Tweet
Proposition 19, which would legalize, tax and regulate marijuana for adults over 21 years old, is currently winning by a wide margin among California voters according to a new PPP poll. The measure is supported by 52% of voters while opposed by only 36%.
Prop 19 PPP (7/23-25)
Support 52%
Oppose 36%
Not Sure 12%
This is the largest margin of support we have seen from recent polling on Prop 19. Interestingly, the poll found support among African Americans to be extremely high. From PPP blog:
Democrats are more likely to throw their support behind the prop than Republicans. 62% of Democrats, 37% of Republicans and 55% of Independents support Prop 19.
African-Americans are the strongest supporters of Prop 19; 68:32, followed by Whites who support it 53:37.
Those are surprisingly high numbers among African Americans. A SurveyUSA poll from earlier this month had African Americans on average about as likely to support Prop 19 as whites. Significantly, a small percentage of African Americans said they were certain to oppose it.
Both this PPP Poll and the SurveyUSA poll directly contradict a Field Poll (PDF) which had African Americans dramatically less supportive of Prop 19 than whites in California. It would seem that there is a problem accurately gauging support for Prop 19 among the African American community. This might be due to the taboo nature of this specific policy issue resulting from the government spending huge amounts of money on anti-marijuana propaganda for decades. It is possible that African Americans, and possibly other ethnic groups, don’t feel comfortable telling pollsters their actual position on legalizing cannabis.
Plurality of American adults supports legalizing marijuana.
In addition, there is more good news about support for marijuana legalization from Rasmussen Reports. For the first time, their poll of all American adults has a plurality supporting legalization: 43% think marijuana should be legalized while 42% think it should remain illegal. That is a significant improvement from a similar Rasmussen poll just a little over a year ago, which found 41% supporting legalization and 49% opposed. It is possible that Prop 19, by bringing the debate to the forefront, is starting to noticeably move national opinions by forcing people to take some time to actually think about the issue.
The most interesting part of the Rasmussen poll is that a solid majority thinks legalization is a real possibility in the relatively short term.
65% believe it is at least somewhat likely marijuana will be legalized in the United States in the next 10 years. Just 28% do not expect this to happen. Those numbers include 29% who say it is Very Likely pot will be legal in the next 10 years and five percent (5%) who say it is Not At All Likely.
It is important to point out that the subset of American adults who actually vote tends to be older and less supportive of legalization than the general public, so we probably have not yet reached the point where a plurality of the all important “likely voters” supports legalization, but at the current rate that point could be reached soon.
53 Comments
This PPP poll is a really bright point. Make it seem Prop19 has a really good chance of passing.
It doesn’t seem surprising that the black community would be in favor of legalizing marijuana since there is such a disproportionate number of the community in jail for drugs.
All those lovely tax dollars! At last maybe we have some common sense.
Very exciting results; we’ll see if the NO campaign’s likely “Save The Children” approach works like it did with Prop 8.
Given the racism at the heart of all drug law and enforcement for nearly a decade I would expect African Americans to be very supportive of ending prohibition, but that is not what most of the polling has shown.
It is the Amsterdam Syndrome.
Idiots, bad men, tame men, comics, mad men… They all have a lot to lose. They won’t go gentle.
All that money not spent on the justice and policing system.
The tax revenue isn’t clear, and over selling it seems to me to be a mistake. Saving the court and jail costs is a quantifiable difference to state spending. And lest we forget cutting spending is very popular with the tea party crowd, raising taxes not so much.
We’re going to be seeing polls saying Prop 19 won’t pass as well as polls saying it will pass between now and election day. organizing GoTV is going to be key to winning on election day. Polls showing it is close with winning possible are good for motivating… if it starts looking like 60/40 in favor I’d be worried about complacency.
Seems that people will continue to buy illegally to get around the taxes, etc. All that non taxed income is too good to let go of.
What about supply and demand?
That is taking place right now.
Okay, you know best. So, you don’t think we need to pass this law?
I didn’t say that. I think it should be legalized. But I cannot see this underground economy going away.
kay.
watertiger is upstairs!
Late Night: As the Gander Eyed the Sauce-Laden Goose
Jon and Mary, you’re both correct– blacks are disproportionately punished for drug offenses (see this week’s Economist cover page article), but some churches and leaders are not just angry about blacks being thrown in prison, but vehemently anti-drug due to what it’s done to the community. Thus part of the reason for the polling numbers, I suspect.
How much money will the state of California save not locking up/prosecuting in any fashion pot consumers? Will offenders locked up for pot now be released if this bill passes, thus saving more money?
I went to the doctor on the boardwalk in Venice and told him I had a headache once. He prescribed marijuana and I went upstairs with the prescription and bought an ounce or so. I have had plenty of weed every since.
Just a couple of thoughts on the market forces argument from Down Under. We have the same drug problems here which manifest themselves in many undesirable ways, like: ruined lives of addicts, crime and its victims, policing and court costs, health issues and associated costs, insurance claims and premium hikes due to increased burglaries; the list goes on. No one has managed to implement anything that comes faintly near to affecting these outcomes. Certainly the heavy hand of draconian legislation and aggressive policing has been costly and failed. All they’ve done is to increase the level of public apprehension and fear.
I propose something different. Marijuana should be legalized and taxed and controlled as set-out in Prop 19, but the other illegal substances should get similar treatment. The government should get into the drug business. It could open sales outlets to sell hard drugs at say 25% of the current street price with the caveat that buyers would have to enter education/rehabilitation programmes. That is how you get the market forces to work in your favour. Many pusher crims would be out of business in a jot, and we would be able to sleep more easily now that home invasion by drug induced burglars. The result is that now the government controls distribution, not the mob. The military bill in Columbia/Peru plummets, policing costs drop, health costs fall, the drug problem comes under some control and society reaps the benefits of a more peaceful environment
On what do you base your statement, it ‘seems that people will continue to buy illegally’? What makes it seem so, or is that just an assumption – and I’d also ask based on what?
Taking out the black market markup and adding whatever taxes, street value will still be way down, why would anyone bother with ‘illegal’ purchases?
You guys don’t get it, read the bottom of the article:
“It is important to point out that the subset of American adults who actually vote tends to be older and less supportive of legalization than the general public, so we probably have not yet reached the point where a plurality of the all important “likely voters” supports legalization, but at the current rate that point could be reached soon”
This prop doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of passing. The “poll” was taken from the general population unlike a field poll. The biggest downfall is the potential for the Feds to withhold any financial support for the state for ignoring federal law. This would include the billion dollar plus Pell grants for college students. Just wait til the big money comes out to shoot this thing down…….
for adults over 21 years old
That’s an important phrase, the last time the US started down the path of winding down the drug war (in the early and mid 70′s), it was drug use among teenagers was the problem. The thing is, alcohol wasn’t limited to 21 and over as a national policy until the Reagan Administration, so 18 years old was the de facto age of consent to get drunk or high.. And that caused a rather large backlash among parents of high school students. Miichael Massing’s wonderful book, The Fix, about the early days of the War on Drugs describes this in some detail.
The moral of the story is to make the point to parents that the state already enforces laws to keep stores from selling alcohol to minors, they can easily include marijuana in the restricted 21 and older category. In fact its easier today for a teenager to buy drugs than it is to buy beer. A liquor store has a state license it can lose, so they card everybody. On the other hand , since drug dealers aren’t licensed by the state, there’s no incentive for them to card anybody.
We’ll see who comes out to vote. Younger voters don’t come out in big numbers for midterm elections, and the support for prop 19 really breaks down along age lines rather than racial lines.
I collected signatures for a legalizing MJ public policy question in front of a library and a couple of grocery stores in a liberal town, and it was the older women, especially, who signed. They had enough of the violence, both by the cartels and law enforcement, and had nursed enough people suffering with cancer. They were fed up and called prohibition ‘stupid.’
Here an analysis of the discrepencies in the polls. It may be akin to the Bradley effect — minorities (especially) uncomfortable admitting their support to a person, but no problem doing so with robot.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/07/broadus-effect-social-desirability-bias.html
That’s fine, but how do you get around the whole federal law issue? I personally don’t have a problem with legalization but the feds are not going to allow this to happen. The president has already said this in public so all the time and money spent will be for not. The minute the no supporters come out with their ads stating that CA could possibly lose $30 billion in fed money, college students can kiss their Pell grants goodbye, and unemployed can say bye bye to their federal unemployment extensions, it’s toast. Until this is a 50 state issue, forget it, won’t happen…….
