Pot legalization initiative leads by 10 in CA

posted at 2:55 pm on August 13, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Allahpundit reviewed the two major races from the latest Survey USA poll in California, but the poll also included data on a referendum that may put California back in the forefront of drug policy.  Years ago, Californians passed one of the first medical-marijuana initiatives that created a market for the federally-banned substance as long as one could get a medical “referral” that claimed to treat symptoms at a doctor’s wide discretion.  Now Californians have a chance to end the masquerade and just legalize marijuana — and Survey USA shows the ballot measure leading by ten points:

Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana, and allow marijuana to be regulated and taxed in California, continues to be supported narrowly, passing today 50% to 40%, unchanged from 1 month ago. Ballot measures are difficult to poll; opposition to many ballot measures increases as election day approaches. Voter reaction to Proposition 19 can be expected to shift as both sides begin to advertise the pros and cons of passage. There is offsetting movement among demographic groups.

The demographics of this initiative may have some impact on the gubernatorial and Senate races, but it’s just as likely that the impact will be the other way around.  Republicans oppose the bill by 21 points, but independents support it by 20 points and Democrats by 30 points.  It has majority support from the two younger age demographics, surprisingly narrow in the 18-34 demo (52/43) and wider in the 35-49 group (57/33).  It also has plurality support in the two older age demos, 45/43 in each.

Older voters will almost certainly turn out in strong numbers in this election, while the one age group that one would assume to be passionate about legalization turns out to be diffident.  Assuming that opposition drives turnout for Prop 19, that’s probably good news for Carly Fiorina.  She wins all but the youngest age demo in this survey. If support drives turnout, Fiorina doesn’t get hurt and Whitman gets helped.  Fiorina’s widest lead in age demos is among 35-49 YOs, and Whitman does better with younger voters.  That assumes that the demos stay as is, which as Survey USA notes is a rather large assumption.

Will that ten point lead remain viable for Prop 19?  Having lived in California through the Prop 215 campaign in 1996, I recall the argument mainly centered — hypocritically, in my opinion — on pain relief for the hopelessly ill.  The arguments relied heavily on heartstring-tugging, emotional pleas to allow people to use marijuana to alleviate chronic and substantial pain, when anyone who read the bill knew that the lax regime created by Prop 215 would mean widespread availability for marijuana as a back door to de facto legalization.  That measure passed with an 11-point majority, or just about what we see in the Survey USA today poll now.

The big questions are these: Did voters pass 215 in 1996 under the delusion that they were creating a tightly-controlled system that allowed only the very ill to find relief?  Or was everyone in on the joke?  If it’s the latter, then Survey USA’s prediction will be accurate, and possibly even understating its support after 14 years of de facto legalization has produced few problems.  If it’s the former, this will be closer — but in California, they’ll probably pass it anyway.

And they should, if only for the waste of resources states and the federal government burn in enforcing the drug war on a non-toxic intoxicant that does less harm than alcohol overall.  If California wants to cut some of its budget — and it desperately needs to do so — this isn’t a panacea, but alleviating an expensive burden from law enforcement is one place to start.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

What does Walker have to say?

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Let them smoke weed.
My hippy Uncle will be happy to move back to SoCal from liberal Portland OR.
Let Californians wallow in their iniquity, I say.
And to be honest, pot’s no worse than alcohol.
Just different in how it ruins your body.

Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Duuuuuuuuuuude. Where’s my nacho and pizza bailout cash, bro?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 13, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Marijuana is a controlled substance under federal law. This sounds like preemption to me and Obama will immediately file suit to enjoin, right? Right?

Dead Hand Control on August 13, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Californians won’t run to the polls to vote this up. They may support it – but it’s not something that will pull them off their couches.

HondaV65 on August 13, 2010 at 2:59 PM

And they should, if only for the waste of resources states and the federal government burn in enforcing the drug war on a non-toxic intoxicant that does less harm than alcohol overall.

I agree and would like to add that we successfully proved that prohibition cannot ever work, back in the 1920′s.

It only makes criminal suppliers wealthy.

dogsoldier on August 13, 2010 at 3:00 PM

I recall the argument mainly centered — hypocritically, in my opinion — on pain relief for the hopelessly ill.

Yeah… SP does a great job talking about this.

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Legalize and tax it like alcohol and cigarettes, it will create revenue for the government, jobs on farms and shops, it will decrease the power of the Mexican cartels, and save the money that was used in enforcing that law, court and prison. Sounds like a no brainer.

