Skip to comments.Polls show Support for Prop 19 Waning
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
So pot proponents started out with a high and are now coming down from it? Bummer, dude.
So far 48% opposed, 32% in favor, and 19% undecided.
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.
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!
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’.
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.
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.
Darn, no match, well I’ll just light my joint with the 4150.......
The silence by the Drug Warrior crowd regarding the 10th Amendment and Commerce Clause issues surrounding Prop. 19 is deafening.
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?
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?
(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:
(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.
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?