So what are the feds going to do? Arrest everyone in California that uses MJ? They will not cut off those funds, they cannot stand the fallout that would happen if they did cut the funds. There will be people in the streets with pitchforks.
The real problem with making pot legal is presented by Oakland. They will only allow commercial production of sites over 100,000 square feet. If commercial production is allowed, we will be smoking crap. It will be the same crap that comes from Mexico. I don’t know why they do not know how to grow pot, but it is the shitiest excuse for pot that I have ever seen. You on the East Coast are better off than us here on the West Coast because your dirt weed is Colombian.
The answer, of course, is to grow your own.
Great post! “It’s better for your health than smoking” amazing, truely amazing…….
Agent, look and see how many MMJ collectives have been busted by the feds. These warehouse grows will be the first to get busted. Secondly, what happens to drug testing in the work place? You have someone who is in a safety sensitive position and has an accident, tests positive for the weed he smoked last week but he isn’t high. What happens and who is liable for this person being under the influence? What possible fallout could come from the feds cutting off funds for a state that violates federal law? Leave it alone, no one is sitting in jail for personal use and until it’s a 50 state issue, forget about it. Hell, look at Alaska when they legalized possession, they had so much trouble that they voted to re-criminalize it. As much as you guys want this to happen, you’re definitely in the minority………..
Nothing can prevent employers from imposing their own workplace standards. I think you’re right about the opposition this bill will face, but overstate the potential for negative impact on Californians.
In order to tax and regulate cannabis there will need to be a 2/3′s majority vote in the Senate. Chances of that happening?
It is taxed at the local township level. Plus you can create a “fee” of so much per ounce to get around the state tax law.
Rand Report on Prop 19
Portugal decriminalized ALL drugs in 2001 and it’s worked out far better than most expected. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
Not quite everybody unless its changed in the last 20 years or so (I’m 39). Also enforcement goes up and down with local budgets. I am not concerned about others getting drunk or high, perfectly sober people yaking on cell phones are more likely to do more damage.
Those in their teenage years will find a way to get what they want, you can only hope to stop it.
This is not the core issue of Prop 19 and there other ways around Federal Funds and maybe this is the lynch pin to other badly needed reforms.
Portugal and Spain have decriminalize most if not all drugs. There was a story on DW-TV about younger people in Spain having problems with cocaine. It was handled by a state run drug rehabilitation center for those that couldn’t control their use.
That’s how its handled throughout most of Europe but the UK.
Most of you believe that legalization is a good thing because in practice the relative cost/risk of engaging in whatever has been legalized appears lessened. But you fail to realize that the state still has you by the balls (even more so than when x, y or z is illegal). “Legality” means that your masters give you permission. Free country? I don’t think so. Legality means that they can track you and even get you to gratefully kneel before them and pay their tribute (taxes). And you’re grateful. How pathetic. Has is ever occurred to you that nobody has the right to “legalize” or “criminalize” human rights. Like the right to ingest or possess anything we like. Accepting that such a “right to legalize” even exists is complete acceptance of your own slavery and you don’t even realize it. Wake up and enjoy your chains. You actually made them yourselves by believing that any political authority is ever legitimate. There is no spoon.
cannabis is going to get legalized in cali. follow the bouncing – day*glo – ball. the time has come.
oaksterdam’s richard lee is quite the man.
the marijuana issue will get many passionate first time voters and others into the booths who wouldn’t have bothered otherwise.
kmon mang, african americans have major simpatico for the herb. so that’s that.
the feds can’t stop legalization because all adults in the state can grow a 25 sq ft plot legally. that’s too much enforcement even for these jack-booted fascist thugs. growing fine abundant herb isn’t hard to do.
as ringo star said on his recent seventieth birthday: love and peace
Keep dreaming! This isn’t the polarizing issue that you would want it to be! Len has it right, do you want the state to tell you how many vegetables you can grow? Allowing you to possess one ounce is like saying you can possess one bottle of Chardonnay. By passing this into law, you’re just giving the govt more power. C’mon lay the bong down and clear your mind before you cast a vote that will keep you hamstrung by more laws…..
