Skip to comments.SurveyUSA: In CA on Election Eve, Women Solidify Opposition to Prop 19; ("No" leading 46%-44%)
Posted on 11/01/2010 10:09:33 PM PDT by Ken H
In CA on Election Eve, Women Solidify Opposition to Prop 19; Even the Greater San Francisco Bay Area No Longer Supports Legal Marijuana
SurveyUSA Breaking News - 8 hours ago [about 5pm edt]
On Election Eve, California remains divided on Proposition 19, with women opposing the measure now more than at any point during the campaign and support in the greater San Francisco Bay Area no greater than opposition, according to SurveyUSA's 8th and final pre-election tracking poll , conducted for KABC-TV in Los Angeles, KPIX-TV in San Francisco, KGTV-TV in San Diego, and KFSN-TV in Fresno.
"No" has 46%, "Yes" has 44% at the wire, unchanged from SurveyUSA's penultimate poll 1 week ago, and still within the survey's theoretical margin of sampling error.
(Excerpt) Read more at surveyusa.com ...
According to this proposition, employers cannot test an employee for drugs. If this passes, who will want to use an airport in California?
Wish they’d solidify their opposition to Boxer and Brown.
One thing about Prop 19.
Let it not be said, proponents are highly motivated.
Get ready for more expensive everything. Insurance rates will go up for a lot of employers if they can’t drug test.
Would you copy and paste that provision?
I can understand womens’ opposition. It is probably hard to get your hubby to do his honey do list when he’s sitting on the couch, stoned out of his gourd, with his face buried in a bag of cheetos.
This could explain those “millions of unreturned mail in ballots” in California we just read about here. While Chip and Muffy were out trying to score some weed, mom’s all over California were down in the basements tearing up mail in ballots. LOL!
Somehow I doubt the law supersedes federal law in this case.
Why do opponents to prop 19 tend to use such strawman arguments ?
It doesn’t. But there will be tons of lawsuits, before things get sorted out.
Women Still Love that Nanny State
How is that a straw man (it’s two words) argument? I made a list to a proponent of Prop 19 the other night about what should be in any legalization law. The person just ignored it. Don’t tell me that any law legalizing drugs is libertarian. If you want a law legalizing drugs, why do you make it explicit that a person’s voluntary use of drugs does not infringe on the rights or property of anyone else, and that voluntary use of drugs means the person will never accept any taxpayer money for that use. Until you are willing to do that, it’s just another socialist law, not matter how, “lame man,” you think I am. If you can’t agree to those conditions, you are just riding the gravy train.
Did they do this when Alcohol Prohibition was repealed ?
I see no mention of any of these things in the 21st Amendment.
Is this what you were referring to?
Section 11304 (c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.
Are you talking about a law from 77 years ago? Gee, it was decades before I was born. Maybe it wasn’t a great Amendment, but it hasn’t been an issue in my lifetime. Talk about your straw man. (I don’t think someone should get less punishment for destroying property or injuring/killing someone because they were drunk)
Well, California is one of the States which has passed very strict laws as to the ability of private employers to drug test employees. Therefore, it would seem to indicate that a private employer would end up responsible for damages for any ‘accident’ that occurred while the employee is under the influence. Or, he would be libel to a law suit if he tried to fire or remove an employee whom he thinks is under the influence. Kind of a catch 22!
“Somehow I doubt the law supersedes federal law in this case.”
Federal law does not allow medical marijuana, either, but the Feds turn a blind eye to it. They do a couple of arrests a year. We have “pot clubs” by the dozens in all of our larger cities.
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.