Support for Marijuana Legalization Slips in Colorado

A new SurveyUSA poll shows support for Colorado's marijuana legalization initiative, Amendment 64, slipping from 51 percent last month to 48 percent. Opposition, meanwhile, rose from 40 percent to 43 percent, with 9 percent still undecided. The poll's margin of error is four percentage points.

Washington's legalization intiative, I-502, so far has retained majority support, with the latest poll, taken at the end of September, finding 57 percent of voters in favor. In early September a SurveyUSA poll found more oppostion than support for Oregon's initiative, Measure 80: 41 percent vs. 37 percent, with 22 percent undecided.

I discussed the possibility of a state rebellion against marijuana prohibition in a column last month. A new Reason TV video asks, "Are We in the Final Days of Marijuana Prohibition?"  

Addendum: Over at Salon, David Sirota argues that Amendment 64, combined with Gary Johnson's presidential campaign, could swing Colorado to Romney rather than Obama, as conventional wisdom holds. Sirota cites a new robocall message urging Colorado Democrats angry about Obama's broken promise of medical marijuana tolerance to vote for Johnson. 

[via the Drug War Chronicle]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Paul.||

    Unfortunately for Washington, like many an initiative swept in by popular support, the legislature can simply say, "Yeah, no" and invalidate it.

  • ||

    only if they can show some kind of constitutional inconsistency/structural problem

    under the WA constitution, initiative is a HIGHER FORM OF LAW in WA state than legislative law.

  • ||

    Can you name one example?

    I know plenty of Tim Eyman initiatives that are despised by the Governor and dem controlled senate and house in Washington...yet they seem to have a hell of a time getting around them.

    Last year the Costco sponsored liquor bill was also pretty much reviled by the power that be. Yet we can now buy Vodka at Wallmart.

    I am not saying you are wrong...but i just can't recall the legislature ever doing that.

  • ||

    i agree. they only "get around them:" when they can point out some structural /constitutional problem with the law itself.

    trust me, if they COULD have invalidated the anti-racial preferences initiative, they would have. that was overwhelmingly supported by the public, but the legislators HATED it

  • DaveAnthony||

    It seems that they would have an easy time showing the conflict between state law and federal law and using that as justification to nullify the ballot initiative.

  • John||

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/157.....omney.aspx

    Gallup now has Romney up by seven among likely voters and at 52%. Yesterday it was six. A week ago it was two. Have the undecideds broken?

  • Paul.||

    Have the undecideds broken?

    If so, they broke, and broke hard on a couple of debate performances, one of which everyone agrees Obama lost (with the media hammering a win on substance, but a loss on style), the other leaving Obama in a slight win.

    Serious question, have we ever seen such a radical, late poll swing for a presidential candidate this close to the election?

  • John||

    Reagan in 1980 was down all summer and fall. And that election was a lot like this one. Carter was an unpopular incumbent with no record to run on. Carter's whole justification for re-election was that Reagan was unfit for office. Once Reagan showed in the debates that he was a suitable alternative, Carter was toast.

  • Lord Humungus||

    question: would have Obama actually done better if he had agreed not to debate Romney? LBJ didn't debate Goldwater (and Nixon didn't debate McGovern) and that turned out okay for the incumbent.

    Will this sudden poll swing make future incumbents shun debates?

  • John||

    Yes. Obama should have never agreed to a debate. What was Romney going to do about it? And you know the media would have covered for him. Meanwhile, Romney would have been deprived of a chance to show the country he was not what Obama said he was.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Obama should've been 'doing something serious' regarding Benghazi instead of the debate. Two birds 1 stone.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "Politics must be set aside at important moments like this"

    I like your idea, it was clever enough to have worked. Press would cover his flanks and beat the drums o' seriousness.

  • Paul.||

    I can say that at the local level, incumbents shun debates all the time-- especially when they have decent leads.

    In my opinion, debates are largely constructs of the networks in an attempt to create sport out of politics.

    They're tests of candidate glibness, not so much a test of their policy ideas-- especially the 'town-hall' debates. While I didn't watch either of the Romney/Obama debates, the previous 'townhall' debates I've seen are a bunch of victims asking the presidents how they're going to fix their problems. Imagine a candidate saying, "I'm not". You'd be treated to weeks of the media screaming about 'blaming the victim'.

    Watching the townhall debates makes me think we're a long way from Kennedy. Now it's "Ask not what you can do for yourself or your country, but what your president will give you and when"

  • Loki||

    Imagine a candidate saying, "I'm not". You'd be treated to weeks of the media screaming about 'blaming the victim'

    Which is probably why a libertarian will never be elected president. Unless they lie, pander, obfiscate, and dodge questions like "will you fix all my piddly ass problems for me so I don't have to take responsibility for myself". IOW, act like every other politician.

  • ||

    Which is probably why a libertarian will never be elected president.