The government is already telling you how much cannabis you can grow. They amount just happens to currently be zero.
Game over, look what just happened in Arizona. Thought the Feds had too much power before? This just solidifies their complete control over States and State law, vote 19 in, and the Fed will just rule it out………
I’m a “swim dad” and I want to reach out to my more-well-known kindred spirits, “soccer moms” and say that I hope my kids don’t use marijuana, either as teenagers or as young adults, but if they do, I REALLY hope they don’t end up in jail! I hope that all parents will join in the fight to stop putting our own kids in jail over something as silly as marijuana. Yes, it dumbs a person down for a little while (about as bad as a day on the video games) and yes, it has some minor health effects (about as bad as smoking a cigarette, I suppose), but those aren’t NEARLY as bad as the effects of being locked up IN JAIL WITH THE SEXUAL PREDATORS, and loss of financial aid, etc. that comes, not from the marijuana, but from the LAW. It’s time to quit letting government officials ruin our kids’ lives over a little marijuana!
Californians: register to vote at
h t t p s://w w w .sos.ca.gov/nvrc/fedform/ Just fill out the form and mail it in!
Other states: Google your state name and “voter registration” to find out how to register!
You may not have noticed but the Federal courts have always had the power to declare state laws as unconstitutional. For the record, all the judge did today was issue an injunction to stop the AZ law form taking effect (although she did mention that she did so on the merits of the federal law suit)
But wait, wait, don’t tell me – Tenth Amendment right?
You really do need to work on the Concern troll act a bit more though.
Dakine, thanks for the kind comments. Concerned Troll? I see how it is, someone makes comments contrary to yours and they’re trolls. Maybe you take one toke after loco moco and go one aunties house brah. Sorry, lived in Millilani for a couple of years. Yep your right about what happened in AZ so what makes you think the same thing wouldn’t happen here?
Speaking of the 10th ammendment, look up Wickford vs Filburn.
What’s your point? That SCOTUS makes inane decisions and then does something directly opposite in later cases? I think we’ve all seen evidence of that.
That still doesn’t mean the federal courts haven’t had the historic right to over-rule state laws.
And if you’re concerned about being tabbed a Concern Troll, good. Since that’s how you’ve come across here. You show up, never having been a commenter (that I’m aware of) at FDL until you’re here denigrating folks efforts at trying to get some sanity into drug laws by using state level actions to force the Federal government into sanity. Just as other efforts over the years across the entire spectrum of political beliefs have started with citizens pushing the federal level in a direction the fed level has avoided.
There is a disconnect in your trashing of the Federal laws while at the same time denigrating those using state efforts to change things.
The AZ law is declared unconstitutional because it IS unconstitutional. CA (and other states) are trying to end a prohibition. Just a bit different levels of effort and end result.
The Federal government can continue to arrest people for marijuana anywhere in the U.S., but cannot require the State of California use State resources to arrest, prosecute, or imprison people for violation of a Federal law.
“You show up, never having been a commenter” Gee, you have to start somewhere don’t you Dakine? I’m not sure where you get “denigrating” out of someone voicing their opinion but obviously you can’t handle contrarian views. I started with the simple statement about the last paragraph of the article in regards to people “celebrating” the recent poll and voicing my opinion of the connundrum between state and federal law. There is a strong if not stronger concerted effort against this prop Dakine, and my point is that the prop is flawed, the timing is wrong, and be careful what you wish for because it just my bite you in the ass…..
“That still doesn’t mean the federal courts haven’t had the historic right to over-rule state laws”
Better review Gonzales vs Raich Dakine!
You keep bringing up semi random cases. Now IANAL but that doesn’t mean that every case you present is going to continue to cause problems. Or have you noticed that there are now 14 states that allow Medical Marijuana? Plus there are other states that are considering allowing it, both through ballot initiatives and through legislative action.
It is not unheard of for the states to push these sorts of initiatives that eventually penetrate even the consciousness of folks inside the beltway, and give cover to Congress to actually change the laws to something a bit more rational.