Daveyardbird on August 13, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Marijuana is a controlled substance under federal law. This sounds like preemption to me and Obama will immediately file suit to enjoin, right? Right?

Dead Hand Control on August 13, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Chances are the DEA will continue to raid businesses in CA over this. They actively bust legitimate medical marijuana facilities irregardless of CA law as it is, so I really don’t think this will stop them…

liquidflorian on August 13, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Like Beck said. Drug up the masses so they can’t really tell what is going on. Liberal politition’s dream.

The Notorious G.O.P on August 13, 2010 at 3:02 PM

That what mean,Libs would have a Acapulco goldMine
in taxes!!

canopfor on August 13, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Me, I don’t care either way, as it’s not something I’d ever do.

that being said, is there a valid roadside test to determine THC intoxication?

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on August 13, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Wait…aren’t drug laws federal???

BigWyo on August 13, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Out: KOOL_AID

In: WEED_AID

canopfor on August 13, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Can we please put a fence around California?

tommer74 on August 13, 2010 at 3:03 PM

This is the way it should be done. Since the federal drug laws violate the 9th amendment the states should be left to decide their own drug policy.

If you believe in reefer madness and you are scared of your own shadow because it might be that crazy pot smoking lunatic the propagandist warned you about you will always have Utah and Texas.

Sammy316 on August 13, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Dead Hand Control on August 13, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Yeah…that’s what I was getting at…..

BigWyo on August 13, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Who’s holdin’?

MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 3:04 PM

The pot heads would turn out to vote, if they could remember what day it was………..and what they were supposed to vote for.

As for all those willing pot producers who are going to line up to pay state taxes…….yeah, that’ll happen.

GarandFan on August 13, 2010 at 3:04 PM

If pot helps keep hippies drugged up I say legalize it.

GardenGnome on August 13, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Man this place poll crazy huh? Okay let’s pretend this poll means something. The Yes got 50% of the vote, barely passing if that. Wouldn’t anyone likely to vote for this say Yes in a poll? So if the yes vote loses even 1% it’s toast. And you read this poll as some kind of shift in society or something?

Rocks on August 13, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Can we please put a fence giant stress crack around California?

tommer74 on August 13, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Problem solved.

BigWyo on August 13, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Out: KOOL_AID

In: WEED_AID

canopfor on August 13, 2010 at 3:02 PM

We already have that. It’s called funemployment.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 13, 2010 at 3:05 PM

I could be totally wrong about this, but my understanding is that the way things have been going in CA, only certain “large” pot growers can even distribute pot… My concern would be that only certain people would be allowed to grow/sell pot, thus creating a monopoly.

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Thread Theme Music
====================

Low Rider – War (1975)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TWS0Y9ihyA

canopfor on August 13, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Why do they even bother voting on stuff in California anymore when some judge can just overturn the will of the voters at any time.

dczombie on August 13, 2010 at 3:06 PM

What I like about CA trying to legalize marijuana, it seems that, if passed, this law would challenge current interpretation of the commerce clause.

I still do not understand why we needed an amendment to ban the drug alcohol, but do not need one for marijuana.

WashJeff on August 13, 2010 at 3:06 PM

They actively bust legitimate medical marijuana facilities irregardless of CA law as it is, so I really don’t think this will stop them…

liquidflorian on August 13, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Well, considering there’s a federal law against it I don’t really think you can describe these facilities as legitimate.

Rocks on August 13, 2010 at 3:07 PM

canopfor on August 13, 2010 at 3:02 PM
===========================
We already have that. It’s called funemployment.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 13, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Dr.Cwac.Cwac: No sh*t Sherlock!!(I`m Kidding):)

canopfor on August 13, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Hey, dude, didja vote to legalize pot today?

Aw, shut up, man, and take another toke. It’s such a bummer waitin’ in vote lines, man! (sniff!)

Steve Z on August 13, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Legalize and tax it like alcohol and cigarettes, it will create revenue for the government, jobs on farms and shops, it will decrease the power of the Mexican cartels, and save the money that was used in enforcing that law, court and prison. Sounds like a no brainer.

Daveyardbird on August 13, 2010 at 3:01 PM

We are all going to be rich! The best part? We can get high with the money!

Rocks on August 13, 2010 at 3:09 PM

If that’s what California wants, they should have it. I just hope that some federal judge doesn’t decide that that needs to be the law everywhere. I also hope dealers in states bordering CA are gearing up to sell tax-free supplies. This should be good fun to watch.

