Cannabis News
  Prop. 19 Could Flicker Out
Posted by CN Staff on October 23, 2010 at 05:26:47 PT
By Josh Richman, Oakland Tribune 
Source: Oakland Tribune 

cannabis California -- Come Nov. 3, California will either have become the first state to allow legal, regulated, taxed marijuana, or -- more likely, some political experts say -- it will have created a lot of heat and light without any smoke. A couple of recent polls show flagging support for the pot measure.

The Public Policy Institute of California reported Wednesday only 44 percent of likely voters polled Oct. 10-17 intend to vote for Proposition 19 -- down 8 percentage points since September. -- with 49 percent opposed and 7 percent undecided.

And a Los Angeles Times-University of Southern California poll, conducted Oct. 13-20 and released Friday found 51 percent of likely voters say they'll vote against Prop. 19, while only 39 percent will vote for it with 10 percent undecided or refusing to answer.

"The rule of thumb for ballot measures is unless you have close to 60 percent going in, the undecideds will flock disproportionately toward 'No.' If they haven't made up their minds by Election Day, they overwhelmingly vote no," said Larry Gerston, a political-science professor at San Jose State.

Prop. 19 would let people age 21 or older legally possess as much as an ounce of marijuana, and grow it in a space of up to 25 square feet. Cities and counties could choose whether to regulate and tax commercial production and sale. Possessing it on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present or providing it to anyone under 21 would remain illegal, as would driving while impaired.

Legalization, according to supporters, would end a hypocritical and racially disproportionate ban on a drug less harmful than alcohol, while saving law enforcement costs, raising new tax revenue, and making it harder for kids to get marijuana. Those backers include the California branch of the NAACP, the state chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union, the California Young Democrats, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the California Council of Churches and several big labor unions.

Opponents say Prop. 19 would threaten public safety, violate federal law and drug-free workplace rules, allow a patchwork of different regulations, and wouldn't raise much, if any, tax revenue. Those critics include Mothers Against Drunk Driving; most law enforcement groups; all major-party candidates for governor, state attorney general and U.S. Senate; the California League of Cities; the California State Association of Counties; and business groups.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger might have tried to co-opt part of Prop. 19's benefit by signing a bill Sept. 30 to reduce possession of up to an ounce of marijuana from a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $100 fine to an infraction with the same penalty, sort of like a traffic offense but leaving no mark on one's criminal record. This means those cited are no longer entitled to jury trials and court-appointed attorneys, potentially saving taxpayers millions -- one of the criminal-justice costs Prop. 19 sought to eliminate. Prop. 19's supporters say this wouldn't be enough, as minority communities still would be disproportionately hit with the $100 tickets.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder also seemed to make a calculated effort to erode the measure's support by penning a letter this month underscoring that federal authorities will continue enforcing the federal ban on cultivation and sale no matter what California voters do.

The PPIC poll released this week showed support had declined among Democrats and even more sharply among independents while Republican support remained steadily low. Support declined across almost all demographic groups, with backing from Latinos dropping by 19 percentage points.

"Lately we're seeing some negative stories "... that raised questions as to whether this would really do anything about the Mexican drug cartels, and there have been stories about the potential economic impact being not as positive as the proponents suggest," said Jack Pitney, a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College, adding parents remain likely to balk at a measure they believe -- rightly or wrongly -- would make marijuana more readily available to their kids.

"I'm still going to be surprised if it passes," Pitney said. "I don't see any evidence that this is a voter magnet. People are not getting involved because of this, but rather, people who are turning out for other reasons will be voting on this. We don't know exactly what the numbers will look like, but the 2010 California electorate will be substantially more conservative than the 2008 electorate."

Some critics said supporters should have withheld this measure until 2012, when a presidential election would boost turnout and the state's Democratic-leaning voter registration could be used to better advantage. Prop. 19's supporters countered they would mobilize a tsunami of young voters turning out for the first time to support this measure -- an "invisible tide" strategy that's hard to gauge until the polls close on Election Day. The measure does indeed have a strong Facebook presence: More than 212,000 "liked" it by Friday, though not all of them were Californians, much less likely voters.

Gerston said "it just isn't the case" that all voters age 18 to 25 smoke marijuana and will stampede to the polls to legalize it. He said younger voters tilt more toward legalization, but nowhere near enough to offset the rest of the electorate.

"As it is, those voters come out the least, and in an election like this, they may be on the endangered species list," Gerston said. "The idea of reaching out to people who are normally not going to get involved (in an election) with an issue like this? Very unlikely, naive."

And costly. Oaksterdam University founder Richard Lee spent $1.4 million to put Prop. 19 on the ballot, then said in July he would step back and let campaign professionals do the rest.

With other big-ticket donors slow to appear, Lee put in another $57,000 from late August through early October. A few substantial donations came in, such as $59,500 from billionaire Progressive Insurance Chairman Peter Lewis, a benefactor of many of California's past drug-reform measures; $77,000 from television producer Kevin Bright ("Friends"); and $50,000 from retired software mogul Stephen Silberstein, of Belvedere. Still, the Yes on 19 campaign had only $67,468 in the bank as of Sept. 30 -- a pittance by California ballot-measure standards.

"You don't have the big guns coming out for this, like George Soros, that you had last time," Gerston said. "They saw the writing on the wall."

Source: Oakland Tribune (CA)
Author: Josh Richman, Oakland Tribune
Published: October 22, 2010
Copyright: 2010 MediaNews Group, Inc.

CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archives

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help    Share on Facebook Share on stumbleupon digg it Share on reddit Share on

Comment #6 posted by FoM on October 23, 2010 at 15:27:37 PT
Sinsemilla Jones
You very well could be right.

[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on October 23, 2010 at 15:26:00 PT
FoM 4 - The LA Times is a strange paper.
Speculation based on false stereotypes does not make for facts.

The Los Angeles Times hysterical and obsessive opposition to Prop 19 does lead me to legitimately speculate, however, that it is controlled by people who make their money off of illegal drugs.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by FoM on October 23, 2010 at 11:38:21 PT
Some Facts To Face Before Voting on Prop. 19
What a strange article this is.


[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Sam Adams on October 23, 2010 at 10:47:36 PT
California today
The vast majority of cannabis users cannot be arrested, or be searched or detained because of cannabis. Once an offense is non-criminal the govt. loses most of their power (probable cause of a CRIME is needed to search).

So the average pot-smoker CANNOT be arrested anymore, probably less than 1% will get a $100 ticket every year. And for less than $100 users can get a recommendation and eliminate even the the threat of a ticket or getting yelled at for cannabis! And also get the legal ability to buy from retailers anytime they want.

So even today cannabis prohibition is on extremely thin ice and current laws are an exercise in futility and absurdity. The current situation won't last long, no way. If it loses this year, by 2012 the list of endorsing organizations will have grown substantially, and the opponents will decrease.

Especially as cops and teachers' and other unions have 2 years to sit and think about all the tax money they could have had.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Sam Adams on October 23, 2010 at 10:41:42 PT
guaranteed success
the way I see it, Prop. 19 is already a big winner.

Would Soros, Lewis, et al., have paid $1.3 million to get decrim in a huge state like CA? Absolutely yes. That is about what they paid to get decrim here in Mass., a small state.

Decrim is nothing to sneeze at, it removes the gravy-train of easy arrests and statistics for the po-po. 75,000 arrests! The govt. fought hard against it here.

Now that police power has been seriously compromised, support for prohibition will continue to erode among rank-n-file cops.

Win or lose, Prop. 19 is the beginning of a 10 or 15 year period where we'll see legalization referendum battles like this every two years.

[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by runruff on October 23, 2010 at 10:06:02 PT
"Prop. 19 Could Flicker Out"
I could not help but laugh a little at this headline.

Whether on not prop 19 is passed there will still be millions of users and cannabis will still be California, Oregon's and the United States biggest cash crop!

When laws are made that are unenforceable, somewhere in the world a cop is paying attention to the ball game on the radio and somewhere else in the world the United nations is declaring a truce in the WoD while the DEA act like it is 1988 and we still have a drug Czar [in name only but not any more] and local cops want to enforce Federal law over their state and local laws while the Supreme court ruled tha Angel Raich could dry up and die because her 6 plants might upset the nations cannabis trade and destabilize it's prices so they made a mockery of the Commerce Clause in a "in you face" decision that told us all once and for all who is in charge! Whew!

Let's see...what else?

[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment
Name:        Password:


Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:

Return to Main Menu

So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on October 23, 2010 at 05:26:47