With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Grasp

Jim Finnel

Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
According to two different polls released last Wednesday, the Tax Cannabis California marijuana legalization initiative is ahead but not by much, making the path to victory in November a rough one. Both polls show the initiative winning, but just barely, and both polls show the initiative hovering around 50% support. On the other hand, polling also shows remarkably high support for the concept of marijuana legalization in some form -- especially when the word legalization is not used.

In an internal campaign poll, when voters read either the ballot measure's title or the attorney general's summary of it -- all voters will see when they cast their votes -- the initiative garners 51% and 52%, respectively, with opposition at 40%. In a Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll, 49% approved of the initiative, while 48% opposed it.

The standard wisdom among initiative veterans is that campaigns should begin with support around 60%. They argue that once a campaign begins, opponents will find ways to shave off percentage points, and if you are starting with only half the voters on your side, losing any support means you lose.

With such a tight margin, expect both proponents and opponents to be energized in the six months between now and the November vote. Initiative organizers have to be concerned with the narrowness of their lead, especially given that attacks on the whole notion of pot legalization in general and on specific provisions of the initiative will only mount between now and then.

The initiative would tax and regulate marijuana much the way alcohol is now. It would legalize the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana and allowing the growing of a 25-square-foot garden throughout the state, but would give counties and municipalities the local option of whether to allow taxed, regulated marijuana sales or not.

Additional findings from both polls provide further detail on where the initiative does -- and does not -- have support, and offer hints of where the campaign is going to have its work cut out for it. Among the PPIC poll's other findings:

Majorities of Democrats (56%) and independents (55%) favor legalization. Thirty-four percent of Republicans are in favor.
Most San Francisco Bay Area residents (56%) are in favor. Residents in other regions are either divided or opposed.
Most Latinos (62%) oppose legalization. A majority of whites (56%) are in favor.
Men (54%) are more likely to be in favor. Less than half (42%) of women favor legalization.
Support for legalization decreases with age. 56 percent of adults aged 18-34 are in favor, compared with 42 percent aged 55 and older.


The additional findings from the initiative's internal poll are the surprising ones:

76% say marijuana is already being used in the state and ought be regulated.
74% say marijuana ought be regulated like tobacco and alcohol.
69% say the initiative will bring the state needed revenue.
61% say marijuana is easier for minors to obtain than alcohol.
60% say it will save the state money.
57% say it will put police priorities where they belong.

These number will provide the initiative campaign with a number of promising avenues of attack in the coming months, but they also speak to the disconnect between attitudes favorable to marijuana legalization in the abstract and actually voting for a concrete measure. To win, the campaign is going to have to close that gap, convincing voters that the initiative will do what voters themselves suggest they want.

"This is further evidence that voters remain eager to replace a failed policy with a more honest, commonsense solution that will control and tax marijuana like alcohol and cigarettes, generate critically needed revenue, and reduce crime by putting police resources where they belong, while ending the black market," campaign spokesman Dan Newman told the Chronicle.

"The numbers reflect what I've said all along -- it's going to be a tough battle," said Dale Gieringer, head of California NORML. "It's going to take a lot of work to maintain a lead. There is a tendency for voters to vote no on initiatives, and this is a nasty year with a nasty turnout of angry right-wingers not inclined to support these things. It's also an off-year, when students and progressives are less likely to vote."

"Depending on how Richard Lee is doing building a campaign organization, building support, and raising funds, this has a real chance," said long-time drug reformer Eric Sterling. "It would have a profound impact if it wins. It will have extremely important political consequences. It upsets the international treaties, it completely changes what the US can say to its foreign partners about drug policy," he argued, making the case for getting behind the initiative.

"Anyone who works in drug policy and underestimates the long-term impact of a victory makes a mistake," Sterling said. "People should really think about committing themselves to making monthly contributions by credit card and encouraging everyone they know to get on the list. This is really worth it. If activists all around the country committed themselves to raising some money for the campaign and started having bake sales and pot lucks and the like, that pool of money could be like the kind of contributions that brought Obama an electoral victory. It is certainly doable."

