K
kannubis
According to the media, if it were legalized, the cartel violence would rear its head in the states over the fight for turf and $$$, so that one is shot out of the sky.
Prop 19 Post-Mortem: Crunching the Numbers and Pointing the Finger
- Thread starter fatigues
- Start date
- Status
I have NEVER heard that from the media.... any links?
K
kannubis
Presented on the new show that popped up the day after the election.
Marijuana, Chronic something or other that seemed to be a complaint about the amount of money spent on the failing drug war since tricky dick declared it.
One of the northern cali LEOs planted the seed of the threat of it happening. It will be brought up again and again, I'm sure.
Marijuana, Chronic something or other that seemed to be a complaint about the amount of money spent on the failing drug war since tricky dick declared it.
One of the northern cali LEOs planted the seed of the threat of it happening. It will be brought up again and again, I'm sure.
Man I don't wanna nitpick here, this is a great analysis you have going on here, but I spent like an hour this morning doing math on this very topic and want to uh, nitpick a bit hehe.
OK the 13% turnout thing? Is this right? It is my understanding that 13% of the voters were 18-29, and that turnout was about 20%.
Further, 18-29 turnout in a presidential election is like 50% nationwide, and I can't find California specific numbers, but here's a nationwide graph -
Anyways, I did the math and when you up from 20% turnout to 50%, you end up with similar numbers from upping the total percentage of voters to 20 from 13, so the result is essentially the same. Hense nitpicking hehe, but I wanna bring this up and see if I have made a mistake, and if not, help someone who clearly has a grasp on the issue.
I was straight up shocked when I did the math on an increase from 20% turnout to 50% and it still wasn't even close to enough.
Anyways, you got it man, they need to make substantial change to the prop to court additional voters if they want to have a legit chance in 2012. I think specific tax ideas may be required, as I don't think people bought into the idea that tax revenue was going to be helpful because it wasn't remotely quantifiable.
The failure of 19 had nothing to do with taxes and economic profit/loss and everything to do with conservative's morals and social fears. I'm not sure how to curtail these characteristics, but until that happends they will always vote no on mj.
Well man, I think the socially conservative people may be the hardest to convince, most of them will prolly never vote yes on legalization, but something had to have spooked the remainder who voted against.
Why did it go from big support among independents in earlier polls, but later the same polls saw them slide back to even or slightly against? I can't imagine some of them suddenly decided cannabis was evil.
I just tossed the tax thing out there as its one of the most consistent criticisms I saw levied at the prop. Predictions of massive price drops prolly added into this fear, legit or not.
Only 59% of the youth vote going for it is pretty sad too... Are 41% of the youth, in california no less where its been legal medically for most of their lives, really that brainwashed that they fit into the socially conservative category? I think something like 40% of liberals voted against too. I gotta imagine a few of them are just hung up on the details or confused and would jump on board with the right prop.
I hope at least, otherwise we're stuck where things stand now.
More than likely WEEDS is a government show to discredit cannabis.
I watched 4 season in a night & came 2 the same conclusion as you
and it's based in Cali & the loose sex, teen gays with old guyz,
the back stabbing ,cheating it's an obvious gov ops...
I watched 4 season in a night & came 2 the same conclusion as you
and it's based in Cali & the loose sex, teen gays with old guyz,
the back stabbing ,cheating it's an obvious gov ops...
The reality was prop.19 was two years too late. Had this been during the 2008 elections, I think us yes on 19ers would have been celebrating. The fact is Obama has created such a opposition with republicans/teabaggers that they cane out in full force in this election and will continue to do so in the 2012 election. Now that 19 failed they are trying to do it again in 2012 which I believe will be even more of a obstacle to overcome than we saw in this election. So my hopes of legalization have passed. I really doubt we will see any serious chance for quite some years. Hopefully I am wrong in this assumption...
Most Definitely.
Combine all the factors that the OP listed, regardless of how minor each one was individually, and there are still hurdles to overcome. 2012 prolly won't be much better unless Obama can pull out a re-election landslide, which I think is doubtful unless the Republicans run Palin or some other laughable nincompoop.
ATM I think 2016 is the best hope, and that only if Obama is defeated in 2012 and we have another Republican to sweep out of office.
So people, we've got a little over 5 more years to craft some legislation without the many flaws of prop. 19. That's the only way to affect actual and fair legalization. Otherwise, if another flawed initiative is propped up in 2012, it could wipe out prospects for quite some time.
I was correct (and you probably were too). Problem was, I was imprecise and used the wrong terminology interchageably when I should not have. My bad.
"Turnout" is usually used to refer to the percentage of eligible voters who show up to vote.
Clearly, more than 13% of eligible voters in the 18-29 category showed up to vote. The number I was referring to when referring to "turnout" was that the results of that turnout yielded a percentage of the overall electorate of 18-29 voters that was 13% this year -- and it was 20% of the overall electorate in 2008. I was correct, but used the term "turnout" with less clarity than I should have.
The terminology got a little muddled -- but my math was correct. If you got to the same number results - yours sounds correct as well.
End result: When you crunch the numbers, it's quite a steep hill to climb.
Maybe. It's a number of different things, and the problem is, we lack the central vision to co-operate to achieve these goals. When your only shared goal is legalization of marijuana -- and allies within the movement otherwise have a vastly different political agenda -- it makes it very hard to achieve consensus within the movement itself.
In terms of broad brush strokes, there is a strong Libertarian streak among a minority of marijuana activists, with the majority being on the Liberal/Democratic political spectrum. Small surprise that the Ron Paul supporters and the Nancy Pelosi supporters don't see eye-to-eye on very much.
By way of example, the late Jack Herrer was a great activist, but the man's other political views scared the hell out of me.
Marc Emery? Same thing. Emery's libertarian views put him in the political minority in America. In his native Canada, Marc Emery's libertarian politics render him an outright political nutbar. He might as well be a Stalinist or a Nazi. (Yes, seriously.) Being anti-medicare in Canada is akin to burning the Stars and Stripes while pissing on the Lincoln Memorial and claiming the 9/11 attackers were Real American Patriots.
The mainstream political operatives within the marijuana movement are found in the larger activist groups. NORML, MPP, DPA, ASA. A lot of people knock NORML for being "too conservative". NORML was against the idea of Prop 19 being on the ballot for this mid-term election. But you know, they were against it for some very good tactical reasons. They know the electoral math and very few of them call "hope" a "plan".
Was Prop 19 something which was better left to another day? Uhm, yes I don't think there can be much rational debate about that now. That's easy to say in hindsight though. It's always easy to be right when you are looking backwards. Forwards? Not so much.
I'm encouraged that the press for 2012 is coming so early. Not because that is a rational reaction to the vote on Prop 19 (it isn't) but because it speaks to the optimism in the movement and people's dedication on the ground. That's an important sign that the movement is still healthy and people's hopes and dreams have not been irretrievably shattered.
The morale of activists is a quirky thing though. Imagine the morale if there was another proposal on the ballot in 2012 -- and the numbers came back at 56% NO, 44% YES.
And yes, that could easily happen.
If it did, the perception would be that we're taking steps backwards, not forwards and it's NEVER going to happen. The politicians and prohibitionists would have a FIELD DAY in the wake of that vote. The clampdown would be on not just in Cali - but across the country and, indeed, in other countries in the world, too.
Morale and political perception can be a fragile thing. A wise man does not screw with these things lightly or casually. There can be a lot at stake.
The thing with Prop 19 is that for a time about one month ago, a lot of people -- including those in the mainstream media across the USA and in other countries actually thought Prop 19 was probably going to pass. That was an interesting development, to be sure.
You must have felt it right? I know I did. It was an amazing moment... So much seemed possible and within our grasp. Now, that feeling has slipped away for the nonce, sadly.
Still... four percent of the electorate is all we need to change their minds. That's not undoable. Sane, firmly grounded, wise and pragmatic activists can close that gap, given time and money.
And above all, a plan.
coconutree
Member
what were rationale behind NO to cali bill?
what were rationale behind NO to cali bill?
That was on the news here in the UK for a while - they were doing loads of reports about the american vote to legalize pot
so they said no. that is such a pity, it looked like a really good economic reason (aswell as a good one in general for people) which is just so sad and shows the ignorance and complete shit so many people believe, their limited belief system, not knowing of it other than mass media portrayal of it, which of course enough has been said about and we dont need to go into here
so with the health, economic, and social benefits of Yes the ballot was 53% NO to legalizing pot partially, in california
saddens me, truly.
why were people against it, so many pro-s, so few cons
what were rationale behind NO to cali bill?
That was on the news here in the UK for a while - they were doing loads of reports about the american vote to legalize pot
so they said no. that is such a pity, it looked like a really good economic reason (aswell as a good one in general for people) which is just so sad and shows the ignorance and complete shit so many people believe, their limited belief system, not knowing of it other than mass media portrayal of it, which of course enough has been said about and we dont need to go into here
so with the health, economic, and social benefits of Yes the ballot was 53% NO to legalizing pot partially, in california
saddens me, truly.
why were people against it, so many pro-s, so few cons
Here's the thing, anybody who voted "No" on this board is insignificant when you think about it, a few dozen growers maybe if that. So let's forget about them and start thinking about why Californians voted no.
coconutree
Member
thats what i am talking about, the rational of the general majority of californians. a state where it is almost publically accepted being prescribed for many common medical issues. and tolerated, or so it seemed
but most people dont want it legal?
strange, for the tax benefits, and the money would go to the communitys, reliable businesses with quality control at high priotities, and good for economy and government too
some guys here voted, and voted no, more than 1? wow, that is very sad indeed
but most people dont want it legal?
strange, for the tax benefits, and the money would go to the communitys, reliable businesses with quality control at high priotities, and good for economy and government too
some guys here voted, and voted no, more than 1? wow, that is very sad indeed
It is sad, but as far as the general public goes, well it's not like people actually vote for the benefit of themselves or their loved ones. I think you can look at scare campaigns and decades of drug war propaganda for reasons people voted no. The scene still has a lot of work to do to change those minds, but can you believe how far it's come? A few more years and you know it will be legal.
coconutree
Member
some growers voted no? thats unbelievable, why would they say no, it puts them from being in a position of possible jailtime and asset seizure, to building a legitimate business
coconutree
Member
.....
scuze me misses babba, has me opened big can of worms? if it is so me is sowwee
Young Trees
Member
45% of Cali voted yes for recreational pot.
Many informed MJ users believe that badly written law restricts MJ and criminalizes users more than the existing laws...
The only benefit I saw to this law would be the creation of a standard tax rate...
Many informed MJ users believe that badly written law restricts MJ and criminalizes users more than the existing laws...
The only benefit I saw to this law would be the creation of a standard tax rate...
Sorry, it just feels like its been beat to death and theres nothing we can do for a cpl of years, things are just like they were before the vote and lets hope for a better time to come. Its out in the open more and more every day. I dont think it would have been as bad as some of the growers thought, prices wouldnt have dropped to nothing, but we will never know now[or a cpl or years] anyway.
I didnt mean to disrespect your thread, just bummed me out it didnt pass. I apologize.
I didnt mean to disrespect your thread, just bummed me out it didnt pass. I apologize.
Young Trees
Member
I'm not bummed at all, I'm glad Cooley lost and Kamala and Ol Two-some Newsom won!!
Canna friendly and not anti-MMJ
Canna friendly and not anti-MMJ
- Status
