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