Kafir on August 13, 2010 at 3:09 PM

This is a good start.

BUT, when did the California voters have a right to determine their own destiny?

rickyricardo on August 13, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Don’t count yer chickens potheads. Some judge who doesn’t like this law can just throw it out and not allow appeals, a la Judge Walker.

Akzed on August 13, 2010 at 3:09 PM

I don’t understand. Californians claimed Arizona’s law was evil and horrible because it appeared to supersede federal law.

This initiative will supersede federal law, and Californians seem to be all about it.

I know it’s not worth asking, but will ANYONE call them on their hypocrisy?

Troika37 on August 13, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Who’s holdin’?

MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Samson gets me lifted.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 13, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Legalize and tax it like alcohol and cigarettes, it will create revenue for the government, jobs on farms and shops, it will decrease the power of the Mexican cartels, and save the money that was used in enforcing that law, court and prison. Sounds like a no brainer.

Daveyardbird on August 13, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Not exactly jumping up and down over the government regulating a substance they never should have outlawed in the first place.

Bee on August 13, 2010 at 3:11 PM

If only BHO was actually for state’s rights…

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:11 PM

I agree and would like to add that we successfully proved that prohibition cannot ever work, back in the 1920’s.

It only makes criminal suppliers wealthy.

dogsoldier on August 13, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Me too. In fact the market for cocaine makes weed look like…well a weed. All that cash must mean it’s pointless to make it illegal. Opium too.

Rocks on August 13, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Hey, dude, didja vote to legalize pot today?

Aw, shut up, man, and take another toke. It’s such a bummer waitin’ in vote lines, man! (sniff!)

Steve Z on August 13, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Steve Z: Hey Greedo,stop hogging it!!(sarc):)

canopfor on August 13, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Does anyone agree with me that legalizing pot is clearly racist because it will hurt the Mexican Drug cartels???

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:12 PM

My concern would be that only certain people would be allowed to grow/sell pot, thus creating a monopoly.

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:06 PM

The prop will allow households to grow it themselves (up to 25 square feet of mj growing). Don’t think the gov will be able to tax that.

El_Terrible on August 13, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Legalize it, and watch the situation in Mexico blow over.

MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Does anyone agree with me that legalizing pot is clearly racist because it will hurt the Mexican Drug cartels???

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:12 PM

No, it’s xenophobic. It because we hate the Canadians and that cheap crap they send down by the truck load.

Rocks on August 13, 2010 at 3:15 PM

And to be honest, pot’s no worse than alcohol.

Pot’s no worse than half the things we call breakfast cereal and feed to children every day.

Go RBNY on August 13, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Samson gets me lifted.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 13, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Dr.Cwac.Cwac: Sir Smoke A Lot,and Pot Pajamas,LOL!:)

canopfor on August 13, 2010 at 3:15 PM

The prop will allow households to grow it themselves (up to 25 square feet of mj growing). Don’t think the gov will be able to tax that.

El_Terrible on August 13, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Oh. That’s actually pretty good. Good. Regulating one to support big MJ is kind of, well, illiberal.

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Legalize it, and watch the situation in Mexico blow over.

MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 3:13 PM

My guess is that California could become the base to distribute marijuana throughout the country, no? Why cross the border when you can grow it in CA and take it to any state. Good or bad?

El_Terrible on August 13, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Pot’s no worse than half the things we call breakfast cereal and feed to children every day.

Go RBNY on August 13, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Ganja, then a bowl of Lucky Charms in chocolate milk.

The breakfast of real Americans.

MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 3:16 PM

The prop will allow households to grow it themselves (up to 25 square feet of mj growing). Don’t think the gov will be able to tax that.

El_Terrible on August 13, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Is that total area or just land surface? You can grow a lot of pot in a five by five plot of ground in Cali in a year.

Rocks on August 13, 2010 at 3:17 PM

No, it’s xenophobic. It because we hate the Canadians and that cheap crap they send down by the truck load.

Rocks on August 13, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Hey, I don’t wanna help out those Frenchies! ;-)

OK, so so far Pot Legalization is

1) Racist

2) Xenophobic

What else…

Doesn’t seem to work to better the general welfare :O

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:17 PM

My guess is that California could become the base to distribute marijuana throughout the country, no? Why cross the border when you can grow it in CA and take it to any state. Good or bad?

El_Terrible on August 13, 2010 at 3:16 PM

If Californian citizens can cultivate and sell it, competition opens up wide, especially since corporations will start commercial production. Hell, they can even go with the “Buy American” label. Even MS13 won’t be able to compete.

MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Is that total area or just land surface? You can grow a lot of pot in a five by five plot of ground in Cali in a year.

Rocks on August 13, 2010 at 3:17 PM

Hydroponics, baby!

Speaking of which, I’m thinking of going to the local hydroponics shop up the road… out of curiosity.

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:18 PM

You know, i read a lot of the Village Voice blogs papers that are put out city by city just to see what the left is up to and the most prevalent item is their constant whining to legalize pot. Shame to see conservative blogs joining them.

clearbluesky on August 13, 2010 at 3:18 PM

My guess is that California could become the base to distribute marijuana throughout the country, no? Why cross the border when you can grow it in CA and take it to any state. Good or bad?

El_Terrible on August 13, 2010 at 3:16 PM

And it isn’t now? Most of the pot grown by Mexican cartels isn’t grown in Mexico.

Rocks on August 13, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Does anyone agree with me that legalizing pot is clearly racist because it will hurt the Mexican Drug cartels???

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:12 PM

MeatHeadinCA: Thats Pure Crazy Talk,they only import
sombreros!!:)

canopfor on August 13, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Right now proponents are happy that it looks like it will pass.

But if/when voters have to vote on it, they will either a) forget where they were going on the way to the polling place; or b) forget what they were voting for and head over to the local convenience store for munchies.

VibrioCocci on August 13, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Think CA will start selling Cloves again??? Just to “stick it to the man?”

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:19 PM

I went back and looked up the history of American drug laws. This is another thing that took place during the orgy of “progressive” Socialism. It started out as a few tiny little taxes and within a few years turned into outright banning of everything – even alcohol.

OF COURSE drugs are bad for people. But it’s none of my damned business if you want to poison yourself to death. The only way to justify anti-drug laws is to assume that each person’s body is the property of the state. And that is a belief system that needs to be thrown on the trash heap of history.

logis on August 13, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Think CA will start selling Cloves again??? Just to “stick it to the man?”

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Cloves are back. Re-labeled as clove cigars and in the stores. Still cheaper to order them from Indonesia, though.

MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 3:20 PM

MeatHeadinCA: Thats Pure Crazy Talk,they only import
sombreros!!:)

canopfor on August 13, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Sorry, canop. Someone also pointed out that it might be xenophobic towards Canadians… *sniffles

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Cloves are back. Re-labeled as clove cigars and in the stores. Still cheaper to order them from Indonesia, though.

MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 3:20 PM

I guess I just haven’t been keeping up on the new “gateway drugs”

Though, I see dems in Florida want to ban crack pipes… in the name of errr IDK.

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:21 PM

You can grow a lot of pot in a five by five plot of ground in Cali in a year.

Rocks on August 13, 2010 at 3:17 PM

You can grow a lot in back yards and closets in NC, too. :)

Bee on August 13, 2010 at 3:21 PM

This will create jobs and wealth for the people of California at the same time reducing crime and incarcerations. More power to them if they do it.

tflst5 on August 13, 2010 at 3:21 PM

that being said, is there a valid roadside test to determine THC intoxication?

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on August 13, 2010 at 3:02 PM

no, but there are no valid roadside tests for most of the drugs you can be convicted of driving while using. Booze is just rare in that we breath it out when we exhale. Dashboard cam footage of the driver stumbling through the exam on the roadside should be enough to convict (or at least arrest, get them off the road safely.)

cameo on August 13, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Hey kids, don’t do drugs! (until after November)

JavelinaBomb on August 13, 2010 at 3:24 PM

California is going to pot. (sorry, I could not resist)

mwbri on August 13, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Well, considering there’s a federal law against it I don’t really think you can describe these facilities as legitimate.

Rocks on August 13, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Federalism has a pose….

liquidflorian on August 13, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Legalize it, and watch the situation in Mexico blow over.

MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 3:13 PM

I don’t doubt that pot plays a role in that, but I do sincerely doubt that removing pot would make a significant impact. There’s still coke and the lucrative kidnapping business.

Esthier on August 13, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Does anyone agree with me that legalizing pot is clearly racist because it will hurt the Mexican Drug cartels???

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:12 PM

No, because they’ll just shift their focus to coke, heroin, etc.

The whole idea that criminal enterprises will go away because you legalize pot is lame…

The bootleggers back in the 20′s/30′s didn’t close up shop when prohibition ended, they just went on to other things…

I thought it would be great if pot was legal at one time…when I was about 15.

BigWyo on August 13, 2010 at 3:25 PM

This will create jobs and wealth for the people of California at the same time reducing crime and incarcerations. More power to them if they do it.

tflst5 on August 13, 2010 at 3:21 PM

I can see that. I can also see the government taxing the hell out of it like everything else it deems “sin,” recreation or luxury.

Bee on August 13, 2010 at 3:25 PM

I don’t doubt that pot plays a role in that, but I do sincerely doubt that removing pot would make a significant impact. There’s still coke and the lucrative kidnapping business.

Esthier on August 13, 2010 at 3:25 PM

It’d certainly cause a serious hiccup. Anything to slow the decline.

MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Awesome.

Now when that 14 year old girl aborts her 25 year old boyfriend’s baby without consent from her legally-married gay parents, she can toke up afterwards.

Do we live in great state or what!

The Ugly American on August 13, 2010 at 3:26 PM

no, but there are no valid roadside tests for most of the drugs you can be convicted of driving while using.

cameo on August 13, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Sure, but since they’re all currently illegal, you only need to have taken them instead of being provably high while driving. I’ve never seen someone high on pot stumble around the way a drunk does, so I’m not sure how cameras will help.

Esthier on August 13, 2010 at 3:27 PM

No, because they’ll just shift their focus to coke, heroin, etc.

BigWyo on August 13, 2010 at 3:25 PM

But you’d be forcing a protected group (under the DNC) to change… that sounds racist to me. May as well deny them subsidized housing!!!111!

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:27 PM

I’m up in the air on this. I’m an old hippie, reformed, and I don’t see that this is a positive thing. I know, I know it will free up some jail space, but what does it say to the young. I thought smoking was bad? Oh, I see only if it gets you high it’s ok. Good message.

sandee on August 13, 2010 at 3:27 PM

but what does it say to the young
sandee on August 13, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Do you have children or children in your life?

If so, I suggest you explain to them why you believe smoking (anything) is wrong.

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:29 PM

It’d certainly cause a serious hiccup. Anything to slow the decline.

MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Maybe. I’m unpersuaded on that specific example, but I would certainly agree it would hurt them. Presumably it’d hurt the terrorists pot smokers are supposedly funding as well.

Now when that 14 year old girl aborts her 25 year old boyfriend’s baby without consent from her legally-married gay parents, she can toke up afterwards.

The Ugly American on August 13, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Presumably there’d still be an age limit the way they do it in Amsterdam.

Esthier on August 13, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Marijuana is a controlled substance under federal law. This sounds like preemption to me and Obama will immediately file suit to enjoin, right? Right?

Dead Hand Control on August 13, 2010 at 2:59 PM

And the State of California will say to the Feds, quite rightly IMHO, “You like prohibitions on cannabis? Fine. Go Ahead and enforce your prohibitions.”

And every Federal District Court in the state will grind to a halt.

JohnGalt23 on August 13, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Presumably there’d still be an age limit the way they do it in Amsterdam.

Esthier on August 13, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Because we want to be like Amsterdam.

And you missed the sarcasm point entirely.

The Ugly American on August 13, 2010 at 3:33 PM

The Ugly American on August 13, 2010 at 3:26 PM

*snicker*

BigWyo on August 13, 2010 at 3:33 PM

I’m up in the air on this. I’m an old hippie, reformed, and I don’t see that this is a positive thing. I know, I know it will free up some jail space, but what does it say to the young. I thought smoking was bad? Oh, I see only if it gets you high it’s ok. Good message.

sandee on August 13, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Teach your own kids what you perceive as right and/or wrong. Don’t expect the state to do it at the expense of others freedom.

Sammy316 on August 13, 2010 at 3:33 PM

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:29 PM

My children are grown and in their thirties was children of their own. I see that they compare pot to drinking alcohol,but that’s not necessarily true. Granted a portion of drinkers drink to get drunk. Others, like myself, enjoy wine and other things but it is not my intention to over do it. I have been known on occasion to have one too many. If I smoke pot, which I don’t anymore but I did in my hippie days, my intention is to get high. Seems different to me.

sandee on August 13, 2010 at 3:34 PM

The tax generated from pot sales won’t come close to the cost of the beurocracy to oversee it. Our government in Ca. has never done anything successfully and I can guarantee this will not be a first. FUBAR

repvoter on August 13, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Sorry (with children of their own)

sandee on August 13, 2010 at 3:34 PM

And I can’t WAIT to see how this plays out with the no-smoking crowd.

