Loading

Poll: 60 Percent of Likely California Voters Support Initiative Effort To Legalize Adult Marijuana Use

  • by Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director February 25, 2016

    legalization_pollA majority of likely California voters say that they intend to vote ‘yes’ this November for an initiative to regulate the retail production and sale of marijuana by adults, according to the results of a Probolsky Research poll released today.

    Sixty percent of respondents say that they will vote in favor of an initiative this November “that would legalize marijuana for recreational use under California law and allow government to tax” its retail sales. Thirty-seven percent said that they would vote ‘no.’

    Support was strongest among those between the ages of 18 to 34 (80 percent) and self-identified Democrats (69 percent). Republicans (38 percent) and those over the age of 65 (46 percent) were least likely to express support.

    The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), which is expected to appear on the November ballot, permits adults to legally grow (up to six plants) and possess personal use quantities of cannabis (up to one ounce of flower and/or up to eight grams of concentrate) while also licensing commercial cannabis production and retail sales. The measure prohibits localities from taking actions to infringe upon adults’ ability to possession and cultivate cannabis for non-commercial purposes. Both the California Medical Association and the state chapter of the NAACP have endorsed the measure.

    On February 20, a majority of the NORML Board of Directors endorsed the AUMA, along with separate initiatives that are anticipated to appear on the November 2016 ballot in Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Arizona, as well as medical use initiatives expected to appear on the ballot in Missouri and Florida.

    32 Responses to “Poll: 60 Percent of Likely California Voters Support Initiative Effort To Legalize Adult Marijuana Use”

    1. Evening Bud says:

      Legalization in Cali would deal a severe wound to the prohibitionists! Come on Cali!

    2. Rod is on the Gas says:

      “The measure prohibits localities from taking actions to infringe upon adults’ ability to possession and cultivate cannabis for non-commercial purposes.”

      Hold it!!!

      Not true. Localities can restrict cultivation. Entire counties can also.

      [Paul Armentano responds: From the text, “The personal adult use section of the AUMA initiative establishes the parameters of legal use and responsible behavior, including: Legal adult use one ounce of marijuana and eight grams of concentrate, Home gardens, Grow six plants and keep or give away the harvest, No local bans on possession, sharing or discrete, enclosed gardens.”

      • Concerned Citizen says:

        ”No local bans on possession, sharing or discrete, “enclosed gardens.”

        Definition of enclosed:

        en·close
        in?kl?z,en?kl?z/
        verb
        past tense: enclosed; past participle: enclosed
        surround or close off on all sides.”the entire estate was enclosed with walls”
        2. synonyms:
        3. surround, circle, ring, girdle, encompass, encircle; confine, close in, shut in, corral, fence in, wall in, hedge in, hem in; ?literarygird, engirdle ?”tall trees enclosed the campsite”?

        Very good,assuming these definitions would allow for overhead UVB sunlight or a greenhouse structure,which is very important,because in a place like California it would be absurd to confine growing to under artificial lights only,when you have a beautiful mediterranean environment outdoors, with ample sunshine to take advantage of.

        And that goes for outdoor- commercial- production as well,I would rather pay less for outdoor grown cannabis, because the production cost is virtually pennies per pound, versus paying more for the cost of electricity and the expense thereof.

        • Minivet says:

          FYI, here’s the definition in the actual legislative text, which more people should read (it’s not hard):

          (a) Personal cultivation of marijuana under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.1 is subject to the following restrictions:
          (1) A person shall plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process plants in accordance with local
          ordinances, if any, adopted in accordance with subdivision (b) of this section.
          (2) The living plants and any marijuana produced by the plants in excess of 28.5 grams are kept within the person’s private residence, or upon the grounds of that private residence (e.g., in an outdoor garden area), are in a locked space, and are not visible by normal unaided vision from a public place.

          • Jane says:

            Question: What happens if you have more than 1 oz / 28.5 grams of cannabis — fine? felony?
            I know very few cannabis consumers who don’t have an assortment of flowers around the home which can easily become more than 1 oz?

            [Paul Armentano responds: Jane, the text of the AUMA is linked in the text of this post so you or anyone else can read the full text for yourself. The text is clear that those growing up to six plants for non-commercial purposes can legally possess the harvest of those plants, even if it is more than one ounce: “(3) Possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process not more than six living marijuana plants and possess the marijuana produced by the plants;”

        • PhilC says:

          currently with MMJ, outdoor is less expensive and typically lower quality. Experience in other states suggests the trend is for quality and price to drop once it is adult use legal.

      • Rod is on the Gas says:

        From the text…….

        “The Adult Use of Marijuana Act sets up a comprehensive system governing marijuana businesses at the state level and safeguards local control, allowing local governments to regulate marijuana-related activities, to subject marijuana businesses to zoning and permitting requirements, and to ban marijuana businesses by a vote of the people within a locality.”

        That’s exactly what is currently in play. Localities will continue to ban, restrict, and prohibit MMJ cultivation. There is NO protection for mom & pop small-scale herb gardens. We are criminals today and will be after AUMA takes affect.

        “Enclosed” is subject to localities definition. In my county it means a free standing building with county inspections for code minimums. The approved building costs $16,000 to be built and approved. 6 plants maximum.

        [Editor’s note: AUMA, as it should, reflects local municipal and county zoning, similar to rules currently in place re the production and/or sale of other ‘soft’ drugs like alcohol and tobacco. Legal cannabis at the state level can’t trump local autonomy. If one finds their local zoning too restrictive re cannabis, they can work to amend the restrictions or re-locate to more cannabis-friendly city or county.

        85 years after the end of federal alcohol prohibition, there are still dozens of so-called ‘dry’ counties or towns. Likely same too with cannabis. Not every town in America or in CA will want and accept cannabis commerce, and generally speaking, they don’t have to as they can be as foolish and short-sighted as they want because cultivating, selling and using cannabis is not a basic human right (as recognized by the courts).]

        • Rod is on the Gas says:

          I’ve never accepted this premise…..

          “using cannabis is not a basic human right (as recognized by the courts).”

          I remember the opposite assertion when championing for CA 215 back in the day. How did we lose that?

          Without the basic foundation there’s nothing to support nor advocate for. It’s yet another round of half-measures and excess taxation enacted as a penalty for using cannabis. It’s a stupid logic that creates more grief.

          AUMA should never reach the ballot!

          [Editor’s note: In 1996 there was no assertion at all by NORML or the other reform groups of the day arguing that cannabis was a basic human right. In fact, in essence, all Prop. 215 sought was an affirmative medical defense resulting from a patient or provider being arrested on cannabis-related charges.

          The basic foundation for cannabis law reform is that cannabis prohibition failed a long time ago and should be replaced with more constitutional and free market oriented public policies.

          After it will make the ballot AUMA achieves such, which is why it is supported by cannabis law reform organizations that are responsible for ALL previous successful cannabis ballot initiatives, including Prop. 215.

          Cannabis consumers and reformers in CA, and around the nation and world, should actively support AUMA, as well as the legalization ballot measures in NV, AZ, MI, MA and ME; and the medical cannabis ballot initiatives in FL and MO.]

          • Rod is on the Gas says:

            Yes, I agree….

            “The basic foundation for cannabis law reform is that cannabis prohibition failed a long time ago and should be replaced with more constitutional and free market oriented public policies.”

            However, AUMA remains a half measure addressing the symptoms rather than aggressively attacking the cause. Half measures can go-on for infinity. The solution has to be the repeal of the prohibition itself. Until we achieve that, Anslinger and the resulting penal industry is in control. They’re still monkeys on our backs.

            I find it unbelievably counter-intuitive that NORML sidesteps the underlying flaw in their belief that cannabis usage is not a basic human right. Somehow this mistake ought to be corrected.

            [Editor’s note: AUMA repeals cannabis prohibition in the same manner that the reform initiatives in CO, WA, OR and AK have ended prohibition. None of these states, or the language of AUMA, constitute ‘half measures’.

            Propagandizing that AUMA does not end cannabis prohibition will not fly on NORML’s webpage.
            Claims of such from individuals made repeatedly will be deleted.

            Where cannabis prohibition still exists, it is the current crop of elected policy makers at the state and federal levels who matter, not some boogieman from 80 years ago.

            Eyes on the prize look forward, not backwards.

            ‘I find it unbelievably counter-intuitive that NORML sidesteps the underlying flaw in their belief that cannabis usage is not a basic human right.’

            The so-called flaw is not that of NORML’s as no court or legislature in the US has legislated or ruled that humans growing and consuming cannabis is a basic human right.

            NORML simply seeks an end to cannabis prohibition rather than taking extreme libertarian or utopian views about humanity and drug use (ie, that drug taking for whatever reason is a basic human right…that therein is a basic constitutional right to manufacture, sell and use heroin, tobacco, cocaine, oxycontin, LSD, cannabis, ketamine, etc…If your aim is allowing humans access to cannabis and/or all drugs whenever they want them…good luck with such, but this is not at all NORML’s forty-five-year-old mission.]

            • Evening Bud says:

              @ Rod,

              I’ve been tempted to reply to your posts a few times, but have held off. But I have to reply now. You say that NORML sidesteps the notion that cannabis usage is a basic human right. A basic human right according to who, you? Your statement is completely subjective and seems to discount with amazingly large blinders the reality that is the modern world.

              Nobody said life is fair. And so it is with pot legalization. It’s something we have to fight for, not simply demand as our birthright. How many hundreds of thousands (or millions) have already been arrested for simple pot possession?

              You may be morally correct that we SHOULD have the right to grow and consume a plant that grows naturally. However, we know from history, from the time of the Egyptians, the Romans, the Chinese, and everyone in between, that other men and women (kings, queens, pharaohs, etc) have often taken it upon themselves to decide the extent of our “rights.” Virtually every “right” the common man and woman now have has had to be fought for. (And to this day many still do not have many rights.)

              So, please, Rod, wake up and smell the coffee. Take our victories as they come, and stop demanding everything now, because it simply ain’t gonna happen that way! If California legalizes this year–imperfect legislation or not–I’m gonna be happy as hell!

              I sat and watched with frustration as an attempt to pass legalization in California went down to defeat 6 long years ago. I sure as hell don’t wanna wait another 6 friggin’ years for your idea of perfect legalization to get passed. It was the black marketeers back then who helped defeat legalization in Calif; I can’t help but believe, from your posts, that you are a black marketeer whose only concern is your own private enterprise.

            • Anonymous says:

              @ evening bud

              I would like to help you sort-out some of the misconceptions in your friendly post. But, alas, editor got sideways with my zealous attitude towards cannabis prohibition. There’s no harm done, just frustration.

              I’ll sweeten-up the editor and possibly we can have a constructive conversation later.

            • Revolutions child says:

              In Colorado areas where anything but the economic impact is not welcome of cannabis sales the bias mindset holds governance and economic reigns. The same profiteers who have gained on blue laws, regulation and taxation of alcohol raise the bar in indecently high profit margins and base consumption quantities on smoking. Cannabis most useful form is raw for healing. A different business model applies. Rod on the gas is right and mr editor your positition only plays to those who profit in one hand and prohibit in the other. Without willing acceptance and cooperation from the medical institutions serving communities the best way people of meager means have to meet their need for consumption and meet health needs would be complete declassification and total end to prohibition. Courts ruled years ago here that red card prescribing doctors ( a mere 5% of doctors in state) could prescribe on the word of paitients complaint and exam. The other 95 % are unwilling to testicle up to the healthcare communities$, insurance or peers even under evidence of compelling need and benefit. My experience is firsthand they would push me to course or lack there of of treatment that does not adequately address complaint for their profit. The other option is away from the profit system to some inadequately qualified staffed clinic. No parity in treatment in our wonderful new healthcare system means that for medical purposes mmj and it’s benefits are irrelevant to those who see it as a threat. It undercuts profits,the pharma profit too. Without loosing the Prohibitionist grasp utterly we set back freedom of choice in treatment and dignity of being heard as a partner in our own health care decisions. The relevance of making a compromise now will be measured in lost life and a waning medical relevance in cannabis’s lack of acceptance in by institutionalized and economically motivated biases. Research money will continue to be withheld.Vote for freedom now.

    3. Denny Strausser Jr says:

      The more States do it the better. I am hoping they do it federally soon. The sooner they do, the sooner it’ll come to Pennsylvania. I would so much prefer to get my herb from a store, then from shady characters. Some people you get it from, also carry harder drugs… drugs I am not interested in.

      Prohibition needs to stop. It didn’t work with alcohol, and it is not working with cannabis either.

      • the man says:

        PA will be one of the last. They have ancient laws such as not allowing a certain number of women to live in a house ( Sororities) its considered a brothel.

        • Denny Strausser Jr says:

          Well with the most Liberal governor we’ve ever had, it is possible. However, I believe that if it is done federally, PA will change quicker, just to follow the federal government.

          Wolf if ready to sign a medical marijuana bill, and believes it should be even more legal then the bill he will be presented with soon. (At least I hope.)

          If anyone would pass full legalization, it would probably be Tom Wolf.
          The other Tom, not in a million years.

    4. riegel says:

      >> those over the age of 65 (46 percent) were least likely to express support.

      isn´t that funny, those old people needed it the most. Maybe you find some senior citizens in Colorado that can give a statement .

      • Cat Cassie says:

        I thought the reason legalization lost last time in CA was because the growers didn’t want the competition.

        • Concerned Citizen says:

          Cat Cassie, I think the reason was,that a lot of the medical marijuana patients thought that prop 19 would interfere with the 12 plant limit per person or the 99 limit for a collective that was allowed in certain counties at the time,so there was a polarization between the recreational and medical groups that lead to the defeat of prop 19.I don’t see that happening this time.In fact this latest maneuver from the counties and cities that have banned medical marijuana, in response to the MMRSA act may end up having it bite them in the ass,because its going to unite both groups.

          The new MMRSA regulations is 6 plants per person for personal use,same for the AUMA initiative,so there will be nothing to fall back on,and i don’t think its going to be the same as having these dry counties, like you have in eastern Oregon, where these low population areas that didn’t vote for prop 91 will not collect the tax money.Its completely different in California where a lot of these bans have occurred in highly populated areas where the demographics are pro-medical legalization,so these municipalities are not conforming to the will of the population they supposedly represent. So what is interesting,is that in an inadvertent way, these bans are actually bringing the two groups that where polarized during prop 19– together for a common cause.

          • Evening Bud says:

            @ Concerned Citizen,

            Thanks for spelling out in detail the situation I alluded to in a post above regarding prop 19 in Calif. (I blamed the black market growers, but you, helpfully, added more insights.)

            My nephew, who lived in Calif at the time of that vote, told me he expected it to go down to defeat because virtually everyone he knew (the majority of whom were young adults) had MMJ cards, and that they were all going to vote against prop 19, as they themselves were already set. I myself met several of those 20-somethings at my niece’s wedding that same year, and three of them promptly whipped out their MMJ cards and showed them to me!

            So, the new information you provided in your post–new to me at least–is very welcome.

            • Concerned Citizen says:

              Evening Bud,

              Great,I’m glad i could clarify things.I do agree with Rod on a lot of points that he made,I think this initiative is a little too accommodating to local municipalities that have had an incestuous relationship with the police force(sharing the bounty of asset forfeiture goodies) a lot of them are still stuck in the early 1990s mode of conduct, when George Bush senior was president during the “drug war” years,and they don’t want to leave.

              But overall, I think the AUMA is a decent bill,not that much different than Oregon’s and Colorado’s.And i agree that we should pull back and look at the wider view,from a wider perspective, and how this will have an impact overall on our country, to get things rolling in the right direction.

              The small things ,can be taken care of with further initiatives,like their doing in Colorado.

    5. Mark I. says:

      Its too bad the elderly do not communicate well with each other. Being fearfilled of change has left alot of them out of the information revolution.

    6. Julian says:

      Let’s take a moment to appreciate the beautiful irony and fantastic momentum of this situation in American history. The mainstream media, along with the DEA, following the big money in advertising and small town prohibition maintained by corrupt local law enforcement, will focus on the most populated state of California about to catapult the majority of electoral votes into legalization.
      Meanwhile, the trojan horse of cannabis legalization, filled with the greatest weapon of all; legislatively-initiated legalization… rockets out of a state most Americans can’t even find on a map; Vermont! (Currently passed the Senate, due for final review before it heads to the House)
      Meanwhile, back at the ranch in my home state of Texas the Governor-gangsters, the Sherriff’s Associations and Boss Hogs pouring margaritas on our asset forfeitures and Federal income tax dollars don’t even see whats comin… They have maintained a bullying perspective of tyrannical hubris for so long, they truly believe they own the elections. Of course, thats not hard to believe if you catch Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and watch a few seconds of video of how voting… On other Congressman’s voting buttons… actually occurs in the Texas State legislature;

      http://youtu.be/rHFOwlMCdto

      Really? We don’t need police sniffing for marijuana on the streets, we need police inside our state capitol enforcing the restriction of properly voting for one’s own “yes” or “no” button! And who came up with the idea of putting “simon says” buttons in front of half the legislature that even bothers to show up to vote culminating into a sneaky game of twister?
      Thats as big a conflict of interest as the governor putting the Texas Rangers in charge of internal corruption investigations… When the Rangers work for the governor! Time to lock that fox in a box cuz he already done ate the hens. Governor A-Butt looks like a damn fox in a wheel-chair. …Someone had to say it.

      • Julian says:

        As a side note, thank God we still have reporters still conducting investigative reporting like with this article on the Sherriff’s Race in Denton county in the Dallas Observer:

        http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dentons-scandal-prone-sheriff-8047734

        The Sherriff turned out to be a child molester!
        We need more journalists investigating sherrif’s races across this country and vetting them for corruption and their stance on marijuana policy.

      • Evening Bud says:

        That sort of voting practice–“substitute voting” for an absent senator or rep–is absolutely shocking. And further proof that our democracy is in serious trouble. We already have an entrenched oligarchy; soon, they won’t even bother with the façade.

    7. mexweed says:

      At two (25-mg) vapetokes per diem an ounce will last you 16 months (up to 900+ tokes after sifting).

      One adjustment to the Growing rules to ask for soon is acknowledgement of GENDER issue– everyone including kids has the right to grow as many MALE cannabis plants as they like, for editing out outer leaves and stems on a constant-pruning basis, adding them to stews, BLENDER SMOOTHIES, etc., then no one can accuse us of being “THC-fixated” as prohibs have howled of.

      Bonus: keeps plants conveniently dwarfsized but shapely throughout the year, so they fit into windowgarden with other species.

      PS: Children have right to learn from observing growth behavior of every species including guessWhonabis.

      • mexweed says:

        Rank NUTRITIONAL use in there with overmentioned Recreational, Medical, plus INSPIRATIONAL, OCCUPATIONAL, and all those other als.

    8. Jane says:

      I heard that with AUMA you could only legally grow a personal garden if it was done indoors, not in a yard under sunlight. Does anyone know if this is true?

      [Paul Armentano responds: False. Personal grows can be either indoor or outdoor, though localities may be able to enact restrictions via zoning on outdoor grows — as is the case now — but localities cannot impose such restrictions on indoor grows: “(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), no city, county, or city and county may completely prohibit persons engaging in the actions and conduct under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.1 inside a private residence, or inside an accessory structure to a private residence located upon the grounds of a private residence that is fully enclosed and secure.”]

    9. Bob Constantine says:

      Going from prohibition to “permission” based legality is sort of like when mom and dad let you stay up till 9:30 on a school night because you’re in Jr. High now.

      Freedom? No. Irony? Yes.

      [Editor’s note: Under AUMA, cannabis consumers don’t need permission to cultivate and possess a personal amount. However, like alcohol consumers, if more than a personal amount is produced, then permits/licenses are warranted which is hardly an affront to freedom.]

    10. Tristram says:

      Republicans (38 percent) and those over the age of 65 (46 percent) were least likely to express support.

      So much for small government and individual liberty. Hypocrites. Why don’t they move to Russia or something?

      • Richard Jasso says:

        Republicans are cowards besides being hypocritical phonies for the most part. They will never be mistaken with progressive thinking. As for those 65 and older, if you are 65 you were a teenager during the 60’s and should know better…or maybe they just forgot how revolutionary and tumultuous that decade was and really need to toke up again.

    Leave a Reply