Democrats would be well-advised to embrace the campaign, said Sterling. "With the polling showing that Democrats and young people support this, it seems to me that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee interested in getting Sen. Boxer reelected and the National Democratic Governor's Association interested in getting a Democrat elected governor and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee would be interested in issues that appeal to Democrats and young people. They need to mobilize some fraction of the electorate that voted for Obama two years ago," he argued. "If they don't, they won't have the turnout and the success they seek."

It would be good politics for Democrats, Sterling said. "They need to encourage their candidates to support it when they can and think about their strategies to tamp down the opposition. They can make the necessary warnings that they're not pro-drug, but trying to regulate it and protect children and bring revenue into the public coffers."

But Democrats aren't known for their backbone on this issue, said Gieringer. "Democrats should like this on the ballot because it encourages turnout by young Democratic and liberal voters, so there is a lot of support in Democratic quarters for that reason," Gieringer said. "But the Democratic Party of California has never even endorsed medical marijuana; they are scared of the drug issue and scared of the crime issue. Anti-crime measures do very well here, and a lot of Democratic elected officials, like a lot of the public, regard the initiative as a 'pro-crime' measure," he pointed out.

The organized opposition, consisting of law enforcement groups, anti-drug community groups, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving coalesced into an anti-initiative coalition called Public Safety First, was quick to go on the attack. "These numbers certainly suggest a great deal of voter skepticism out there," noted group spokesman Tim Rosales in a Wednesday news release. "This is before voters have received any information about this measure's truly numerous flaws."

Citing the initiative's poll findings that large majorities want pot regulated like alcohol and tobacco and that the initiative would bring in needed revenue, Rosales continued his broadside, previewing opposition arguments likely to be fined honed by November. "Those numbers basically show that this measure cannot pass, once voters know what it does and doesn't do," said Rosales. "This measure doesn't regulate marijuana, it does just the opposite. Furthermore, the initiative specifically forbids the state to tax marijuana, so they are basically giving voters a huge reason to vote 'No.'"

In fact, the measure gives cities and counties the option of taxing and regulating marijuana sales. While leaving taxation and regulation to local authorities will not help the state government address its perpetual budget crisis, it will help cash-strapped local governments who desperately need increased revenues to avoid service cuts and lay-offs.

That the opposition is organized and ready to put up a fight is clear. What is less clear is the support the initiative will receive from California's large and multi-faceted marijuana industry. "Marijuana users are overwhelmingly in favor of the initiative, but most of the money in the marijuana lobby at the moment is in medical marijuana, and those folks are happy with things as they are and are not exactly jumping to open up competition like this. And some growers are seriously worried, so there are important parts of the movement that are not necessarily excited," the veteran California activist said.

We're less than six months from Election Day. Victory is in grasp, but so is defeat. These next few months are going to be very interesting indeed.



News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: AlterNet
Author: Phillip S. Smith
Copyright: 2008 Independent Media Institute
Contact: Alternet: Support | AlterNet
Website: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory Is in Grasp | Drugs | AlterNet
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

I'm really surprised Latinos do not better support this needed law. It is their culture, arguably, that was targeted by Anslinger to make cannabis illegal in the U.S. in the first place making the federal statute something of a referendum on civil rights.

I'm surprised someone like Luis Valdez, he of Zuit Suit/La Bamba fame, hasn't told the real story about cannabis and oppression of law enforcement toward Latinos. Cannabis was a known medicine for thousands of years by many cultures until the 20th century. The AMA did not support crimininalizing its use initially and has recently reversed its policy toward MMJ.

The science behind the current federal law is egregiously retarded.

