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

Skip to comments.

SurveyUSA: In CA on Election Eve, Women Solidify Opposition to Prop 19; ("No" leading 46%-44%)
SurveyUSA ^ | November 01, 2010 | n/a

Posted on 11/01/2010 10:09:33 PM PDT by Ken H

Full headline:

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 ...


TOPICS: Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: commerceclause; prop19; proposition19; tenthamendment
That leaves 10% undecided, for those in Rio Linda.
1 posted on 11/01/2010 10:09:39 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ken H

According to this proposition, employers cannot test an employee for drugs. If this passes, who will want to use an airport in California?


2 posted on 11/01/2010 10:11:26 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Wish they’d solidify their opposition to Boxer and Brown.


3 posted on 11/01/2010 10:11:33 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

One thing about Prop 19.

Let it not be said, proponents are highly motivated.

:)


4 posted on 11/01/2010 10:11:35 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (GOP establishment are dinosaurs. Tea Party is a great big asteroid...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Get ready for more expensive everything. Insurance rates will go up for a lot of employers if they can’t drug test.


5 posted on 11/01/2010 10:13:52 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
According to this proposition, employers cannot test an employee for drugs.

Would you copy and paste that provision?

6 posted on 11/01/2010 10:14:28 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit

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.


7 posted on 11/01/2010 10:17:50 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

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!


8 posted on 11/01/2010 10:18:17 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Just another white boy riding in the back of the bus next to the Emergency Exit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
According to this proposition, employers cannot test an employee for drugs. If this passes, who will want to use an airport in California?

Somehow I doubt the law supersedes federal law in this case.

9 posted on 11/01/2010 10:18:17 PM PDT by xjcsa (Ridiculing the ridiculous since the day I was born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Why do opponents to prop 19 tend to use such strawman arguments ?


10 posted on 11/01/2010 10:20:17 PM PDT by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
I'm trying, but I can only find it on PDF, and this computer is having problems with it. It's posted somewhere on FR. Look here
11 posted on 11/01/2010 10:27:42 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

It doesn’t. But there will be tons of lawsuits, before things get sorted out.


12 posted on 11/01/2010 10:29:32 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Women Still Love that Nanny State


13 posted on 11/01/2010 10:32:56 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
Wish they’d solidify their opposition to Boxer and Brown.

Exactly.

14 posted on 11/01/2010 10:33:32 PM PDT by GOP Poet (Obama is an OLYMPIC failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

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.


15 posted on 11/01/2010 10:34:45 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Did they do this when Alcohol Prohibition was repealed ?
I see no mention of any of these things in the 21st Amendment.


16 posted on 11/01/2010 10:44:20 PM PDT by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
According to this proposition, employers cannot test an employee for drugs.

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.

17 posted on 11/01/2010 10:50:24 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

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)


18 posted on 11/01/2010 10:54:16 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

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!


19 posted on 11/01/2010 10:58:09 PM PDT by Ruth C (If you chose not to vote, you vote for the most liberal candidates in CA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

“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.


20 posted on 11/01/2010 11:06:40 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

And the constitution was written 200 years ago. Your point ?

It turns out that governments can actually figure out the problem areas and fix them.

I don’t think so either. Drunk people don’t get a free pass. Where in the proposition does it actually say anything remotely like this ?

You seem to be projecting your worst fears onto this law.


21 posted on 11/01/2010 11:07:31 PM PDT by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ruth C
Did you read this ?

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.

22 posted on 11/01/2010 11:08:58 PM PDT by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

“Women so love that Nanny State,”

This woman doesn’t. I don’t consider keeping psychoactive drugs off the market as “nanny state.”

Just as we arrest a man for driving drunk, BEFORE he hurts or kills someone, I want to arrest a man who makes himself nuts/paranoid/irrational, before he hurts or kills someone.

Maybe women just have a little more sense in this case.

I suppose if you are a doctrinaire Libertarian you don’t want to drunk drivers killed UNTIL they’ve killed or hurt. Very consistent.


23 posted on 11/01/2010 11:09:15 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ruth C

Proposition 19 is a Pandora’s box. I pray to God it does not pass.

Soros if funding it. Maybe all the nanny state accusers on FR should consider that.


24 posted on 11/01/2010 11:10:40 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

“Just as we arrest a man for driving drunk, BEFORE he hurts or kills someone, I want to arrest a man who makes himself nuts/paranoid/irrational, before he hurts or kills someone.”

Speaking of consistency, why don’t you favor the complete prohibition of alcohol as you favor the complete prohibition of marijuana?

And do you have any evidence that marijuana causes more death and destruction as alcohol?


25 posted on 11/01/2010 11:20:02 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Suppose it beats the odds and squeeks by. Do you think CA should have authority under the Tenth Amendment to carry out the policy? Or, do you think fedgov should shut it down under authority of the Commerce Clause?
26 posted on 11/01/2010 11:28:38 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: All

This SUSA poll has the party breakdown which matches actual registration. This polls in the Gov and Sen races are more like a Registered Voter poll...


