Prop 19!!

Proposition 19 the Cannabis Act of 2010, which would have legalized recreational use and possession of marijuana, was defeated with only 44 percent of Californians voting “Yes,” 56 percent voting “No”.

 

Perhaps they need to come up with a different number for the next ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in California. It was also a “Prop 19” that would have legalized pot in California in 1972. That attempt also lost but by a much wider margin.

 

The margin of defeat for the 2010 Proposition 19 was the opposite of 1996’s Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, which legalized medical marijuana in California with 56 percent voting ‘Yes’; the overall political climate of the country seemed to be less conservative in ’96 than it is now in post-9/11 America. A lower voter count was taken of younger people at the polls in 2010 than in 2008, when the Barack Obama presidential campaign energized voters under 30.

 

Prop. 19 was launched by longtime marijuana activist Richard Lee, entrepreneur of the highly successful Oaksterdam University, established in 2007, which provides education and training for those interested in pursuing careers in the burgeoning medicinal cannabis industry. Lee appeared at a final “Yes on Prop. 19” rally in Oakland. Lee sank over a million dollars of his own money into Prop. 19, and noted philanthropist and anti-prohibitionist George Soros donated another million dollars at the last minute, but it was too little too late to save Prop. 19.

 

One consideration is the possible role polls may have played in influencing the Prop. 19 vote. Wide discrepancies in Prop. 19 poll results revealed potential errors in polling companies' procedures. It appears more respondents denied support for Prop. 19 when interviewed by a live person, as opposed to those polled by Automated Computer Telephone Interviewing (ACTI). This is a phenomenon called the “Bradley effect”; pollster Nate Silver quipped that the Prop. 19 poll variations were due to the “Broadus effect”.

The official “Yes on 19” group conducted a poll using both live interviewers and ACTI, and the difference was staggering; when responding to a voice-recognition machine, 56 percent said they’d vote “Yes” on Prop. 19, but when talking to a live person the support dropped to 40 percent, even less than Prop. 19 actually received from voters.

 

There is a deeper, more disturbing outcome of flawed poll results. Once people – especially undecided voters – view repeated polls in the media projecting the same result of a proposition (either winning or losing), at least some (if not many) tend to vote in that direction, preferring to feel their vote was validated by being cast on the “right side.” Early polls had Prop. 19 winning, but during October, they predicted Prop. 19’s eventual doom. Was it a self-fulfilling prophecy?

 

Some of the negative news media coverage in the weeks before the election also likely played a role in swaying some of those undecided to vote “No” on Prop. 19. Even in the generally pot-friendly Bay Area, the local nightly newscasts featured stories of the “high risks” of pot legalization to neighborhoods from booby-trapped “pot houses” or home invasions by criminals looking to rip off plants being legally cultivated.

 

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger demonstrated his opposition to Prop. 19 when he signed a bill on September 30 that downgraded possession of less than an ounce from a misdemeanor to a mere infraction. Some activists speculated that it was an attempt by Schwarzenegger to undermine Prop. 19’s potential impact, and it’s possible the publicity over this change in law may have also deflated some of the voter enthusiasm to legalize cannabis outright.

The Smiriking Chimp's "**ck it and give up"!

Jeff Tiedrich really gives a new meaning to controversial. In his very short and to the point blog post he aims his comments not at just one party but to both by stating "So Republicans suck and Democrats suck. Yeah, we get it" as his opening statement. This is first off a notion to what he wants his intended readers to get, but he goes just a tad bit further to include his ideas on how to fix everyone sucking. Why is this controversial? It is because not a lot of people get up and just say the truth nor do they even try to suggestion calmly in the same idea how someone might go about fixing it.  Is what he said right or wrong? I think he did a great job by keeping his post simple and short. He wanted it to be read and understood so he didn't write a two page rant, he simply wrote what mattered. I think this gets the best reaction and response clearly seen by his commentators. He seems to know what he is talking about and being on the staff for five years means he is pretty creditable. I give this guy an A+ for keeping things straight.