Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Opposition to Prop 19 on the rise

Support for Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana in California, has been on a steady decline since the summer. It now appears to be at serious risk of failing, with 45% of voters expressing support for it and 48% opposed.

In July PPP found it passing by a 52/36 margin. But that 52% support dropped to 47% in a September poll before going down now to 45%. Meanwhile opposition has increased from that 36% mark to 38% and now to 48%.

Opposition to the measure is climbing across the board. 47% of independents oppose it, up from 30% in July. 67% of Republicans oppose it, up from 55% in July. And 34% of Democrats are against it, up from 25% in July.

It's close enough that the final vote on the question could certainly go either way but the trends are not looking good for pro-marijuana interests.

Full results here

10 comments:

Bill R. said...

I wonder if the cell phone only young adult crowd was underpolled here?

Anonymous said...

What I'm confused about is the people who say that they've already voted, and yet are undecided on some of the questions. This has been a phenomenon on lots of other races in previous elections too. Do you think it's because they're unwilling to say how they voted, or they didn't vote in the race in question, or something else?

Do you think it would be useful (or skew the results somehow) to ask the "have you voted already" question first, and tailor the results based on the results (namely, replacing the 'undecided' choice with 'I did not vote in this race.')

Jon said...

I seriously disagree with the oppostion of prop 19. i mean come on get yours facts straight before you vote. Ooo and btw your picture of the car crash is bullshit... NOT ONE PERSON HAS DIED FROM MARIJUANA

Dustin Ingalls said...

"I seriously disagree with the oppostion of prop 19. i mean come on get yours facts straight before you vote. Ooo and btw your picture of the car crash is bullshit... NOT ONE PERSON HAS DIED FROM MARIJUANA"

Who are you talking to, and what picture are you talking about?

Marvin said...

Pro civil liberty interests.

It amazes me that the same idiots who talk about "big government" think it's OK for the government to tell us what we can smoke in our own homes.

It's just pure insanity.

Marijuana is far less dangerous and destructive than alcohol and cigarettes. It's crazy for them to be illegal and marijuana to be illegal.

Anonymous said...

I have no idea what the other poster was talking about but would guess she probably meant that free ad on this page:The Foundation for a Drug-Free World http://www.drugfreeworld.org/about-us/about-the-foundation.html

Anyhow, I hope Prop 19 pass and someday in the future the Federal government would stop funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into DEA, prisons due to the imprisonment of soft drug users, and assault weapons other than semi-automatic handguns for the police force.

Small government, anyone?

Jon said...

the picture when u first go to website its pure bullshit and it just pisses me off that u guys have one sided minds

Dustin Ingalls said...

"the picture when u first go to website its pure bullshit and it just pisses me off that u guys have one sided minds"

Everyone sees a different ad when they go to our blog; we don't place them there. It's run by Google.

Scipio said...

With the jackboot attitude of the drug war and people's mistrust in government, how many of them would not say yes in fear of being put on a government list?

What's up with that BS commercial where they "do you know if your surgeon is high?" reefer madness propaganda? Why don't we just outlaw booze for the same reason?

Now the Chamber of Commerce is trying to help defeat this campaign, the same group that lobbied for keeping tax breaks for companies who jobs sent overseas. Something that can't be more wrong. So if the Chamber is against it, you know it's something to be for.

political forum said...

Even if the measure did pass, the federal government has indicated that it would not be legal since this would have a dramatic impact on fighting drugs nationwide. I think it might affect international treaties as well. Constitutionally, this would definitely fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause, and so federal law would trump state law.

Kevin

 
Web Statistics