    This is not the only forces at work. People hate paying for other peoples stuff. As our country becomes more diverse the strain because greater and greater. At the same time the law of diminishing returns kicks in. The free stuff because less valuable.

    Also we are broke...and looking to become even more broke. Eventually government will be forced to cut the free stuff.

  • NoVAHockey||

    i don't think they broke recently. they're just fine with stating it now. that you-tube, i mean debate, was just an excuse.

  • ||

    Serious question, have we ever seen such a radical, late poll swing for a presidential candidate this close to the election?

    2008.

    Just after the convention McCain took a good lead then Obama came back within a week or two

  • Lord Humungus||

    No, they just became racists!

    Seriously, if Romney does pull a win, I can only imagine the sobbing of the lefty pundits. There will be cries that no one understood the genius of Obama, that great thinker who couldn't fight the corporate forces of greedy Washington.

    Of course that means the same pundits will turn wildly against Romney, criticizing anything he does, even if those policies are the same as Obama's. Romney, who actually is a squish moderate, will be considered a libertarian/conservative monster just for daring to remove such a god-like figure as Obama.

    Will this break the Democrats, plunging them even further left? (If only we had made a stronger case for _fill in the blank_)

    Or will they go more Bill Clinton 'moderate', finally realizing that hatred of Bush does not equal love of socialism?

    Or whatever...

  • ||

    But hey, that means we'll get align withe magically reappearing anti-war, pro-civil liberties left once Romney is elected.

  • John||

    That is what I keep telling Libertarians. If Romney wins, Liberals will pretend to be your friends again.

  • Randian||

    We weathered eight years of it with Bush and four years of it from the opposite side, so I think we'll be OK.

  • John||

    I didn't say it was a bad thing. But expect liberals to all of the sudden be interested in civil rights and executive power abuse again. And when everyone laughs them out of the room, they will start to understand the damage the last four years have done to them.

  • NoVAHockey||

    Only greenwald has any credibility on those issues anymore. the rest were exposed for the partisan hacks we all new there were. but they'll try to pretend otherwise.

  • Kat||

    Liberals still haven't realized the folly of socialism. Until they understand that, they will never understand where they went wrong.

  • Lord Humungus||

    yes, the anti-war crowd grew strangely silent. I also noticed that the CIA leaks diminished too. Amazing that.

  • ||

    But hey, that means we'll get align withe magically reappearing anti-war, pro-civil liberties left once Romney is elected.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I REALLY hope Warren and Obama lose and the resulting shock leaves the Dems open for takeover by the sane adults left. Both of them will have to be saavy but it can be done.

  • Paul.||

    Of course that means the same pundits will turn wildly against Romney, criticizing anything he does, even if those policies are the same as Obama's.

    Which is why Obama must win. The failure must be his and his alone. Switching to a guy exactly like Obama but runs with a moniker of GOP will only bring hatred upon freedom, liberty and individualism, because that's what Romney is, a big freedom-ey, liberty-ey, individualism-ey guy.

  • Cytotoxic||

    One more time with feeling.

  • Cytotoxic||

    THEY WILL BLAME US ANYWAY and cover for Obama's ass, and they will succeed. Do not be clever.

  • Loki||

    I hate to say it, but you have a point. They're going to blame "libertarianism" no matter what. They'll say that "if only those racist libertarians and tea partiers with their radical individualism had allowed the God king to succeed..." Basically we're fucked either way, in every way imaginable.

  • Calidissident||

    Just because liberals will say it regardless doesn't mean it will be believed by the general population in the same proportion under Obama than under Romney. That's a non sequitir. Not that it's a reason to vote for Obama

  • Kat||

    It doesn't matter what the general population believes. The general population will get whatever the political class rams down its throat and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Two thirds of the general population understood what a disaster Obamacare is and yet....we have Obamacare. Forever.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The Tea Party has never had control of anything more than the House, for the past two years (and that's arguable, since the party elites are really in control there), and yet they're blamed for every ill that's occurred in the BO admin.

    Plus, playing hot potato with power is self-defeating. Are you going to support the Dems in 2016, too? When will you supporting the opponents of liberty and stability?

  • R C Dean||

    My persistent question is:

    Have the pollsters changed their D/R weighting? A month ago, it tended to be absurdly hign (D+8 was typical). If they've backed off to a more reasonable historically D+4, that would be 4 points moving to Romney without any change in the underlying.

  • John||

    I don't think they have changed. I can't find the Gallup breakdown for it. Maybe. But I doubt it.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Rasmussen only shows a 49% (R) / 47% (O) split - and I imagine his weighting has remained the same. That's more of a 3-4% swing in his favor versus the last month's data (as I remember it).

  • Lord Humungus||

    damn, the 47 number keeps popping up in this election.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    And here I thought the answer was "42".

  • Randian||

    I can't seem to find Gallup's weighting at all, so if anyone has that, I am interested in the issue as well.

  • R C Dean||

    Well, if the pollsters are still weighting D+8 then we may be in for an epic blowout. Because no way do the Dems get turnout like they did in 2008.

    Romney could be leading by double-digits. Woohoo, country club cronyism, FTW!

  • NoVAHockey||

    the registered vs. likely screens starting being applied.

  • Paul.||

    Pew claimed it always used Likely vs. Registered and they had Obama way up on everything until recently.

  • NoVAHockey||

    and FWIW, daily kos is butt-hurt about and crying about the methodology of the likely voter screen.

  • Randian||

    Markos just approvingly retweeted a post that said "Remember, two weeks ago [Republicans were complaining] that Gallup is skewed."

    So, that makes it OK for you to do it, KosKids?

  • Paul.||

    The whole thing still confuses me. If they were skewed then, why are they not skewed now? Where is the real skewing?

  • R C Dean||

    And the Kosser were saying it wasn't. So now the polls are no longer Oracles of Electoral Truth?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That doesn't bode well for Obama in Colorado. He's very closely tied to legalization, you know.

  • ||

    fuck yea!!!!

    WA - WE CAN DO THIS!!!

    let's do it. legalize MJ and show the feds they can SUCK IT BITCHES!

    WA makes me proud in so many governmental respects- no income tax, strong right to carry, right to open carry no permit required, a privacy clause in our constitution that places great limitations on law enforcement search and seizures compared to almost every other state and WAY ahead of restrictions under the federal constitution, etc.

    It would only be fitting if we were the first to legalize MJ too! go WA!

  • ||

    We also have a pretty good anti-Kelo takings clause.

    Still Washington state is a pile of shit. You can't smoke in bars and apparently hydro-electric dams are dirty energy.

    Water rights are pretty fucked as well. If you do not use the water you own by deed within a five year period by law the water rights go to the state....and Washington state has not issued any new water rights in about 20 years. This virtually grantees no new manufacturing or development in the entire state.

    Also the Growth Management Act a huge regulatory taking.

  • Raston Bot||

    damnit, Colorado. just damnit.

  • Paul.||

    I know, what are they smokin' over there?

  • ||

    apparently, not da kine, whatever it is

  • Paul.||

  • ||

    da kine is part of hawaiian culture (long before it was part of pot culture).

    literally translated: the kind

    as in "this fish is ono, brah. it's got da kine crisp skin"

  • 0073735963||

    "apparently, not da kine"

    And yet you claim to hate marijuana culture. God you're a hypocritical lying sack.

  • ||

    lol. troll-o-meter:.01

  • NoVAHockey||

    OT -- Clinton apparently order more security in Libya -- and the clinton people are preparing to fuck over Obama. and if you haven't seen it, there's video of Bill at at rally today in OH saying "Romney is right that the economy isn't fixed." so maybe that fucking over is in process.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/10.....mea-culpa/

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Interesting - that would be a crysknife right in the ribs, if the Clintons pull that off.

  • ||

    "Who sees that knife must be cleansed or slain!"

  • Paul.||

    I'll believe it when I see it. My estimation thus far is that H. Clinton was ordered to move out and draw fire, and she complied (taking full fauxsponsibility for the Benghazi raid), in an attempt to draw attention away from Obama.

    But that is an interesting article. A little thin on proof for his claims-- which if true, could be devastating to Obama.

  • NoVAHockey||

    combined with bill's statements, i think they're jumping ship.

  • ||

    Bill wants nothing more than back in the WH. I agree.

  • R C Dean||

    Look very carefully at what Hillary took responsibility for: the lack of security, and what she didn't: the coverup.

    They can (and I predict will) hang the coverup on Obama. The Clintons have long memories. They've never liked the little twerp.

    Hillary is trying to set up a relatively clean exit here: she took fauxsponsibility (thanks, totally using that) for her shop, and is leaving on schedule. Meanwhile, Bill does his patented passive-aggressive frenemy thing on Obama and Hillary makes sure her hands are clean of the coverup, and everyone knows it. End game: Obama and his machine are weakened, the Clintons are stronger, and with Romney holding the bag for a calamitous 2013 et seq, Hillary is sitting pretty for 2016.

  • Paul.||

    The shit is chess, it ain't checkers!

  • Paul.||

    Apropos of the article above, it takes us back to recent history: http://reason.com/blog/2012/10.....nt_3312245

  • Loki||

    It's strange that support in CO seems to be going down. I don't recall seeing a single "no on 64" ad on TV or hearing one radio (although I listen to a rock station so it's unlikely thay would play one anyway). I have seen a few "yes on 64" commercials though. Weird.

  • B.P.||

    I haven't seen an anti-64 ad either. Denver Post ran their no-on-64 editorial. Meanwhile I've seen a pro-64 television ad, and heard pro-64 talk-radio spots featuring Tom Tancredo.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I guess people are used to thinking of it as a fringe issue. They didn't think they'd ever have to worry about something like this actually passing.

    But when we start to get close, they do a double-take...

    You mean like legalization for reals?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement