Skip to main content

Survey USA released a new poll on April 20, 2010, showing support for November initiative legalizing pot in California continues at 56%.  Support by those 18-34 is a not surprising 74%. But there is a surprise in this number:  Support by Independents (62%) is greater than support by Democrats (59%).

Even Republicans support the initiative at a high level (46%).  Probably the Libertarians boost that number.  Here's for a coalition of the willing:  Independents, Liberals (77%) and Libertarians.  Survey results at:

http://www.surveyusa.com/...

Legalization of pot has majority support also across all regions of CA -- Central (54%), Bay Area (65%), Inland Empire (54%), and "Greater" (presumably SoCal) (52%).  Looking at the cross tabs, most negative group:  white women over 65.  Men strongly support legalization (65%).  

Since people have known the legalization initiative will be on the November 2010 ballot for more than a month now, this survey seems to indicate that Californians actually are SERIOUS about legalizing pot in our state.  

Originally posted to nirbama on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 02:27 AM PDT.

Poll

Will a majority of Californians vote to legalize marijuana in 2010?

92%61 votes
7%5 votes

| 66 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Curious...how do they plan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, foxsucks81

    to reconcile this with Federal drug laws?

    •  Feds Will Accept Fait Accompli (5+ / 0-)

      One possible outcome is an extension of the current DOJ policy of not making it a priority to arrest anyone not breaking California law (currently allowing medical marijuana use), in other words, de facto acceptance of the state law.  Another would be to enforce federal law, but only in federal court (the federal judges would be THRILLED to be spending their time sentencing people arrested for publicly smoking a joint).  Actually, as soon as you think about it, if a State legalizes marijuana use, it would be impossible for the feds to intervene.  They would have to arrest 1,000's of people weekly, or else just swoop down every once in a while on random people, and how would THAT play?  Most likely outcome is that DOJ would say it will concentrate on breaking up illegal drug cartels (which will still be illegal in California if the legalization initiative passes.

      •  The Feds don't enforce THC laws here already (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek, beltane, nirbama

        it's practically legal.  You can buy it at dispensaries, with a card, which you can get on the flimsiest of medical pretenses.  Feds don't care.  Cops don't care.  I suppose if you're in certain counties, with certain amounts, you're in trouble, but there is a huge booming industry of growing pot in Northern California and it's perfectly legal under state law and the feds leave it alone.

        I could give a flying crap about the political process. We're an entertainment company. --Glenn Beck

        by foxsucks81 on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 03:07:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  i wonder about this: (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          foxsucks81, Andhakari, nirbama, KVoimakas

          Will the Humboldt & Mendocino growers fund a campaign against the initiative?

          After all, what's the price of pot right now?, a few hundred bucks an ounce?  What's it going to be when you can buy the stuff and pay state sales tax?    

          Mendocino and Humboldt real estate prices are all based on the pot economy as it currently stands.

          We are going to see a serious drop in those real estate prices, which IMHO is a good thing.  

          •  There was actually a news article about this (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            G2geek

            front page of the oakland paper a few weeks back.

            Answer = Yes.

            I could give a flying crap about the political process. We're an entertainment company. --Glenn Beck

            by foxsucks81 on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 03:22:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  oh boy, that is really funny. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              foxsucks81, nirbama

              I wonder if we can encourage pot smokers to boycott Mendo & Humboldt pot if the growers sink money into the Anti campaign.  

              Hmm.

              I need to talk to the people I know who smoke it and see if they'd be onboard for that.  

              Better yet!  Expose the grower money going into the Anti campaign!  

              That could be the coup at the end of the campaign:  pull the campaign donation stats by zip code, and show that the growers are funding the Anti campaign.  That would be the end of the Antis.  

              Or do it during the campaign by forcing the Antis to refuse to accept funding that could in any way come from growers.   Make it an issue and keep it on the radar, so whenever an Anti ad runs, people immediately think of the funding from growers.  That by itself will probably drive a decent number of Republicans to vote for legalization.

        •  back when alcohol was illegal... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          foxsucks81, JesseCW, KVoimakas

          ...there was actually a big to-do about medical beer.  

          Keyword search the phrase "medical beer" and read up.

          Very interesting case of history repeating itself.  The difference being that the medical uses of pot are firmly established with peer-reviewed research.  

        •  Weed Card (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nirbama

          The issue is not whether Congress regulates Wall Street, it's the degree to which Wall Street regulates Congress. B. Sanders

          by JesseCW on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 03:47:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah, but in the legislature, it is almost (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, foxsucks81

    unanimous against it. The cowards we elect are terrified that they will not be re-elected if they advocate a sane drug policy. But, this is the best government money can buy!!!!!!!!

    I voted with my feet. Good Bye and Good Luck America!!

    by shann on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 02:40:19 AM PDT

    •  Actually, a relegalization bill made it out of (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek, foxsucks81, thethinveil

      of committee last session. Had a bunch of co-signers.

      The issue is not whether Congress regulates Wall Street, it's the degree to which Wall Street regulates Congress. B. Sanders

      by JesseCW on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 03:00:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not my Rep. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek, thethinveil

      good ole "kiss my gay ass" Tom Amiano.

      I could give a flying crap about the political process. We're an entertainment company. --Glenn Beck

      by foxsucks81 on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 03:01:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  after it's legal.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bsmechanic, foxsucks81

      .... with that kind of majority, they will make accommodating statements about the tax revenue, and about law enforcement being able to concentrate on the drug cartels.  

      I think Obama is going to say something along the lines of "I strongly disapprove of the use of marijuana, but we have more important priorities than chasing after people who smoke it."

      Not long ago I heard someone who is over 65 and a hard core Republican say something along the lines of, "How ridiculous! to arrest someone for doing something that only hurts themselves!"  

      So as we close this chapter of prohibitionism, I have to wonder what comes next.  There are always prohibitionists afoot, and they always have a rationalization.  After alcohol prohibition was repealed, pot prohibition was enacted within a few years.  Now we repeal pot prohibition, and the prohibitionists will need a new target.  Perhaps tobacco, or perhaps junk food?  

      But instead of outright prohibition, they'll try to tax it to death, which after all was the original approach to pot prohibition.  And then we'll see the same old cycle get going again, with organized crime, and people sneaking around, and all the rest of that crap.  

      Or maybe this time we'll learn the lesson and give up on trying to dictate what people can and can't put into their own bodies.  

  •  This is Good News.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, Andhakari, nirbama

    FOR JOHN MCCAIN!

    I could give a flying crap about the political process. We're an entertainment company. --Glenn Beck

    by foxsucks81 on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 03:02:29 AM PDT

  •  Seriously though (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, nirbama

    After everyone's been flogging that old Field Poll, it's nice to see some new data.  Glad the support didn't collapse, but it can...remember gay marriage started out with support before the "A Storm is Coming and I'm scared" ads.

    I could give a flying crap about the political process. We're an entertainment company. --Glenn Beck

    by foxsucks81 on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 03:03:35 AM PDT

    •  important point. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      barath, foxsucks81, nirbama

      The religious extremist nutcase brigade will go on the offense, just as they did for equal marriage.  

      Though, I don't know how they're going to beat the arguement about billions of dollars in state tax revenues and lower law enforcement & incarceration costs.  

      What we need to do is start running ads that feature out-takes from Reefer Madness, to take the wind out of the next round of "A storm is coming and I'm scared" ads.  Ridicule is good for fighting fear.  

      •  Would be *amazing*!! (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        barath, G2geek, Andhakari, nirbama

        Great idea.  Do a sarcastic ad a la Meg Whitman's using stock footage of anti-weed propaganda.  Then tie it in to fiscal conservatism.  Brilliant!  

        I could give a flying crap about the political process. We're an entertainment company. --Glenn Beck

        by foxsucks81 on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 03:27:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just what I had been thinking too (0+ / 0-)

          There's also a great old Dragnet episode that comes close to Reefer Madness in its depiction of the horror of pot smoking.  Run lots of ads showing old attitudes and contrast with current science results.  Portray anti-pot view as stuck in the old days (as opposed to representing solid family values traditional values).

    •  This time, there's no reason to think (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beltane, foxsucks81, Andhakari, nirbama

      "undecided" really means "against.

      That's a plus.

      The issue is not whether Congress regulates Wall Street, it's the degree to which Wall Street regulates Congress. B. Sanders

      by JesseCW on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 03:43:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site