I'll be supporting the new law in November!
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

Well I`m a non-conservitive pot smoker and I won`t be voting for the Tax,Regulate and Control prop in November! It is one of the worst bills I have ever seen conserning MJ! Even the author of Prop 215 is against it! Jack Herer had a hart attack while speeking out about it and later died,he was opposed to the Tax,Regulate and Control prop also! Many ,Many stoners and most of the well informed are against the Tax,Regulate,and Control law! If you go to newagecitizen-dot-com you can see why most informed stoners won`t be voting for this bill! It has youtube vids of Jack Herer and Dinnis Peron`s (the author of prop 215) arguments.I couldn`t say it any better than them!
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

I'm really surprised Latinos do not better support this needed law. It is their culture, arguably, that was targeted by Anslinger to make cannabis illegal in the U.S. in the first place making the federal statute something of a referendum on civil rights.

I'm surprised someone like Luis Valdez, he of Zuit Suit/La Bamba fame, hasn't told the real story about cannabis and oppression of law enforcement toward Latinos. Cannabis was a known medicine for thousands of years by many cultures until the 20th century. The AMA did not support crimininalizing its use initially and has recently reversed its policy toward MMJ.

The science behind the current federal law is egregiously retarded.

I'll be supporting the new law in November!


Having a lot of friends and some family in cali, most if not all of their "dealers" have been latino... so with that said.. they dont want you to take away the family business i suppose..
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

You make it sound like all Hispanic/Latinos are drug dealers or something and that isn`t the case here in Cali at all! I find that statement to be bias at the very least.I`m of Scottish desent my self and about as white as you can get besides a few freckles But that strikes me as racisit.I do have a hispanic adopted son! I also have clan members that have been in Mexico for 200 years that speak spanish and galic and still play the pipes! They are more brown than me but they are my kin! The spanish are themselfs celtic and Most hispanic/latinos have spanish blood in them so to speek out against latinos is also to speek out against most of the race of Euorpe as well! Maybe ,just maybe they don`t talk to you because you make them feel like they are outsiders? Try a little brotherhood Bro!
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

All I have to say is look at the border between Mexico and Cali. The cartels are I fighting for position in the market. If nothing is done the blood will move further into the country. Decriminalize, and it all ends.
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

This is good information, I would like to have some links for the opposing side (meaning still supporting marijuana but why this movement may be the wrong one.)
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

I am in favor of decriminalization of cannibis.But this bill wouldn`t do that! If fact is makes two new felonies for MJ! I also wish it were true that having MJ no longer a part of the cartels money making process would end them ,but MJ is only a small part of there income.The big money for them is in Coke,Crank,and Black tar.They also do protection, steal cars and boats,ect. Anything to make money for them is on the table.Taking away MJ income would not hurt them that much and would not stop all the killing.In fact they would still have the greatest share of income from MJ as most of the MJ grown in Cali is sold outside the state because they have a hard time competing against the quality that small farmers in Cali produce.Take the small farmers out of it with this law and they would be prime to taking over having more money to do so than ether the despenceries or even the State of California.
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

All I have to say is look at the border between Mexico and Cali. The cartels are I fighting for position in the market. If nothing is done the blood will move further into the country. Decriminalize, and it all ends.

Sorry I disagree even though I am for real decriminaliztion. Again read my post above to see why. Now if we could decriminalize nation wide it would but a dent in there income but still only a dent.If you want to hurt them bad you would have to decriminalize all drugs.I don`t see that happening any time soon.
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

This is good information, I would like to have some links for the opposing side (meaning still supporting marijuana but why this movement may be the wrong one.)

the best one I`ve found is War Breaks Out Within the Marijuana Legalization Movement (Part 3)

then there is Jack Herer `s site and MERP. You can find those sites by search engine.There are other sites but the very best argument comes for the writer of Prop 215 which is on youtube. You can watch it from a link on the above newagecitizen link.
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

Well, Jack Herrer and MERP may be correct, but government isn't going to change the status quo unless there's something (money) in it for them.

Given the chance to be a purist or pragmatist, especially when it comes to marijuana decriminalization, I choose to be a pragmatist. Cali is in deep doo-doo economically and mj is potentially a new revenue stream.

I'll support the new law not because it's perfect, because it is not. Decriminalization of mj in Cali is a start. Like the end of prohibition of alcohol, the law will eventually spread nation-wide. Some places will maintain stricter regulation of it than others.

I realize the hard core growers like things the way they are now. But I'm hoping that the common man in Cali will be able to grow a few plants without getting busted, relieving jail populations and the court system.
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

Well, Jack Herrer and MERP may be correct, but government isn't going to change the status quo unless there's something (money) in it for them.

Given the chance to be a purist or pragmatist, especially when it comes to marijuana decriminalization, I choose to be a pragmatist. Cali is in deep doo-doo economically and mj is potentially a new revenue stream.

I'll support the new law not because it's perfect, because it is not. Decriminalization of mj in Cali is a start. Like the end of prohibition of alcohol, the law will eventually spread nation-wide. Some places will maintain stricter regulation of it than others.

I realize the hard core growers like things the way they are now. But I'm hoping that the common man in Cali will be able to grow a few plants without getting busted, relieving jail populations and the court system.

If you want to support the state just send them some of your money to the general fund.No need to vote on creating two new felonies for MJ users to do that! And no need to take income way from small MJ growers and hand that income over to corp. run farms ether! Again if you feel more of your money should go to help a state that locks up more MJ users, disrupts more families,and confiscates more peoples property than any other state by all means just send them some of your hard earned cash marked to the general fund! But if you want a better deal don`t vote for the Tax,Regulate,and Control prop because it doesn`t deliver any real reform or freedom to MJ users,it`s just a step in the wrong direction!
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

If you want to support the state just send them some of your money to the general fund.No need to vote on creating two new felonies for MJ users to do that! And no need to take income way from small MJ growers and hand that income over to corp. run farms ether! Again if you feel more of your money should go to help a state that locks up more MJ users, disrupts more families,and confiscates more peoples property than any other state by all means just send them some of your hard earned cash marked to the general fund! But if you want a better deal don`t vote for the Tax,Regulate,and Control prop because it doesn`t deliver any real reform or freedom to MJ users,it`s just a step in the wrong direction!

Mark,
With all due respect, I'm not reading a cogent and compelling reason into your logic to decriminalize MJ. I do support representative government and the tax base that supports infrastructure and services for everybody in CA.
You're making an assumption about small MJ growers (which is a felony as we correspond) handing money or losing market share to corporate run farms. And I fail to see how decriminalizing MJ will adversely change a "state that locks up more MJ users, disrupts more families and confiscates more peoples property". In fact, it is envisioned that the new law would cease or mitigate criminal litigation.
So tell me exactly what the better deal is not voting for the decriminalization of MJ, Mark. If you know a better way to establish realistic, substantive and meaningful decriminalization of MJ I'd love to hear it. Really. Just as long as there isn't a multi-level marketing scheme attached.
HN
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

Mark,
With all due respect, I'm not reading a cogent and compelling reason into your logic to decriminalize MJ. I do support representative government and the tax base that supports infrastructure and services for everybody in CA.
You're making an assumption about small MJ growers (which is a felony as we correspond) handing money or losing market share to corporate run farms. And I fail to see how decriminalizing MJ will adversely change a "state that locks up more MJ users, disrupts more families and confiscates more peoples property". In fact, it is envisioned that the new law would cease or mitigate criminal litigation.
So tell me exactly what the better deal is not voting for the decriminalization of MJ, Mark. If you know a better way to establish realistic, substantive and meaningful decriminalization of MJ I'd love to hear it. Really. Just as long as there isn't a multi-level marketing scheme attached.
HN

First off this is not a decrriminalizing law but puts two new felonies on the books.It would not cease any one from going to jail because you cannot go to jail in California for an oz of marijuana now! It is an infraction and fine of only $100. Of course instead of maybe getting a ticket you will pay $50.00 state tax,Sales tax, and any amout of local taxes local goverments deside to attack as there is no limits in this new law on EVERY OZ! So does it save you money doutful,does it keep you out of jail or even let one person in jail out? (NO) Does it make two new felony laws? (yes) So why would anyone who says they are pro- marijuana want to vote for this Law? So they can pay taxes more? If there is a multi-level marketing schem involed it`s the Tax,Regulate and control law! It`s designed to make the backers of this bill richer! How about we just simply re-decriminalize Marijuana? It`s simple and straight forward.Levels the playing field and saves tax payers money.Just saving tax payers money would help the state out enough and put spending money in peoples hands. And yes we can do this without adding Taxes,regulations and controls! We don`t need to sell our souls to do the right thing !
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

First off this is not a decrriminalizing law but puts two new felonies on the books.It would not cease any one from going to jail because you cannot go to jail in California for an oz of marijuana now! It is an infraction and fine of only $100. Of course instead of maybe getting a ticket you will pay $50.00 state tax,Sales tax, and any amout of local taxes local goverments deside to attack as there is no limits in this new law on EVERY OZ! So does it save you money doutful,does it keep you out of jail or even let one person in jail out? (NO) Does it make two new felony laws? (yes) So why would anyone who says they are pro- marijuana want to vote for this Law? So they can pay taxes more? If there is a multi-level marketing schem involed it`s the Tax,Regulate and control law! It`s designed to make the backers of this bill richer! How about we just simply re-decriminalize Marijuana? It`s simple and straight forward.Levels the playing field and saves tax payers money.Just saving tax payers money would help the state out enough and put spending money in peoples hands. And yes we can do this without adding Taxes,regulations and controls! We don`t need to sell our souls to do the right thing !

Mark,
A couple of questions for you. I have seen your responses in several threads now on this topic. I have just read that link to part 3 that you posted, as well as the home page of that newage site you posted. I also see you posting about creating 2 new felonies over and over again.. Based on your posts, and what I see on the site, I hear alot of warnings, and alot of talking, but very little actual facts relating to this particular law. I do see references to an AZ law saying no growing unless more than 25 mi from dispensarie, but nothing specific to the CA law. I also understand your wanting the free, unregulated ability to grow as much MJ as you want... However, I am a realist as well, and understand that for MJ to be legal, it would have to be regulated like alcohol. I can freely brew my own beer and make my own wine, but only so much a year.. (I think like 15 gal or something) I am freely breweing it, but still under regulation. Also, I would expect that if I bought MJ retail, that it would be heavily taxed,, this is gov't we are talking about, and alcohol is heavily taxed as well.. just something we live with. Without the possible revenue stream from taxation, gov't would never even consider it. The two main talking points/questions I have are..

What are the 2 felonies being created?

Doesn't the proposed law allow the personal 25 sq ft grow space? So you can grow your own at home, maybe not as much as you want, but you would have the ability to do so, wouldn't you?

:peace:
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

I live here in Northern California, and almost all the growers I know are against legalization. they see their livelihood going down the drain. And for their own selfish reasons they will probably vote against it. They are worried. Lots of disinformation being batted around. The notion that corporate interests will take over is at the top of the list. If it is legal in California, but still illegal under Federal law, no big corporations are going to get involved. Local growers will have a window of opportunity to stake out their own turf and prepare to defend it. Most of them have had it easy, and don't want any competition.
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

