education, not drugs. And if the progressives want to eradicate the drug cartels, why don’t they just stop buying weed from them? It’s not like medical marijuana is illegal anymore. It takes both supply and demand to tango.
- “Legalization will raise tax revenue for the state”. Not if the aforementioned illegal drug dealers can sell weed at a lower price than legal dealers.
- “Legalization will increase respect for law enforcement”. Do you respect a police officer only if s/he doesn’t enforce the laws that would inconvenience you? Only the liberals! Since Schwarzenegger signed a reform bill decreasing the penalty for possessing weed from jail to a $100 fine, marijuana users no longer have to worry about going to prison anyway.
- “Legalization will not affect current safety laws regulating DUI”. While Prop 19 does prohibit smoking while driving, it fails to prohibit smoking before driving or to set a standard of what is considered intoxicated. The proponents don’t want marijuana to be treated like alcohol; they want to have MORE rights than alcohol users.
- “If there is something wrong with smoking marijuana, that’s something that needs to be taught, not legislated”. On paper, this sounds reasonable. The problem is that immediately after saying this, they turn around and try to prohibit programs like DARE that aim to do just that: teach kids about the dangers of various drugs.
- “Marijuana helps us to see what is wrong with the Establishment”. I actually saw this quote in an anarchist publication. If you have to use a psychoactive drug to see what is wrong with the Establishment, maybe the Establishment isn’t so bad after all. Suggest that to a liberal pothead and watch their heads explode.
The biggest change under Prop 19 would be the state’s open endorsement of the marijuana lifestyle. Drug use has never led to a freer nation. Look at nineteenth-century China or Aldous Huxley’s dystopia Brave New World where soma is used by a totalitarian government to keep the citizens docile and complacent. As frightening as George Orwell’s 1984 is, Brave New World is more frightening still, not just because the citizens are accomplices in their own oppression, but because it is coming to a state near you.


2 posted on 10/30/2010 10:21:24 AM PDT by SoCal SoCon (Brave New World is approaching at light speed! Wake up America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCal SoCon

I’ve been reading where employers WILL NOT be able to deny employment or fire dopers who show up to work testing postive for marijuana.

There is not one single reason why California should pass this bill.


3 posted on 10/30/2010 10:21:31 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (Yes, as a matter of fact, what you do in your bedroom IS my business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCal SoCon

Why does the left hate cigarette smokers and love maggot infested matted hair pot smokers?
Because maggot infested matted hair pot smokers don’t work and are living off our taxes.


4 posted on 10/30/2010 10:23:41 AM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (Annoying liberals is my goal. I will not be silenced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoCal SoCon
What's the status on 23?
5 posted on 10/30/2010 10:23:57 AM PDT by JPG (Sarah Palin says: "Buck-up or get out of the truck.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoCal SoCon

So pot proponents started out with a high and are now coming down from it? Bummer, dude.


6 posted on 10/30/2010 10:28:49 AM PDT by OrangeHoof (Washington, we Texans want a divorce!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JPG

So far 48% opposed, 32% in favor, and 19% undecided.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/10/25/2131069/poll-voters-back-prop-25-undecided.html
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2010/10/25/poll-proposition-23-is-losing-support/


7 posted on 10/30/2010 10:34:01 AM PDT by SoCal SoCon (Brave New World is approaching at light speed! Wake up America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SoCal SoCon
Suppose CA voters pass Prop 19. Would you support CA's prerogative under the Tenth Amendment to carry out such a program? Or, would you support fedgov shutting it down under the Commerce Clause?
8 posted on 10/30/2010 10:34:54 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCal SoCon

Well C-span quickly went to a another shot as SMOKE came billowing from the crowd. Now we know it ISN’T the evile cigs.

Why you mean the participants in this pathetic joke of a rally are smoking MariJane, yeah dude. We know the FEDS aren’t REALLY interested in the POTHEADS.


9 posted on 10/30/2010 10:36:46 AM PDT by Marty62 (marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

I’d love to see what happens when linemen start using pot. Up in the sky, strapped onto an 80 foot pole smoking a joint. Who is liable when you begin the fall to go splat on that hard ground?

Glad I’m retired!


10 posted on 10/30/2010 10:41:36 AM PDT by B4Ranch (Conflict is inevitable; Combat is an option. Train for the fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SoCal SoCon

So much for the notion that dopers will carry Brown and Boxer to victory. Apparently they don’t even know there is an election.

On to the next ‘concern’.


11 posted on 10/30/2010 11:00:48 AM PDT by telebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCal SoCon

“Legalization will increase respect for law enforcement”

ROFLMAO ... yeah, because drug addict are ALWAYS so attentive to obeying the laws.

Arguments so dumb only a pothead would buy them.


12 posted on 10/30/2010 11:01:39 AM PDT by WOSG (OPERATION RESTORE AMERICAN FREEDOM - NOVEMBER, 2010 - DO YOUR PART!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoCal SoCon
Surprisingly, some of the California potheads have figured out that Prop 19 is designed to tax, and tax heavily, ALL CA potheads, medical or otherwise.

Prop 19 completely legalize possession, but would prevent ALL private growing and require the possessor to prove they purchased from a legal grower (and thus paid the tax) on the spot.

Growing your own or not carrying the tax stamp would result in even stiffer criminal penalties than current law.

City of Stockton measure I is designed to get Stockton in on the ground floor of this brilliant "Tax the Dopers" scheme.

13 posted on 10/30/2010 11:02:01 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Darn, no match, well I’ll just light my joint with the 4150.......


14 posted on 10/30/2010 11:04:24 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

The silence by the Drug Warrior crowd regarding the 10th Amendment and Commerce Clause issues surrounding Prop. 19 is deafening.


15 posted on 10/30/2010 11:07:28 AM PDT by bassmaner (Hey commies: I am a white male, and I am guilty of NOTHING! Sell your 'white guilt' elsewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
Prop 19 completely legalize possession, but would prevent ALL private growing and require the possessor to prove they purchased from a legal grower (and thus paid the tax) on the spot.

I believe you are misinformed. Taxation would be left up to local governments if they choose to license sales, and it would be legal to grow your own on a 5'x5' area on your property.

What is the source for your claims?

16 posted on 10/30/2010 11:18:39 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner
Yep. Contempt for the Constitution is a hallmark of that crowd.
17 posted on 10/30/2010 11:30:23 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SoCal SoCon
I bet it's still very popular amongst San Francisco Giants fans:


18 posted on 10/30/2010 11:35:05 AM PDT by dfwgator (Texas Rangers - Oh well it was a nice season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
What is the source for your claims?

The fine print in Prop 19, and a very interesting discussion on "Cannabis Nation", on KOFY TV 20 (hippie TV) a rabidly pro pot TV program.

A young woman spoke very articulately on the legal wording of the proposition and how California courts have already ruled on similar wording in other law.

This gal was no glassy eyed pothead, and pointed out how 19 could be applied by a judge that wanted to collect money for the state. We got any of those around?

19 posted on 10/30/2010 11:40:16 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:

-snip-

(ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property.

-end excerpt-

______________________________________

You said Prop 19 "would prevent ALL private growing and require the possessor to prove they purchased from a legal grower (and thus paid the tax) on the spot." The above excerpt seems to contradict your assertion. Can you copy and paste the "fine print" that you say backs your claim?

20 posted on 10/30/2010 12:00:46 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

In a word, yes. When the people of CA vote on an issue, that is supposed to be the final word on the matter (unless a judge deems the proposition to be unconstitutional).

If worst comes to worst, and ONLY if worst comes to worst, there are other ways of dealing with the weed problem. For instance, I could decide I have way too much salt lying around the house. Don’t want to worry about high blood pressure if you know what I mean. Just a thought.


21 posted on 10/30/2010 12:17:59 PM PDT by SoCal SoCon (Brave New World is approaching at light speed! Wake up America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SoCal SoCon
Fair enough.
22 posted on 10/30/2010 12:26:01 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Prop 19 commercializes pot and does not forbid a tax. A judge could rule that the private grows are not immune to tax thus making them legal taxed commercial growers who pay the tax.

I should have specified: all private growing without paying the tax, which is what the home-growers thought they were getting.

23 posted on 10/30/2010 12:28:36 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
Prop 19 commercializes pot and does not forbid a tax. A judge could rule that the private grows are not immune to tax thus making them legal taxed commercial growers who pay the tax.