So why do you think you must spend you time denigrating the efforts of others to bring some level of sanity to the issue? What are you hoping to accomplish?
I have no problems with people who can contribute, even contrary opinions. But all you’ve done is mock the efforts of those who are trying to change the laws.
When would the timing be better? How is Prop 19 flawed? How would passing this “bite me in the ass?”
Prop 19 is flawed in that the assumption that tax benefits will be reaped is absurd. It’s like saying that everyone who wins a hundred bucks at the casino will declare that as income on their return. Illegal grows will be too numerous to count. Timing would be better in 2 years when you have a Presidential election that will no doubt bring out more voters. As far as biting you in the ass, what do you think will happen if legalization happens? Consumption will increase, safety sensitive jobs are now impacted, will it be legal to drug test in the workplace and what if someone tests positive? Have you ever been so baked that you wouldn’t drive? I have! At least with alcohol you can get a level of intoxication, with weed you either test positive or not. Try to have a little thicker skin, it’s just politics and everyone isn’t going to have the same beliefs that you do, unless you’re part of the “entitled” generation…….
I’m not sure I agree 100% with your Police Work there calbear57.
The premise “illegal grows will be too numerous to count” deserves examination. Every 215 card carrier can grow now. They chose not to grow their own. Some have a black thumb, some are inept, some are just too stoned. For whatever reason – they don’t exercise the right.
Joe Grower is not growing illegally to avoid a $50 tax. He’s growing for larger stakes and, if the stakes are high enough, he may defend his interest with threats and weapons.
Joe Grower is not going to supply the black market to save $50 when he can sell legit. His game will be Quality and Variety and SECURITY, not quantity.
You go on to conclude “Consumption will increase”, again, I challenge your presumption. Consumption may peak and fall due to the novelty, but the overall impact is a decrease in consumption. For example – The Netherlands actually experienced a decline in domestic use after it semi-legally opened it up. Their Minster of Health attributed the decline to the legalization, explaining they had removed the “mystery” and “edgy” side, which made pot not as cool and appealing as it once had been.
Next – You appear to be making an argument for alcohol based on an ability to measure your level. This presumptivly at the side of the road after you fail the officer induced agility/stress exam, but I digress.
May I pose a hypothetical: Having tried both – Which would appeal to you if there were a “dead balls accurate” simple methology to determine how stoned you were? I mean – toasted – baked – half baked – medium – medium rare – all the way to – didn’t even get a buzz. This scale could be correlated to a blood alcohol scale and we could really see them side-by-side. Then – What do you do?
Well we can’t do that, yet, so why not just have a total ban on both in the workplace. I believe we already do at most jobs ayway. But you shouldn’t fire Bill the EMT because he went to a Jimmy Buffet concert the night before. Hair folicle testing goes back as far as the hair – it was created because there was a market for that information. There is now a market for some tech hound to tell us what we want to know: Was Bill impaired on the job due to marijuana consumption whenever he sparked up.
I do agree with you that the concept of 19 being a revenue raiser is flawed. The tax impact, of raising revenue – however, is on one part of the net savings. The dogs in Sacrmento will take whatever they can get. If they really wanted to get serious, why not raise the tax on alcohol to $50 a gallon. Alcohol pays a pittance.
The real fiscal impact comes from not having to arrest, prosecute, defend, convict, house, feed, parole and post-parole supervise pot users. The real benefit comes in freeing a significant component of the population from Prohibition. The War on Drugs has taken far too many prisoners from the ranks of the Potheads. This is still a Liberty Issue. That we’re willing to pay government extortion doesn’t change the basic issue – It just keeps our troops out of their prisons and away from the criminals.
Our government is ignoring the poppy fields of Afghanistan – producing the world supply of heroin – while financing a War of Mercinaries. We pay our “Contractors” to fight for us. We pay the Warlords to fight, and sometimes we pay them not to fight. We end up paying for both sides. Commerce is commerce and the fields continue to grow –
Meanwhile, back at the Ranch – We’re still busting folks for simple possession and paying to arrest, prosecute, defend, convict, house, feed, parole and post-parole supervise pot users. Wow.
Now, tell me where you got that stuff that got you baked you couldn’t drive.
Excellent comment