Election 2012

Poll: Colorado's Marijuana Legalization Initiative Leads 51-40


For the first time since polling on the issue began, Colorado's Amendment 64, the ballot initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol, is polling over 50 percent. The Denver Post reports:  

The poll found that the measure, Amendment 64, has the support of 51 percent of likely voters surveyed, compared with 40 percent opposed. Men favor the measure more than women, a common gender spliton the issue. But 49 percent of women polled said they support the measure, compared with 39 percent who said they are opposed.

Across every income bracket and in every age group except those 65 and older, more voters told pollsters they support the measure than oppose it, though some of the leads fall within the 4-percentage-point margin of error. Voters younger than 35 support the measure by a margin of 30 percentage points, 61 percent to 31 percent, according to the poll.

The automated telephone poll was conducted Sept. 9-12 for The Post by New Jersey-based SurveyUSA. About 26 percent of those questioned were cellphone-only users, who were shown a questionnaire on their smartphone, tablet or other electronic device. Of voters included in the sample, 34 percent said they are Republicans, 34 percent said they are Democrats, and 30 percent identified as unaffiliated voters.

While that sounds like good news, the Post notes that California's prop 9 "polled at 52 percent three months before the election, while the measure ultimately failed with 54 percent opposition."

NEXT: No End to Chicago Teachers Strike

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.

  1. I for one look forward to the coming war between the state of Colorado and the DEA.

    1. and the DEA rank and file vs. the fed-o-crats. the latter will be the ones primarily coming down on the “we are feds what we say goes” side.

      1. Really? The DEA rank \ampersand file is willing to give up the opportunity to play soldier?

        1. i don’t have any hard data, tulpa, but from the conversations i have had with DEA agents, there are a certainly many who are hardcore anti-MJ ideologues.

          but there are a fair # who aren’t and more importantly, regardless of how they personally feel about it, i don’t see many of them getting involved in the fed vs. state power struggle over this issue.

          1. The DEA rank and file are the ones that are going to be on the front lines when their superiors order them in.

            If the state of Colorado tries to fight them, they are the ones going to be dying too.

            If they really dont support it, will be interesting to see what they do.

  2. Men favor the measure more than women, a common gender split on the issue.

    That fucking 19th Amendment ruined everything. I propose we remedy it by eliminating government entirely.

    1. Sadly, that’s true. Women are far more into socialism and prohibiting stuff.

    2. Amendment XXVIII: Having failed to secure the Blessings of Liberty to the People of the United States, this Constitution and all preceding Amendments are hereby repealed.

      You’re on your own.

  3. Just like the CA proposition, it will probably only succeed in getting the mostly Dem pro-legalization voters to the polls.

    1. Or turn out the anti-legalization, pro-democRAT women’s vote.

  4. Happy 225th birthday, Constitution. Peace and long life.

    1. DEAD since about 1913.

      1. It’s not completely dead, it’s more like a zombie that won’t die no matter how much it decays.

      2. The old boy may be barely breathin’
        But the heart of Constitutionalism
        The heart of Constitutionalism
        Is still beatin’

        (bum bum-bum bum bum-bum)

        In Cleveland…. Detroit!

        1. Well, only if you think the 3rd amendment is the heart.

          Its clearly the strongest part.

  5. colorado is showing a lot of game. just this past week, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the firing of ward churchill.


    and now, it’s looking like the good people of the state may legalize marijuana too!

    fire one dope, and fire up another!!!


    ” On July 7, 2009, Judge Naves found that the defendants (university) were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity as a matter of law, vacated the jury verdict and determined that the University did not owe Churchill any financial compensation.[9][62] Naves denied Churchill’s request for reinstatement at CU.

    Churchill appealed both decisions. On November 24, 2010, a three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.[63] In February 2011, Churchill filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Colorado Supreme Court.[64] In late May 2011, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear his case. [65] Court records indicate that oral arguments began June 7, 2012. [66] On September 10, 2012, the court ruled that the University’s regents had “quasi-judicial immunity”, upholding the earlier decision by a lower court. Churchill plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[11]”

    1. So the stupid immunity doctrine fixes the problem of the stupid granting of special first amendment rights to public employees. This is about the best we can hope for from the courts in 2012, I guess.

      1. i agree with your point, to some extent, but cmon… public employees are not GRANTED first amendment rights.

        but it is basically a kludge. since his tenure protections are so high, they are trumping it with the quas-judicial immunity.

        it’s like that old looney tunes cartoon where they keep one-upping each other with bigger and bigger weapons.

        but i guess that IS the only option when you can’t go in the opposite direction and diminish his retention capabilities… collective bargaining, public employees, first amendment oh my

    2. Unfortunately, good ol’ Ward is never going to have a problem getting speaking gigs or whatnot from the idiot left. He’s only deprived of a pulpit.

      1. he’s only deprived a PUBLIC forum, generally speaking, which is good

        private fora are free to sponsor frauds at speaking engagements etc. . heck, they are free to fund piss christ.

        otoh, i wasn’t exactly super stoked when evergreen state college, a public university in WA state hired mumia abu jamal as a commencement speaker.

        as a first amendment absolutist (so to speak) it does fill me with perverse pride that in our nation, a scumbag murdering piece of shit like mumia can speak at a public graduation at a public college and the entire speech etc. arranged and paid for with (as far as i know) public funding

        pretty amazing

        the fact that he was giving the very speech he gave goes to prove that the content of his speeech, about the evul amerikka oppressive nature is kind of ridiculous


        i was heartened by the immense show of support for daniel faulkner’s widow, that gary locke cancelled his appearance, and most importantly that despite the fact that a murderer of a police officer was sponsored to speak at a public college graduation, there was no violence by the rightwing and/or cop supporters. no pie throwing, no “don’t tase me bro”, none of that shit

        compare and contrast with the violence that coulter et al have met from the left when they are hired to speak.

        the speech is at the link if you are interested in listening to his pearls of wisdom :l

        1. heck, they are free to fund piss christ.

          Yeah, “piss christ” sort of drove the campus speech code point home pretty hard. And the “public funding for the arts” point the video almost made.

  6. I look at that chart and I see pie, delicious pie.

  7. …with a 4% margin of error

  8. Like with the CA vote, the drug dealers and pot farmers will actively work to prevent it from passing.

    CA’s prop 19 went down in flames in Humbolt county while passing in the liberal coastal counties because the people there didn’t have a financial stake in the outcome of legalized marijuana. So basically there is opposition not just from prohibitionists, but from the black marketeers.

    1. i agree with your analysis. will all come down to #’s. do we have enough to overcome the paleo-anti’s, as well as the decrim industry anti-s and blackmarket industry anti’s

      if i was a bettin’ man, i wouldn’t be voting this will pass. i’m just being hopeful.

    2. Bootleggers and Baptists.

      And CA and CO are low on the latter.

  9. Ending prohibition would greatly reduce, even almost eliminate, the market in illegal narcotics, cause a reduction in the number of users and addicts, greatly curtail drug related illness and deaths, reduce societal harm from problematic abusers, and bring about an enormous reduction in the presence and influence of organized crime. The people who use drugs are our own children, our brothers, our sisters, our parents, and our neighbors. By allowing all adults safe and controlled legal access to psychoactive substances, we will not only greatly reduce the dangers for both them and ourselves but also greatly minimize the possibility of ‘peer-initiation’ and sales to minors.

    If you sincerely believe that prohibition is a dangerous and counter-productive policy then you can stop helping to enforce it. You are entitled?required even?to act according to your conscience!

    * It only takes one juror to prevent a guilty verdict.
    * You are not lawfully required to disclose your voting intention before taking your seat on a jury.
    * You are also not required to give a reason to the other jurors on your position when voting. Simply state that you find the accused not guilty!
    * Jurors must understand that it is their opinion, their vote. If the Judge and the other jurors disapprove, too bad. There is no punishment for having a dissenting opinion.

    We must create what we can no longer afford to wait for: PLEASE VOTE TO ACQUIT!

    1. cause a reduction in the number of users

      I agree with you on the other stuff, but that is bullshit.

      Simple supply/demand. The demand curve isnt going to change*, but the supply curve will shift. How that doesnt lead to more users, I dont see.

      *at least right away, if anything, it could shift up as the people whose only objection is that it is illegal start using.

  10. Why does that pie chart say that 64 will “decriminalize” marijuana?

    The word is LEGALIZE, as in NO PENALTIES.

    Sure, it may violate the US Constitution, but the Constitution has been violated so many times recently that she’s turned PRO!

    1. Sure, it may violate the US Constitution


      Legalization or not is clearly a state power, not sure how you even remotely think this violated the constitution.

      1. Well, today is constitution day, so I’ll school you…

        The US has ratified and is party to the UN Conventions on Psychotropic Substances. As this international treaty was in fact ratified (every UN drug convention has been ratified by the US), according to Article Six of the US Constitution, “…all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

        Seems f’in crystal clear to me, even after half a gram of hash plant in my three foot Roor.

        Hey, a few more of my lessons, and you *might* be able to pass the test to get your green card.

  11. What? Pot is illegal? I been smoking that stuff for 30+ years and its illegal? lol


    1. Now we know how does one become a bot.

  12. People who tell USA Today pollsters they will vote are not the same group as people who will actually vote.

    Old people vote, and they want to stop the reefer madness.

  13. It’s disingenuous to compare CA’s Prop 9 with this, since 2010 wasn’t a Presidential election, which typically draws out many more young/new voters than midterm elections.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.