california marijuana
Ending Marijuana Prohibition

Public Policy Institute Of California Finds 60% Support For Marijuana Legalization

california marijuanaThe campaign behind California’s ‘Adult Use of Marijuana Act’ has turned in more than 600,000 signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. 365,880 of those signatures need to be valid for that to happen. The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) recently released poll results which found very strong support for marijuana legalization in California. Per PPIC:

Marijuana legalization. A majority (60%) of likely voters say that, in general, marijuana use should be legal, and 37 percent say it should not be legal. It is estimated that the initiative to legalize marijuana—if passed—would generate about $1 billion in tax revenue annually, most of which would be directed toward substance abuse prevention and treatment. Among likely voters, 43 percent say that spending the revenue this way is very important.

“California seems poised to show its blue state credentials in the fall,” Baldassare said. “Voters today are signaling their early support for Democratic statewide candidates, tax initiatives, and marijuana legalization.”

Assuming the initiative makes the ballot, which I think it will, it will be interesting to see what other polls say that are more specific to the initiative, and how those numbers change as election day approaches. I saw Tom Angell from the Marijuana Majority hint on Facebook today that Project SAM may be opening an office in Los Angeles soon. If so, I expect some serious reefer madness to be spread, which unfortunately will sway some swing voters.

  • skoallio

    Its not safe till there’s 100% support.

  • saynotohypocrisy

    I shouldn’t be giving project scam any advice but they’d be wasting their moola in CA.

  • jontomas

    It’s going to be interesting to see Sabet’s, Adelson’s and others’ attempts to hold back the tide. They won’t win. – After 80 years of government propaganda, the people aren’t buying the lies anymore.

  • jontomas

    Really, Weedblog? – You withheld my comment for calling out prohibitionists Sabet and Adelson on their deceptions?

  • Bailey Ranks

    Legalization never won a state when polls predicted a loss.

    but Prop 19 and Issue 3 in Ohio lost when polls promised a win.

    • jontomas

      Prop 19 and Issue 3 both had large contingents of Greedy Growers and Sellers Against Legalization. – If it had not been for their betrayal, we would have likely won on both occasions.

      • Nate

        Nothing greedy about those 10 licensees with issue 3, eh, jontomas? Have another hit of ” Marley natural”

        • JohnB

          More than a year later, and people still can’t stop spreading misinformation or downright lies about issue 3 – an initiative that no longer exists.

          Please, if there were only “10 licensees,” name them for us.

          Ooops, you mean the ten licenses were attached to parcels of land, not individuals?

          You mean you never actually read the GD amendment you are so ready to criticize?

          Well, if so, then you can join the cast of thousands of similar imbeciles from last year.

          If you’re in Ohio, we can thank you and your ilk for getting stuck with HB 523.

          Nice work.

          And, NO, there was nothing even remotely greedy about the investors – who were collectively on the hook for nearly half a BILLION dollars – that’s $500,000,000.00 – expecting a return on that kind of investment.

          • saynotohypocrisy

            Half a billion $ is a lot of money. I don’t doubt you, but is there any kind of a breakdown of how that would have been spent? Do you know how much was spent on the 2014 campaign?

          • JohnB

            The Strategy Network issue 3 campaign cost a little over $25 million.

          • JohnB

            The Strategy Network issue 3 campaign cost a little over $25 million.

            Most of the rest of that sum was to be spent on building state-of-the-art indoor growing facilities at the ten sites.

            Each of the ten investor groups (companies) committed to spend $30 million each on such facilities, plus they still had to buy the actual locations to which the licenses were attached.

            Only two of the ten licensed sites were ever purchased in advance; the rest were first rights of refusal given to the companies that had dibs on the parcels.

            Each site would be sold at $10 million.

            Add in the licensing fees and other start-up costs, and the total commitment from the 50 or so people who made up the ten investment companies was around $450 million dollars.

            I rounded, but close enough, and, to the point; that’s a hell of a lot of money to put up and not expect a handsome return.

            The entire market, gross, wouldn’t be worth that the first few years – though eventually the money would be rolling in strong.

            The point I kept making over and over last year is that by the time the investors broke even, the national landscape would have changed considerably, as we are seeing this year.

            Ohio was nearly as important a prize as California, in terms of national impact to full legalization.

            That would have been worth the price of letting the investment groups make some money for a few years until national legalization was accomplished, at which time any economic in-state advantage they had would disappear due to the commerce clause.

          • saynotohypocrisy

            Thanks for the details, appreciate your taking the time to do that.

            I never saw the ads that RO ran in Ohio. Were you impressed by those ads? Would you have done it differently, either at the time, or in hindsight?

            Agree with you about how important Ohio would have been. Michigan will be the same if it makes the ballot and wins this year. If Arkansas and Missouri medical initiatives win this year, that’s really important too.

          • JohnB

            Their ads had high production values, but seemed to target the wrong audience altogether.
            As might be expected, they were full of young people, and most made the case for medical cannabis while ignoring the so-called recreational side.

            I’m not sure who they hoped to convince with such ads, which seemed to me to preach to the choir.

            If I were to spend that kind of money on TV advertising (more than 15 million, I believe), I would go after the neutral or mildly opposed audience, and in particular I would have targeted the older audience and sought to dispel the lifetimes of mis-information they have been fed about cannabis.

            I would have made a point of every commercial at least leaving viewers wanting to look up the truth about why cannabis was prohibited in the first place.

            It’s a pretty safe bet that older voters (all voters, in fact) would have already seen plenty of video, whether on the news or wherever, featuring children with seizures.

            There was no reason at all to waste money repeating that message.

            My ads would have featured mature people, in suits, telling the plains facts about the history of cannabis prohibition, and why it is simply un-American.

            After all, the voters who were against it were mostly in the 65+ crowd.

            My ads would have featured testimony from mature business people who were frank about their cannabis consumption, and the utter lack of negative impact it had on their lives – in other words, counter-examples to the stereotypes. A few famous people, such as Rick Steves, would have helped.

            My ads would have set the record straight about the so-called monopoly in a much better way than the three-second mention the topic got in the RO ads.

            My ads would have laid out the numbers – good bad and ugly – in a way that was obviously truthful, in order to convince voters that it was overall an economically good idea all the way around, not just for the investors.

            My ads would have owned the mistake of “buddie,” the ridiculous mascot, and promised to never make such a mistake again.

            People are generally very forgiving of mistakes, but much less so of cover-ups or refusals to admit mistakes.

            One thing they did do well was running the ads primarily during the local evening news slots, when the most older voters would be watching.

            The problem is, they didn’t present a message that those older voters would heed or find compelling.

          • saynotohypocrisy

            Great response. Much thanks.

        • jontomas

          Like the rest of the greedy growers&sellers against legalization (GGAL), you have a pathological inability to focus on who the real stakeholders are in marijuana reform. – That’s CONSUMERS. – Many medical excuse marijuana sellers are guilty of this subterfuge. – The fact is, hundreds of thousands of Ohio marijuana consumers would be free now, instead of facing many more years of persecution because of the Ohio GGAL and their partnership with the prohibitionists in the corrupt Ohio legislature.

          Your problem is all of your own making. You mistakenly made your business plan on a model of infinitely lasting medical excuse marijuana. You should have known this bizarre situation was only temporary and just a step to complete legalization.

          Make a new plan, Stan.

      • Bailey Ranks

        Pot growers are less than 1% of the electorate. They had no impact. Prop 19 lost by 7 points. The green triangle counties of northern Cali are rural with hardly any people, and even there, Prop 19 barely lost compared to statewide. Its blacks and Mexicans in LA and Republicans in South Cali that really killed it. 58% of Orange county voted NO. 53% of LA county voted NO. Those are highly populated areas.

        • jontomas

          There were certainly a number of groups opposed to legalization in 2010. – But you diminish the role the GGAL played. – It’s not just that they didn’t vote for it. They vigorously CAMPAIGNED against it, deceiving many of their customers and others into voting against their own freedom. – As you can see, they’re doing it again with AUMA, although I have heard there are significant numbers of growers in the Emerald Triangle who have become enlightened and now support legalization. – Those that still fight to keep consumers in chains are simply reprehensible.

          FWIW, Chris Conrad notes those making the most noise against AUMA are some unethical dispensaries in SF, San Diego and Sacramento.

          Hopefully, since the NAACP and the ACLU support AUMA, they will educate minorities this time around.

          • Nate

            Which SF dispensaries? Patients here would love to know who to boycott

          • jontomas

            You’ll have to check with Chris Conrad. – He is a stalwart marijuana reformer going back to the days of Prop 215.

    • Buzzby19491

      Issue 3 lost because Ohioans, who favor legalization at 53%, didn’t want to create a monopoly for wealthy growers who wanted it to become part of the Ohio constitution.

      • JohnB

        It lost because a bunch of loudmouths – like those laughable superannuated hippies now protesting AUMA – set about a systematic campaign of misinformation, using tactics straight out of the prohibitionists’ playbook.

        They used emotionally charged words such as “monopoly,” when in fact no such thing existed, and they relied on the laziness of voters, who predictably failed to read the actual amendment.

        Had voters done so, almost all of the naysayers’ arguments would have disappeared in the puff of smoke that they were.

        • jontomas

          Right. – The same happened with California’s Prop 19 in 2010, where ALL of the three counties of the Emerald Triangle voted down legalization – along with the negative campaigning of the GGAL.

        • Buzzby19491

          To be more precise, Issue three would have established an “oligopoly” in the Ohio constitution. The people who financed the Issue 3 campaign set it up so that only they could grow commercial cannabis. My take was that the Ohio constitution should not be an investment vehicle for a few guys with too much money on their hands. I can also understand the point from the other side that such things are less important than the actuality of legalization. It’s not an easy call.

          • jontomas

            No. It is an easy call, unless you are a prohibition profiteer like the greedy black-market growers who screamed so loud against legalization in Ohio. – Even if Issue 3 had made the state the sole grower and vendor of marijuana – similar to the way some states have state-run liquor stores, it still would have been a HUGE leap forward in freedom. – Just ask the hundreds of thousands of Ohio marijuana consumers.

        • Nate

          Sorry, but im actually IN California and i dont hear anyone “protesting” AUMA. It doesnt suck like the Ohio initiative did. Its actually that MMSRA crap theyre using to try and take away our grow rights.

          • jontomas

            NIce flip-flop, but I’ll take it. – Just stay the course until November, please. – Medical marijuana has no future as a plant. The medical system will incorporate many of it’s ingredients, but very few ensuing medications will be euphoric. – That’s just another reason why ending the fraudulent prohibition for ALL adult use is so important. That’s the only way medical patients will have access to the whole plant in the future.

            Better open your ears, though. – There are still many GGAL protesting AUMA. – Steve Kubby, Ed Rosenthal and Kevin Saunders come to mind.

          • JohnB

            You must not get out here often enough to see Chippi and that Donkey railing against it.

        • Nate

          Sorry, dude, but any group that proposes WE get to grow, and sell to you, but no grow for you will NEVER get my vote. Thats why AUMA is and prop 19 was acceptable, but issue 3 was DOA. Even after incredible pressure they wanted us to pay for the “privelidge” of 4 plants. If ever the words ” greedy ” and ” grower ” should be in the same sentence, its with these RO guys.

          • jontomas

            You didn’t read AUMA well. There will be several tiers of allowable commercial growing for ANYONE who qualifies. The lowest tier has relatively few requirements.