27 posted on 11/01/2010 11:40:29 PM PDT by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it may be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

I’m still undecided on this prop, as a Christian I don’t like the idea, but on the. other hand if it can be taxed and it reduces the crime I cede it may not be so bad. Anyone know a good site with the pros and cons? I have been so busy with school and work that I can say honestly that I haven’t done my research on it. If I have time after my homework I will do so, so I can make a rational decision at the voting Booth.


28 posted on 11/02/2010 12:00:50 AM PDT by StayoutdaBushesWay (Why Johnny Ringo, you look like someone just walked over your grave!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB
I'm not getting your point.
29 posted on 11/02/2010 12:27:09 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

“Suppose it beats the odds and squeeks by. Do you think CA should have authority under the Tenth Amendment to carry out the policy? Or, do you think fedgov should shut it down under authority of the Commerce Clause? “

That’s rather similar to asking me if I wanted the South to win the Civil War.

I am sympathetic to States’ Rights. But to allow slavery to continue? Some things trump others.

I am sympathetic to States’ Rights. But to allow people to deliberately impair themselves with no repercussions until AFTER they harm someone? You can’t have it both ways.

The best thing to do is not push the dilemma and not vote for the right to make ourselves irrational, unstable, paranoid and stupid all in the name of “freedom.”

How about you? Would you have let the slavery, the rapes, the real tortures, the murders, the kidnapping, the destruction of families and souls, continue, instead of having the feds interfere in the States’ Rights?

What if you were black? What if your wife or your child were black? Still clinging to the states’ rights above all else?

The best thing the South could have done would have been to quit with the slavery and not lose us all the states’ sovereignty we had.

And the best thing California can do is to avoid legalizing psychoactive drugs so as not to endanger state sovereignty even more.


30 posted on 11/02/2010 12:33:13 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

“Speaking of consistency, why don’t you favor the complete prohibition of alcohol as you favor the complete prohibition of marijuana?”

Because a person can have one, two, or even three drinks in an evening, and not get inebriated.

A person can’t even smoke one joint without being impaired.


31 posted on 11/02/2010 12:34:38 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
30 million Americans will continue to smoke pot whether this law passes or not. But we can keep plowing the ocean.

The drug warriors will waste another 40 billion dollars this year sticking their fingers into little holes in a huge dike here and there. But the pot business will go on and the drug cartels just in Mexico alone will rake in their 30 billion dollar profit.

Nearly a million people in the U.S. went to jail last year for pot and probably another 750-800000 people will be arrested this year. And the government has been locking up pot smokers in these numbers for decades to no avail...except that now nearly everyone knows someone whose life was more screwed up by the prohibition of pot than by that persons’ consumption of it.

This drug war perpetrates itself.

Only a repressed self righteous ideologue could find satisfaction in such a travesty of idiocy as the war on pot.

32 posted on 11/02/2010 4:31:13 AM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Voters will vote this down and the courts will overrule them in the end.


33 posted on 11/02/2010 4:36:17 AM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MetaThought

Yes, I read that. So, now you put next to that the laws putting very strict regulations on private employers drug testing. So what exactly does that mean? It means that employers are governed by the strict laws on drug testing!


34 posted on 11/02/2010 6:25:20 AM PDT by Ruth C (If you chose not to vote, you vote for the most liberal candidates in CA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: KDD

“30 million Americans will continue to smoke pot whether this law passes or not. “

30 million Americans, huh? Whatever. Americans will continue to do lots of destructive things, from shoplifting to elder abuse. That doesn’t mean we should legalize and tax it.

“Nearly a million people in the U.S. went to jail last year for pot and probably another 750-800000 people will be arrested this year. “

That shows terrible judgement. Even if it should be legal. Like I have said on other threads, if potato chips were illegal, you would not find me in possession of potato chips. I might work for their legalization; but I wouldn’t be eating my chips every day and risking my freedom, my financial stability, my employability and my children’s well being just because I craved chips.

“Only a repressed self righteous ideologue could find satisfaction in such a travesty of idiocy as the war on pot.”

You need to learn that insults and name calling are not going to get you anywhere.

No on 19, California voters! Make George Soros waste another million dollars!


35 posted on 11/02/2010 10:12:51 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

“Because a person can have one, two, or even three drinks in an evening, and not get inebriated.”

“A person can’t even smoke one joint without being impaired.”

I see.

You would like it to be legal for a person to have one, two or even three drinks in an evening but four, five, six or more drinks should be illegal.

And it should be against the law to smoke an entire joint at one time, but it should be legal for a person to take one or two bong hits in one evening, since after all after only one or two bong hits, a person would not be inebriated.


36 posted on 11/02/2010 1:26:48 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Stuck in and SEIU hospital and I want to know.

Did prop 19 pass or fail?

Somehow the Happy Meal ban brought it to mind.


37 posted on 11/03/2010 4:46:34 PM PDT by Lady Jag (Double your income... Fire the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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