So your claim is based not on what IS written in Prop 19, but rather on 1) what is NOT written in Prop 19 and 2) how some judge might rule in the future?

I should have specified: all private growing without paying the tax, which is what the home-growers thought they were getting.

What tax? The only taxing authority is given to local governments on authorized commercial growers and sellers. Home growers would run afoul of State law if they tried to sell their product, so your argument makes no sense.

Again, could you copy and paste the "fine print" in Prop 19 that you had in mind in your earlier post?

24 posted on 10/30/2010 12:59:24 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

They’d also face similar regulation as tobacco growers. Somehow I don’t think the grow-ops have thought this through.


25 posted on 10/30/2010 1:03:54 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Support COD - "Cash on Delivery" for DE Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
OK, here you go

7. Ensure, if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9 of the Health and Safety Code.

8. Ensure, if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9 of the Health and Safety Code.

9. Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, health care, schools, libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more.

I'm sure you're right, no lawyer would take advantage of this wording to tax individual growers and judges are always on the side of home pot growers.

26 posted on 10/30/2010 1:22:32 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SoCal SoCon

Arizona has a Prop 203 allowing medical use of marijuana. Anybody know how that’s trending?


27 posted on 10/30/2010 1:36:57 PM PDT by Oatka ("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." –Bertrand de Jouvenel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCal SoCon

I guess the supporters are too stoned to respond to polls.


28 posted on 10/30/2010 1:43:13 PM PDT by Cymbaline ("Allahu Akbar": Arabic for "Nothing To See Here" - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

California and the U.S. are bankrupt. Where do you plan to get the money to enforce your nanny-state crusade? Are you also an anti-tobacco nanny-stater? The two usually go together.


29 posted on 10/30/2010 1:47:03 PM PDT by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner
The silence by the Drug Warrior crowd regarding the 10th Amendment and Commerce Clause issues surrounding Prop. 19 is deafening.

The pro-nanny state drug warriors don't care about such details. Like nanny staters on the left, only the end goal (stamping on personal liberty on a particular issue) matters to them.

30 posted on 10/30/2010 1:49:08 PM PDT by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Of course the rationale being that increased revenues for the state is one that those interested in liberty would make.

It seems to me that the market for pot is quite robust despite government intervention to the contrary. So what exactly is the threat to liberty?


31 posted on 10/30/2010 2:53:54 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Support COD - "Cash on Delivery" for DE Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

I’m a “nanny-stater” because I don’t like the idea of companies being forced to employ stoners?

Are you high right now? Seriously?


32 posted on 10/30/2010 4:04:34 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (Yes, as a matter of fact, what you do in your bedroom IS my business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
I’m a “nanny-stater” because I don’t like the idea of companies being forced to employ stoners?

Where does Prop 19 state this? Put up or shut up.

33 posted on 10/30/2010 4:08:21 PM PDT by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Of course the rationale being that increased revenues for the state is one that those interested in liberty would make.

I never made any such "rationale." I'm for tax cuts anywhere and everywhere but I'm also against prohibition. According to your theory we should bring back alcohol prohibition since its repeal resulted in tax increases. Is this what are you saying? Free back the speak easies and Al Capone eh?

34 posted on 10/30/2010 4:11:18 PM PDT by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Of course the rationale being that increased revenues for the state is one that those interested in liberty would make.

I never made any such "rationale." I'm for tax cuts anywhere and everywhere but I'm also against prohibition. According to your theory we should bring back alcohol prohibition since its repeal resulted in tax increases. Is this what are you saying? Bring back the speak easies and Al Capone eh?

35 posted on 10/30/2010 4:12:09 PM PDT by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Oh....the market for illegal liquor was also quite “robust” in the days of Al Capone. Is that your model?


36 posted on 10/30/2010 4:13:39 PM PDT by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Normally I ignore trolls like you.

Look - it took me less than one minute to google it.

Do you own research.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1148&bih=721&q=prop.+19+employers&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CbdxRy6PMTMf8EYeazAT1qsX0DwAAAKoEBU_QF-B9


37 posted on 10/30/2010 4:14:47 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (Yes, as a matter of fact, what you do in your bedroom IS my business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Do you own research.

