Go Back   Marijuana.com > News > The Drug War Headline News
Register FAQ Gaming VB Image Host Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 09-26-2006, 01:16 AM   #1
Lothar121
Seasoned Activist
 
Lothar121's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,391
Grams: 3,707.00
Groans: 1
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Lothar121 is starting to make a name for themself
Thanks: 6
Thanked 22 Times in 10 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default NV: Ballot Initiative: Internal Poll Finds Support

Ballot Initiative: Internal Poll Finds Support
Question would allow possession of marijuana for recreational use
Molly Ball | Las Vegas Review-Journal | 09/22/2006

A ballot initiative to allow Nevadans to possess small amounts of marijuana for recreational use has a better chance of passing than most people think, according to a newly released internal poll conducted on behalf of the proposal's backers.

In the new poll, respondents were read the actual text that will appear on their November ballots. Of the 600 likely Nevada voters interviewed statewide by a respected national polling firm, 49 percent said they would vote yes on the question and 43 percent said no.

Previously, survey after survey has shown that Nevadans are resistant to a ballot initiative that would, in its words, "control and regulate marijuana." But those results, such as a recent Reno Gazette-Journal poll that found 55 percent of likely voters opposed to the measure and just 37 percent in favor of it, were misleading because they asked the wrong question, advocates of the marijuana initiative said.

Other polls on the initiative have tended to ask whether respondents favored a move to "legalize" marijuana, a word that doesn't appear in the ballot language, said Neal Levine, campaign manager for the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana, the Nevada initiative's backers. The committee is largely supported by the Washington, D.C., based Marijuana Policy Project, a pro-legalization group.

"The word 'legalize' is a politically charged term," Levine said in explaining the difference between his poll and others. "It gives people the false notion of a free-for-all, marijuana on every corner. That's not what we're proposing.

"We're proposing a very tightly regulated system where we'd get institutional safeguards and tax revenue."

The poll was commissioned by the committee and conducted from Aug. 18 to Aug. 24 by Goodwin Simon Victoria Research, a Los Angeles-based polling firm that works nationally with Democratic candidates and state ballot initiatives. It has a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.

"There's a lot in the ballot language (of the initiative) that really appeals to many people," pollster Paul Goodwin said. "When people are read the entire measure as a package, they like it a lot better than when they're just asked whether they want to legalize marijuana."

Goodwin said his firm's extensive experience with California's ballot initiatives had taught him that "the best method is to read people the actual language, even if it's long and hard to get through."

The initiative's language states it would "permit and regulate the sale, use and possession of one ounce or less of marijuana by persons at least 21 years of age." It also says it would require sellers to be licensed and legal, impose taxes and restrictions on them and increase criminal penalties for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol that causes death or substantial bodily harm.

A Review-Journal poll conducted in April used the word "legalize" but also mentioned other aspects of the proposal. Of its 625 respondents, 34 percent favored the initiative, 56 percent were opposed and 10 percent were undecided.

The initiative's backers in 2002 got a measure on the ballot that would have amended the state's constitution to permit possession of up to three ounces of recreational marijuana. That proposal failed, 61 percent to 39 percent.

In 2004, the same group tried a similar measure with a one-ounce limit but failed to collect enough signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. This time, they've taken a different tack, proposing a statutory rather than a constitutional change for the one-ounce limit.

If the ballot measure passes, it would become law on Nov. 28 and could not be changed by the Legislature for five years.

Opponents of the measure say they don't believe it has popular support.

"I'm pretty confident that Nevadans are smart enough to see through what this group is doing with its Washington, D.C., money," said Patrick Smith, spokesman for the Committee to Keep Nevada Respectable. "They're trying to divert attention from what it's (the initiative) going to do, which is the legalization of the street use of marijuana."
__________________
Lothar121 is offline Award Lothar121 Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Marijuana.com Sponsor
Advertisement
 
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USA: Hemp Farming Act of 2007 Introduced in Congress Migz420 The Drug War Headline News 2 02-15-2007 09:22 PM
CO: GRAMNET: No laws were broken Lit_Match The Drug War Headline News 1 10-15-2006 02:27 PM

New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18 AM.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52