Mark,
A couple of questions for you. I have seen your responses in several threads now on this topic. I have just read that link to part 3 that you posted, as well as the home page of that newage site you posted. I also see you posting about creating 2 new felonies over and over again.. Based on your posts, and what I see on the site, I hear alot of warnings, and alot of talking, but very little actual facts relating to this particular law. I do see references to an AZ law saying no growing unless more than 25 mi from dispensarie, but nothing specific to the CA law. I also understand your wanting the free, unregulated ability to grow as much MJ as you want... However, I am a realist as well, and understand that for MJ to be legal, it would have to be regulated like alcohol. I can freely brew my own beer and make my own wine, but only so much a year.. (I think like 15 gal or something) I am freely breweing it, but still under regulation. Also, I would expect that if I bought MJ retail, that it would be heavily taxed,, this is gov't we are talking about, and alcohol is heavily taxed as well.. just something we live with. Without the possible revenue stream from taxation, gov't would never even consider it. The two main talking points/questions I have are..

What are the 2 felonies being created?

Doesn't the proposed law allow the personal 25 sq ft grow space? So you can grow your own at home, maybe not as much as you want, but you would have the ability to do so, wouldn't you?

:peace:

First off we don`t need Goverment to go for it because WE are the goverment! We can vote in any law we want to by vote of the people and those leaders of goverment as well. We don`t need to tax Marijuana in order to decriminalize it !

The two felonies under the perposed law are any one under 21 who is caught with Marijuana would be a felon and subject to some very strick time in jail.I know I started smoking well under 21 yrs of age and I have family who are under 21 who smoke.I wouldn`t want them in jail! Right now it`s just a fine of $100.

second felony would be anyone who smoked near,gave,sold to,ect. anyone under 21 Marijuana subject to felony charges.

One of the problems of the 25 sq. ft. garden is that is per property not per person. If there are two or more adults in the same house hold still 25 sq. ft. and if there are more than one house on the property or a duplex or apt. building still only alowed 25 sq. ft. per property. Many people don`t grow there own now not because of the law but because the travel for work, have no room to grow,ect. Just like how many people really make there own beer or wine? not that many. Most people buy it.How many people are going to grow there own anyway? The backers also know that the way the law is written local goverment can still prohibit growing by land use laws and high taxes. There will likely only be a few places in Cali that will allow you to grow anyway. Most of the population will be forced to drive to Oakland and buy MJ by the oz at a time. Long drive for an oz if your not in central Cali.

There are a lot of people who are not growers who are against this law passing! Backers of this bill would like you to think the only persons who are envolved in mj against it are growers and dealers. Truth is anyone who has young adults or grand kids that back this bill could see them behind bars because of this bill.There are a lot of good reasons why anyone would not support this bill passing and the only ones I know of that are for it stand to make money from it or are just ill informed about what this bill would do if passed!
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

I live here in Northern California, and almost all the growers I know are against legalization. they see their livelihood going down the drain. And for their own selfish reasons they will probably vote against it. They are worried. Lots of disinformation being batted around. The notion that corporate interests will take over is at the top of the list. If it is legal in California, but still illegal under Federal law, no big corporations are going to get involved. Local growers will have a window of opportunity to stake out their own turf and prepare to defend it. Most of them have had it easy, and don't want any competition.

California is full of people who would consider corp. farming if only the state law passed.Not the least the backers of this bill from Oaksterdam who are all ready to gear up.Philip Morris has already got patents on name brands,bought acres of farm land,and has plans in place for processing plants to be built.True it would be contained to the California market for now though but then this Tax,Regulate and control idea isn`t going to be contained just to Cali for long! And even in the time it takes to gear up it would still be against the law for small farmers to grow without the permits and fees involved being payed. Small farming would not be able to comply because of cost.It`s not just the fees and permits but also accountability of the crops,records,and security that would be required.Small ops would not be able to grow cost effectively.
 
Re: With Majorities Supporting CA's Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Victory in Gra

I think this law would greatly inslave us and not to mention the incarceration rate would skyrocket... Sorry but 18-20 smoke marijuana as well. They also drink... however they do not go to jail for drinking but will serve prison time as felons and loose all their rights... education being the greatest one.

Watch what you ask for as you just might get it.
 
Back
Top Bottom