Evasion. Your "links" don't show that the law requires employers are required to hire "stoners." Man up and admit your lied or quote specific language in Prop 19 to back up your case.

38 posted on 10/30/2010 4:22:49 PM PDT by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SoCal SoCon

I may have spoken too soon. Now polls are looking uncertain, it could go either way... All that’s certain as of this moment is that it’s going to be a close call.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_localsfo/20101025/ts_yblog_localsfo/prop-19-could-flicker-out
http://blog.mpp.org/tax-and-regulate/latest-prop-19-poll-shows-52-percent-support/09302010/


39 posted on 10/30/2010 4:36:05 PM PDT by SoCal SoCon (Brave New World is approaching at light speed! Wake up America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

“I’m for tax cuts anywhere and everywhere but I’m also against prohibition.”

Unlike most of the garbage enacted these days, it was a constitutional amendment, which passed. Same as many of the other constitutional amendments. Prohibition has a much higher profile than most of the stuff that we have today.

“According to your theory we should bring back alcohol prohibition since its repeal resulted in tax increases. Is this what are you saying? Free back the speak easies and Al Capone eh?”

Never said anything of the sort. The argument that you are not free unless the government is selling you dope is a bad one. The government has no obligation to regulate the buying or selling of any substance, but it is within their constitutionally governed authority to do so.

As already stated, the penalties for having dope on you is a hundred dollar fine. I don’t see that as a particularly strong deterrent. The argument in favour of this proposition, which is merely a tax grab, seems rather dim.

But then it doesn’t matter, so long as you get yours you are happy to feed the beast.


40 posted on 10/30/2010 5:50:42 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Support COD - "Cash on Delivery" for DE Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Actually they do.

Feed the beast! Make bigger government. Expand tax revenues and tax bases.


41 posted on 10/30/2010 5:52:14 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Support COD - "Cash on Delivery" for DE Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
unless the government is selling you dope is a bad one.

Okay, please quote the section of the law that says "government" will sell it.

Second, could you answer a question: if you were California voter would you favor a proposition to legalize marijuana as long as it does not result in any tax increase? If you answer is no, your taxation argument is nothing more than sophistry and a diversionary tactic from your real agenda: prohibition and restriction on individual liberty.

42 posted on 10/31/2010 7:09:03 PM PDT by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Feed the beast! Make bigger government. Expand tax revenues and tax bases.

Nice purple prose. Does this mean as long as there is no tax increase, you would favor marijuana legalization? Yes or no. If no, please explain your reason.

43 posted on 10/31/2010 7:11:02 PM PDT by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

You already have that, I don’t see why the proposition is at all necessary. Unless the goal is greater state revenues.


44 posted on 10/31/2010 9:11:32 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Support COD - "Cash on Delivery" for DE Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Duh, that’s what this is all about. There will be government dope stores to regulate the distribution too.

Guaranteed.

Oh, and grow ops are still going to be busted for cutting into the government monopoly.


45 posted on 10/31/2010 9:13:02 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Support COD - "Cash on Delivery" for DE Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SoCal SoCon

Didn’t Soros pour a lot of money in supporting Prop. 19? If so, what does this say about Soros?


46 posted on 10/31/2010 9:18:39 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Let me repeat my question (why can’t you answer): do you favor legalization of marijuana if no tax increases are involed? Man up and answer!!!!


47 posted on 11/02/2010 10:39:18 AM PDT by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Addendum: My question is entirely separate from whether Prop 19 is a good thing or not. By legalization, of course, I mean legalization of both the sale and use (including of more than once). Awaiting your clear, non-evasive, and concise answer to the question.


48 posted on 11/02/2010 10:42:27 AM PDT by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Alright, rather then adopt your terms, I’ll address the actual poliicies.

What does ‘legalization’ mean?

With alcohol, it means the government control, sale and taxation of the good by the government. I don’t support legalization.

There’s no way you can separate the two. Government control goes hand in hand with legalization.

I also don’t support decriminalization. I think the policy of fining users and enforcing the laws is a good thing for the state, and it seems most CA voters agree with me here. Constitutionally, it is within their rights as states to decide how or whether marijuana will be sold at all.


49 posted on 11/02/2010 10:55:29 AM PDT by BenKenobi (Support COD - "Cash on Delivery" for DE Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson