In 2010, there was 37,253,956 people living in california. So you're telling me these 800 people represent the entire population of California? I'm just not seeing how.
On that same note... There are 4,000,000 more people who live in Santa Clara County, CA (the greater San Jose area) than in all of New Hampshire and yet we let that little po-dunk state decide first which presidential candidates are still around for us Californians to vote on months later. Also, where did they find these 800? Because Southern California is a little different than the northern side. If you look at the demographics from the last vote you'd see that the 18 to 35 crowd voted 66% for legalization, but the 50+ crowd voted 66% against. All we have to do is wait out the retarded ass Regan Era conservatives who actually bought into McArthy-ism to die. Then, with an even stronger base of young voters legalization could be real. I give it 9 more years before we really have another shot. Sorry Grandpa, but your upper-class conservative republican ass needs to move to Arizona or Florida ASAP.
i want it to happen, but i agree this poll doesnt mean shit. one state has to do it this year, hopefully all states follow after that. i will literally be jacking off to the news of marijuana legalization in my state.
Take a statistics class and you will see why. Or just look up what a confidence interval is. Not too hard to see really.
They have not told us how they even conducted the study. People from one area of California are more likely to want it legalized than those in another part of California. People of one age group want marijuana to be legalized more so than those in their old age. People who have certain religious beliefs may like or dislike marijuana more than those with different religious beliefs. This study is not accurate, sorry that you had your hopes up.
If you take a look at probabilities.. Given that most people 55+ voted against prop 19 in 2010. That most people under 30 voted for it. The fact that those 55+ have a higher probability of passing away compared to under 30 from the time period of 2010-2012. The fact that two years later more young kids (under 30) are able to vote. And the fact that California knows how close it was last time around, and how they can easily win this time if they actually go out and vote; I find it highly plausible for this to pass.
This is all about voter registration and turnout at the poles for the 18-25 year old cannabis friendly voters. The turn out at the polls in 2010 shows it. If ALL the 18-25 year old cannabis smokers in California (and Michigan) register, and go vote, this passes, period. Go REGISTER to vote. Go and vote. Take a friend and carpool!
I'm not sure why people are focusing so much on (and criticizing) the polling methodology. Maybe they are not understanding the scope and purpose of this poll. This is a poll of likely California voters. They were asked questions about "regulating marijuana like wine". The purpose of the poll was to gauge support for a ballot initiative aimed at "regulating marijuana like wine" in California. The poll was to be used to show potential contributors to the campaign that the initiative has sufficient support amongst CA voters. That is the scope and purpose of the poll. That being said, I don't think you can question the accuracy or meaningfulness of the poll unless you know exactly how the poll was taken, and unless you have a reasonable level of expertise in polling and statistics. This was not a national poll on legalization of marijuana. It was a regional poll on regulation of marijuana in a state that is arguably the most marijuana friendly state in the most marijuana friendly region of the U.S. (the west). The last Gallup poll had the U.S. west at 55% favoring outright legalization. I don't think it's a stretch to imagine 62% of voters in California favoring regulation.
So then why did they not tell us exactly how this poll was taken? No study that does not have it's polling methods publicly available is going to be 100% accurate. It's great if 62% of California truly wants it legalized, but this study can't prove that is all I said. I know that more Californians want it regulated than not, but these percentages don't reflect the actual numbers when compared to polling the entire state, simply because it's only 800 people.
I guess you can argue that with the firm that the RMLW campaign hired to do the polling. Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) - Public Opinion Research and Strategy While I doubt that they will make their entire polling methodology public, I would be willing to bet that they will provide you with information as to why they believe their research polls to be accurate within their stated margin of error. While you're at it you can peruse their long list of ballot initiative clients: Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) - Public Opinion Research and Strategy Note that their list includes: If you truly feel that you know better than they do on this issue perhaps you would be willing to contact them and offer your assistance in correcting their mistakes. I'm sure the RMLW campaign would be relieved to know that you found the errors made by the firm that they undoubtedly paid a lot of money to do the polling research.
Here's a crazy statistic. In 2010 10,302,324 people showed up to vote. Of those 10,302,324 people about 4,300,000 of them were over the age of 55. There are only 4,600,000 eligible voters who are 55+ This age groups shows up in full force. Consider if the other 7,000,000 registered voters, or all 23,600,000 eligible voters, were to show up. Honestly, 62% of the population being pro-legalization despite losing the initiative on the ballet sounds right. With so many of those against legalization in the elderly, and with that minority making up such a large percent of the counted vote, this explains what happened. Despite the sample size being small it seems to me that their estimate is probably pretty close to accurate anyway.
Not that I want this thread to devolve into a "why Prop 19 failed" discussion, but... I agree that the voter age makeup in 2010 probably had a lot to do with the failure of the initiative. But don't forget when AG Holder spoke up in the weeks before the election: I think that this statement sent a "chill" through the voting public in CA. Support for Prop. 19 fell dramatically after this occurred. The same thing could happen to any 2012 ballot initiative in any state We have to keep trying though.
This has nothing to do with "who drinks wine". The retail value of California wine sold in the U.S. in 2010 amounted to $18.5 Billion: (http://www.wineinstitute.org/files/California_Wine_Statistical_Highlights_Nov_2011_0.pdf) Because of the size of the wine industry in California, the state has implemented an extensive regulatory system to control the production, distribution, and sale of wine. The RMLW initiative seeks to repeal the prohibition of marijuana in California and apply the grape wine model of regulation (where possible) to the production, distribution, and sale of marijuana within the state. This is one of the major differences between the RMLW campaign and the Prop. 19 campaign. Prop. 19 did not provide for a statewide regulatory system, and this was one of the major stumbling blocks for voters on the initiative. RMLW avoids that stumbling block by modeling the regulation of marijuana within CA after the regulation of the wine industry in CA. California wine is known throughout the world in wine drinking circles. California marijuana is known throughout the world in marijuana consuming circles. They are both agricultural products. There are many strains of marijuana just as there are many varieties of wine. I could go on, but I think the comparisons are obvious