Now that smoking is banned nearly everywhere, I’m gonna love watching all smoking nazi’s suddenly backpedaling on pot.

The Ugly American on August 13, 2010 at 3:36 PM

The fact that this is pot smokers’ political passion at this time in history is the greatest argument to ban it forever. Victimless crime? Sure, if you don’t count your country.

Ronnie on August 13, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Mo’ Money! Mo’ Money! Mo’ Money!

The Rancho Cordova measure would impose a $600 annual tax per square foot of indoor cultivation of 25 square feet of marijuana or less and a $900 per square foot tax if the indoor growing area is more than 25 square feet.

The city tax would cost a local indoor grower $6,000 a year on 10 square feet of pot plants and $15,000 for 25 square feet. Outdoor growers, who would be billed at a lower rate, would pay a $1,200 residential tax for 25 square feet of marijuana plants.

Notice the price differential for indoor growers because they can produce the highest quality stuff.

Never mind this is totally unconstitutional. By what right does a town have to tax GROWING something? Not tax it’s sale…but just to grow it. They are going to spend as much if not more than they did on stopping it’s sale as they will in trying to collect the taxes. It’s all just a joke.

Rocks on August 13, 2010 at 3:36 PM

And you missed the sarcasm point entirely.

The Ugly American on August 13, 2010 at 3:33 PM

No, I got it. I’m just pointing out something obvious.

Esthier on August 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM

I’m up in the air on this. I’m an old hippie, reformed, and I don’t see that this is a positive thing. I know, I know it will free up some jail space, but what does it say to the young. I thought smoking was bad? Oh, I see only if it gets you high it’s ok. Good message.

sandee on August 13, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Exactly.

The Ugly American on August 13, 2010 at 3:38 PM

My children are grown and in their thirties was children of their own. I see that they compare pot to drinking alcohol,but that’s not necessarily true. Granted a portion of drinkers drink to get drunk. Others, like myself, enjoy wine and other things but it is not my intention to over do it. I have been known on occasion to have one too many. If I smoke pot, which I don’t anymore but I did in my hippie days, my intention is to get high. Seems different to me.

sandee on August 13, 2010 at 3:34 PM

OK, so tell them (your children and grandchildren) exactly what you told me. Explain why you believe that being under the influence is wrong (if that’s what you believe).

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:39 PM

What are they going to legalize next when they realize that legalizing/taxing marijuana won’t ease they’re debt crunch.

JavelinaBomb on August 13, 2010 at 3:39 PM

their not they’re

JavelinaBomb on August 13, 2010 at 3:40 PM

I am buying stock in delivery pizza joints!!!!!

search4truth on August 13, 2010 at 3:40 PM

What are they going to legalize next when they realize that legalizing/taxing marijuana won’t ease they’re debt crunch.

JavelinaBomb on August 13, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Prostitution?

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:40 PM

I’m up in the air on this. I’m an old hippie, reformed, and I don’t see that this is a positive thing. I know, I know it will free up some jail space, but what does it say to the young. I thought smoking was bad? Oh, I see only if it gets you high it’s ok. Good message.

sandee on August 13, 2010 at 3:27 PM

To be fair, it seems the damage to lungs and heart from weed is less than tobacco. The long term effects on the brain are reversed. Nicotine seems to aid brain function (apart from being highly addictive) and weed damages it.

pedestrian on August 13, 2010 at 3:40 PM

No, I got it. I’m just pointing out something obvious.

Esthier on August 13, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Minors have always found ways to get their hands on alcohol and cigarettes so pot won’t be any different.

The Ugly American on August 13, 2010 at 3:41 PM

I don’t think we’re going to worry about the feds here in San Francisco where I work. Here is a link to current Yelp listings for pot clubs currently open in SF:http://www.yelp.com/list/bay-area-cannabis-clubs-san-francisco

The feds don’t bother these clubs now, why would they start?

sdillard on August 13, 2010 at 3:42 PM

What are they going to legalize next when they realize that legalizing/taxing marijuana won’t ease they’re debt crunch.

JavelinaBomb on August 13, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Prostitution?

MeatHeadinCA on August 13, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Printing money. Yes we can!

pedestrian on August 13, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Minors have always found ways to get their hands on alcohol and cigarettes so pot won’t be any different.

The Ugly American on August 13, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Kids already get their hands on pot. Might as well make it legal for the adults.

MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2