California’s Prop 19
We haven’t discussed this topic but California has an intriguing initiative on its November ballot called Proposition 19. The initiative would legalize carrying small amounts of marijuana and would allow local governments to tax it. According to a new SUSA poll, YES on 19 leads NO by a narrow margin – 48% to 44%. According to SUSA’s analysis, the Yes on 19 voters may be the key to victory for both Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown. Al Giordano at The Field discusses the implications of the initiative and what it means for the future.
SUSA titles its analysis, “Some Evidence That California’s Marijuana Tail is Wagging Barbara Boxer’s Dog; Voters Without Home Phones, Voters Focused on Decriminalization, May Tip Senate.” In sum, the pollsters have identified the key factor in Boxer’s contest vs. Republican Carly Fiorina, who leads narrowly with 46 percent over 44 percent for the incumbent. By looking separately at voters who only use cell phones, those who have both cell and home phones, and those only with home telephones, SUSA has found significant differences in the voting intentions of the cell phone-only citizens and the rest. It is no secret to young people (of all ages) who use cell phones exclusively that they are culturally distinct from land liners in ways that extend beyond hardware preferences.
Nomadic, and on the move, more reliant on the Internet than the television for their news intake, they’re the future of the United States. And they’re also a lot more multi-racial – and more actively defy societal apartheids – than the rest of the population. OMG! Wait… wait… see that little light bulb popping on over our heads? By Jove, I think we get it! Those are the 2008 first time Obama voters, duh! And getting them to vote in the midterm elections is the biggest headache that the White House and the Democratic party has right now leading up to November 2.
…
As you can see, among California “hippies” (ha ha, have a sense of humor, Gramps), the 50-64 age group, marijuana legalization enjoys a 48 percent to 40 percent lead, but it’s among voters under the age of 34 where Proposition 19 gets the margin of victory it needs to push it over the top: 59 percent of those voters favor the ballot question to just 33 percent against. Elderly folks are the biggest obstacle for the referendum, with 57 percent against to just 37 percent in favor.
Meanwhile, all racial groups – white, black, Hispanic – except, according to this poll, for Asian-Americans (and at 12 percent of the survey – about 73 respondents – that stat is likely from a survey sample not large enough to get an accurate reading) favor Prop 19, with the highest margin of victory among Hispanic Californians. Since demographically they are younger than the rest of the population, I would venture that age has at least as much to do with that result as race does. Those numbers also confirm something I’ve talked to the organizers of Prop 19 about since the effort began: That they must avoid making the same mistake as opponents of Proposition 8 (the illegal ban on gay marriage) in 2008 did: that Prop 19 needed a much more aggressive community organizing and field campaign among blacks and Hispanics. These numbers, and the moves I’ve watched them make over the past year, indicate that they are aggressively campaigning across all racial lines. And if Proposition 19 wins, that will be the number one reason why it triumphed.
This election year has been a strange one in many ways. There’s been quite a lot of handwringing about polls. One thing captured in this poll is the stark difference between cell phone only households and traditional landline households. Some political experts have been cautioning against the polls showing a Republican takeover simply because cell only households are not polled and now make up 25% of U.S. households. I think we’ll all be watching what happens out in California to see if it is going to lead the way for the rest of the country.
Tags: California, Marijuana, Prop 19
Ive talked to a few of my “legalization” activist friends who are deeply opposed to 19.
According to them, it would kill the small farmer and pretty much corporatize marijuana. You have to be a licensed grower, and the feeling it, the only people who would get licenses are companies like Phillip Morris, W/S… etc. There would also be nothing to stop them from adding nicotine. Possession of weed not from one of these licensed distributors would again be a crime for any amount, even with a prescription. It also seems it would do nothing to curb the cartel violence unless California exported it’s safe, legal pot to the rest of the country.
All that said, i see their point, but the rest of the country aint California. It does seem it would be a step back for them as far as progressive legalization. Right now anyone… ANYONE (who is a resident) can get their RX card in the morning, and be smoking in front of a cop that afternoon. But in other states, like Delaware, who still seems to think once you look at pot, you are a heroine addict, this seems like a …. dare i say, conservative solution to prohibition. It basically allows the free market to make scads of money off something that is in very high demand and does it in a way that ensures everyone cant profit from it.
Personally, my interest in legalization has always been industrial. If people want it for recreation, they are gonna get it legal or no. But the hemp plant’s potential as an ethanol crop and tree substitute for paper are increadible because of how fast it grows and what little nutrients it takes from the soil.
I just hope this passes in CA to force the federal government to take a good look at what a clusterfuck marijuana laws are. They’ll need to find a way to reconcile having their heads up their asses with actual reality – or they’ll have to put the entire Bay Area in prison.
I haven’t smoked in 10 years because I’m too old now to hang out at college bars asking people if they know a guy, but if it was obtainable without resorting the black market in this state, I’d definitely give up drinking again.
Marijuana could be legalized tomorrow but one could still lose their job if the urine test comes up hot.
I believe possession of marijuana has been decriminalized in Delaware.
Distribution or the intent to distribute or the use of a motor vehicle for the purpose of distribution is a felony, and that’s what they’re looking for, and that’s what they will turn your simple possession into.
the biggest challenge would be proving impairment while impaired…. such as driving. With alcohol you have the breath test, but there is, right now, no way to PROVE someone is under the effects of THC. It would be difficult to prosecute someone who gets into an accident. Blood tests would only show they had smoked in the past week or so… and if that is legal they could argue they did it not on the day they drove.
yes FBH. Also if you are within (i think) a half mile of a school, they will add “to minors” after intent to distribute. Which also adds 10 years.
I think a good defense for that would be to smoke everything you have in front of the cop to prove you didnt intend to part with any of it.
slate.com is reporting that new polls show a decrease in voter favor. The term “nose dive” is used but it is still relatively close. Intrade.com was trading it at a high of 74% and is now at 40% for passing.
Personally, I hope it passes but I am less hopeful. People really HATE change and they’ve been told that marijuana is the devil for half a century. I would be happy for amnesty for nonviolent offenders. It is shameful to have anyone locked away in a maximum security prison for dealing some weed.
as long as the term “tea-shades” stays around.
” Pot will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no pot”,-The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers