Talk:2010 California Proposition 19

Title

The About section of the Tax Cannabis 2010 website (under the "read the initiative" heading) uses the title "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010". We will just need to find out what the official title is so that the article is correct. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see the problem. This submission to the attorney general calls it the "Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010." I guess somewhere they changed their mind between the submission and the campaign branding, and I suppose we ought to verify what the latest submitted version says. This one is July 2009. Blue Rasberry 14:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the title. It's temporary. As soon as the initiative receives a number, the article's title will be California Proposition X (2010). All we know now is that X>17. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

True. Thanks for the reminder. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Name for opinion section

I made a section called "Stance on initiative" because I see that there are lots of organizations getting media attention for either supporting or opposing this initiative. I see potential to make this a big, well-referenced section with subsections detailing the players on both sides of the campaign. I am not sure what the title of this section could be. What is the precedent in other election articles? This article has a lot of potential for growth. After what should it be modeled? Blue Rasberry 04:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is another article about a piece of marijuana legislation, if it helps: Oregon Medical Marijuana Act. The following law-related Featured Articles might also help a bit as for as quality and organization go: Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, Bricker Amendment, Roe v. Wade. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Added info from Legislative Analysis office of the bill

A per Election law the state is required to review all proposed bill. I have factored that report into the article as basically this is the states take on the matter after careful review. -Tracer9999 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposition number?

What proposition number (or whatever) is this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am having trouble locating the prop. number, but this might have some additional information (or, I should say, the sources might) to find the prop. number or help expand the Wikipedia article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont think it will be assigned a number or letter until after the June elections. Yonskii (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Age ambiguity?

• Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone under the age of 21 results in them being banned from owning, operating, or being employed by a licensed marijuana establishment for one year.
• Any person who is 21 or older who sells or gives away marijuana to someone older the age of 18 but younger than 21, shall be imprisoned in county jail for up to six months and fined up to $1,000 per offense.
• Any person who is 18 or older, who sells or gives away marijuana to someone 14 years of age or older, shall be imprisoned in state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.

what happens to those who knowingly sell or give away marijuana to someone older than the age of 14 but younger than 18? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.189.16 (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The "younger than 14" was mistaken. the language of the prop is "... to a minor 14 years of age or older...."

nice catch :) fixed thanks! -Tracer9999 (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where the the talk about licensed, permitted and authorized came from. The language in the proposition is very clear. EVERY person 21 and over, and 18 and over respectively. There is no age ambiguity, at least not in the final draft.

Link to Text

Given the numerous sources, official and unofficial, available for the text of the proposition, is it appropriate to use "Yes on 19" as the source for the full text? Why not link to the balletopedia or the CA Secretary of State website? I'm all for including a link to Yes on 19 or any other site involved in this, but including at as the text of the prop seems sleazy. 24.6.250.222 (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is the official text of the initiative on the official website. It is certainly not "sleazy".Yonskii (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the text of the initiative, but is not the 'official source'. It neither an official (read: legal) document nor from an unbiased source. Other Wikipedia articles on propositions link to the state attorney general or voter information guide (etc.) - both of which have the text of the bill and legal documents related to the bill available, along with the current, albeit non-substantive, changes and other, non-biased but relevant information. Other Wikipedia articles do not link to associated campaigns as the "official source". Arbitrary claims about a subjective opinion aren't really that convincing, so, sorry, but it still seems sleazy to me. 24.6.250.222 (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if its from a government website or not, Tax Cannabis 2010 is the official group that started the initiative. The text on the website is word for word what has been submitted to Secretary of State Deborah Bowen. Other Wikipedia articles certainly do link to official advocacy groups websites and other related sites. External links dont have to be governmental or NPOV, only relevant. There is also a link to Public Safety First in the ELs, which are against the initiative. It being "sleazy" is simply your opinion.Yonskii (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What counts as passing?

What kind of majority does this measure need to pass? Is it a simple majority (50% + 1), or because of the tax implications and other things does it need two-thirds, or something else. I have been discussing this with some friends, and we don't know. I think that this information would be helpful in the article. Thanks. 98.185.232.4 (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe all propositions require a simple majority to pass. Yonskii (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that requires 2/3 is certain bills in congress. with voter initiative to the best of my knowledge its always 50% +1 vote.-Tracer9999 (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Peron

This individual has gone on record many times in clear opposition to prop. 19, as I have demonstrated with a citation. I see no evidence that he has changed his mind. Petergkeyes (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Support/Oppose: is this list in any particular order?

I want to know if this list is in any particular order? The most significant supporters and non-supporters are higher at the top? Or are those who donated the greatest amount of money to support or oppose higher at the top? If Meg Whitman is at the top of those who oppose, then it's obvious that she has the most money to spend on campaigns like this.
Native94080 (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we've generally have been keeping individual persons listed first by notability and what level of govt they are in (federal, state then local). Then after them we list groups and organizations, also listed by notability. Government affiliated officials and organizations are also listed first before private. Yonskii (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The list is getting pretty long, which is certainly not a bad thing, but it might be worth considering separating individuals and organizations/groups for organizational purposes. Not necessarily subsections, but maybe just two columns or text bolding for separation. See this list for ideas and examples. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Other possibilities (using the section Supporters as an example):

1. Sorting by last name for individuals and name of organization/group (mixed):

• ACLU
• John Dennis
• Drug Policy Alliance
• Mark Leno

etc.

OR

2. Separating individuals and organizations/groups, then sorting alphabetically:

Individuals

• John Dennis
• Mark Leno

Organizations

• ACLU
• Drug Policy Alliance

etc.

Thoughts? --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

10th Amendment Nullifies Federal Laws

In the intro section, there is a sentence "As of September 2010, even if the proposition is passed, the sale of marijuana will remain illegal under federal law via the Controlled Substances Act.". Can we add a sentence after that stating something like "Even though the Federal Government maintains that certain substances are controlled, and illegal, that position can be nullified by each State using the 10th Amendment of the US Constition."Nly8nchz (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If unsourced, that statement would be analysis or original research, which shouldn't be done in articles per WP:NOR. Do you have a thrid-party reliable source that can be used for that statement? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, just leaving it as it is gives the wrong impression if you are a US constitution whiz. When I first read it it seemed like the proposition had no chance to be put into law, which obviously isn't true.Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Snoop Dogg and Tommy Chong

These 2 individuals have gone on record in the media as supporters of CA Prop 19. They are most certainly noteworthy individuals. A colleague suggested that they are inappropriate for inclusion as supporters for 2 reasons:

1. They are likely to support "marijuana legalization" anywhere, anytime.

2. They do not have enough "political influence" to merit inclusion.

California's Proposition 19 is a controversial ballot measure that is not universally supported by all cannabis enthusiasts. One editor's opinion on whether or not Calvin Broadus (Snoop) or Tommy Chong would support other ballot measures is irrelevant to their worthiness for inclusion in this list in this article. Their relative political influence, or lack thereof, also has no bearing on their noteworthiness. They said they support the measure in verifiable media, and they are both very well known individuals with Wikipedia pages. Both of these men should be included on the list of supporters of CA prop 19. Petergkeyes (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can see we already list alot of supporters.. the fact is the addition on snoop doggy dogg and tommy chong are unnecessary.. we cannot list every single persons opinion on wether they are for or against this act.

1) the fact is, if you look at the list off supporters and opposition, the are political establishment (who makes the laws), law enforcement who enforces the laws and have in inside glimpse into the effects on society, and organizations representing large portions of society affected by the law.

2) Snoop Doggy Dogg is not even the individuals real name, so the supporter would actually be whatever his real name is if anything. The only purpose of including some rap star like SNOOP serves is to slant the article with a ..hey look people like SNOOP DOGGY DOGG support this.. to attempt to slant POV of the effects of the law. His support is meaning less, we could just poll hollywood, and get a for or against from every actor actress (who's opinion really matters no more then you or I) and make this article 10 MB long and one big list. What Snoop supports makes no difference whatsoever. as for tommy chong he is a star from like the 70' or 80's..again.. makes no difference what his opinion on the matter is. This article is not a who likes pot and who does not article. its an article on the legal changes the law will bring, and the effects, The opinion of individual people make no difference, what is important is the opinion of the people who enforce and create the laws and or had a hand in creating and enforcing previous law or are financially support the proponents or the opposition to a large degree. What say miley cyrus thinks is really irellevant in the nature of this artice as it is not the gossip column. -Tracer9999 (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

When would it take effect

I have read that propositions tend to go into effect at the beginning of the next year, but I have also read that Prop 215 went into effect the next day. When would this one go into effect? --Jlange (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the State constitution, it appears that it would take effect the day after the election because there is nothing in the initiative that states otherwise. So I have added this to the article.

--Jlange (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

How to keep the article Neutral

User:Yonskii just removed a bunch of information and reorganized others, arguing it made the article non-neutral. While I agree with part of the change, I don't agree with all of it. First, xe move the Fiscal impact from the "Arguments for" to a neutral Fiscal impact subsection--I wholly agree with that move because, as Yonskii stated, that's a neutral review done by a third party neither supporting nor opposing the proposition. Second, Yonskii removed all of the rest of the arguments for and against. This removal I disagree with, although I'd rather see what others think before reverting. The reason I disagree is that being neutral does not mean not presenting opinions--it just means we need to properly source and attribute those opinions. I don't see any WP:NPOV violation in including both for and against arguments, so long as we include those arguments that have enough WP:WEIGHT; we provide clear, appropriate, reliable sources; and we properly attribute those opinions to the sources (i.e., we don't put them in "Wikipedia's voice). I'd like to hear other thoughts and/or policy on this matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with alot of the arguments removed are they are crystal ball type arguments, speculation and scare mongering. Stating this could/might happen if this happens and someone does that. Or weasle words, like some think / are afraid this or that could happen. The problem with initiatives like this, Where anything currently illegal becomes lawful, people have a tendency to exaggerate, generally on both sides, with the hope that if they make enough rediculous statements some will stick. and the rest that is not exaggeration is common sense. This article does a good job in explaining what the changes are to the law, minus agenda's other organizations are trying to propogate for thier own orginizations needs. like the alchohol industries donations against the bill for one thing.. the fiscal effects section seems to cover alot of the arguments from a neutral niether camp point of view. This article as it stands gives the facts and lets the readers decide. i think its fine as it is. -Tracer9999 (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a tough issue. On the one hand, it's hard to argue that speculation from those with a stated position on the measure belongs in a neutral wikipedia article. But a major problem with the article as it stands now is that the "fiscal impact" section is hard not to interpret as a for/against list. And the only argument it contains against the measure (i.e. an increased cost) is the potential increase in the costs of substance abuse programs. In other words, those not familiar with the issues could well read the article as an endorsement of the measure. I added a for/against summary to the introduction to address these concerns. - 173.126.250.133 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.57.153.131 (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Tracer9999's reasoning is pretty much what i used when I decided to remove those sections. The "Fiscal Impact" section may be perceived by some as seemingly in favor of the initiative, but you have to remember that those figures come from the nonpartisan State Legislative Analyst, whom I dont believe have anything to gain specifically from Prop 19 passing or not. I think it would be most appropriate to just leave it listing the bare facts of the initiative. I think most people can make up their own mind from about Prop 19 from whats already in this article. Yonskii (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Both Tracer9999 and Yonskii's arguments are actually exactly what I was worried about--they focus on the issue of "letting people make up their own minds". But that has very little, if anything, with determining what should or shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. The question is, what is verifiable, and what has enough (WP:DUE) weight to be included. We're not here to inform people so that they can make a political decision, we're here to document a particular piece of California legislative history.

On the other hand, perhaps this will be moot after the election. If I'm thinking long-term, perhaps ten years from now there is no reason to have documented the arguments for/against a ballot initiative after it's past. I'll try to look at other similar articles later for precedent. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Informing people of what this initiative is about, without it being tainted by bias from EITHER side, is EXACTLY what the purpose of this article is. Yonskii (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? That's not what WP:NPOV says, nor is it how we commonly treat disputed topics. We regularly go to great efforts, in fact, to include not just factual summaries of topics, but also the perspective of various people/groups, reviews, analysis, etc. Are you saying that on, say, a movie or video game, we should not provide information about critical reviews (i.e., biased opinions) about the items? Or that we shouldn't show the opinions of various sides on contemporary events? That doesn't seem to match what I see around the project. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Images

I'm an advocate for article beautification and visual appeal. I am sure this article will include a map of voting results once the election has been held. What other relevant images could be added to the article? Perhaps images of some prominent supporters and opponents of the proposition? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Have there been any rallies for or against? We could add pics of those if there have been. There are signs for "Yes on 19" that might be appropriate, if they don't violate neutrality. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Great idea! Neutrality certainly would not be an issue if we displayed one showing support and one showing opposition. This category contains all of the cannabis-related images that have been marked with the WikiProject Cannabis template. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about random images of supporters/detractors. The article on the medical marijuana proposition has a guy with a card specific to the program. An image like File:World-cannabis-laws.png could be relevant. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No images are needed, I don't think. I have no problem with adding images but lets not just add images to add them. No particular supporter or opponent (except debatably the guy who started the inititive as he actually played a part in getting it added to the ballot) is important enough to add a photo of as the article is about the initiative, not any particular supporter. Showing a picture of one supporter or detractor out of millions would be undo wieght in my opinion. Plus the page loads faster without images. map of the voting results sounds good.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case, an image of Richard Lee seems appropriate. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

SB 1449

I thought is was 18 plus as well. but looking at the signing statement and the amended text it appears to me to only differentiate in age as it pertains to on school grounds. Maybe there is another law thats applicable to minors? anyone have any idea.. here is the pertainant text..

"SECTION 1. Section 11357 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:

  11357.  (a) Except as authorized by law, every person who

possesses any concentrated cannabis shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by both such fine and imprisonment, or shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison.

  (b) Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses not

more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100) .

  (c) Except as authorized by law, every person who possesses more

than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than six months or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

  (d) Except as authorized by law, every person 18 years of age or

over who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, upon the grounds of, or within, any school providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 through 12 during hours the school is open for classes or school-related programs is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 10 days, or both.

  (e) Except as authorized by law, every person under the age of 18

who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, upon the grounds of, or within, any school providing instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 through 12 during hours the school is open for classes or school-related programs is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to the following dispositions:

  (1) A fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250), upon

a finding that a first offense has been committed.

  (2) A fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or

commitment to a juvenile hall, ranch, camp, forestry camp, or secure juvenile home for a period of not more than 10 days, or both, upon a finding that a second or subsequent offense has been committed." -Tracer9999 (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Most articles I could find stated that SB 1449 "amended adult marijuana laws"... without mention of laws pertaining to minors. Yonskii (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest Poll from Rasmussen

I have been searching for a day now and have not found any information corroborating the poll from Rasmussen that show Yes on Prop 19 in the majority, or even a poll from Rasmussen on Prop 19 this month. This fact coupled with the fact that there is no date for the link to the poll and that the poll cannot be verified online makes it suspicious. I thought I'd mention this to the higher powers (pun unintended) before editing anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfaqtor (talk • contribs) 10:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Also it is statistically wrong to say the margin of error is 3% with a sample size of 448. It is also strange that the sample size is precisely the same as the poll listed before it, which does have a valid link. I will be deleting this poll when shortly unless it can be verified. Jlange (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sad but true. The entry is fake. I deleted it after browsing the Rasmussen website. The latest marijuana-related poll was on July, and it was not related to proposition 19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.35 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the unverified poll for hopefully the final time. The person who originally posted the poll also vandalized the page at the same time, meaning the chances that it is fake are astronomically high. Arkane2 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am deleting the most recent Ipsos poll since: 1.) sample size for the actual survey, according to the link was 600, not 448; and 2.) After checking the Ipsos website, there is no proof that the poll was ever done. The site has no record of it, and based on the polling trends for the past 6 months it seems highly unlikely there would a poll this out of whack this late in the electoral season, just letting the powers that be know. (some anonymous guy)

I too would like the latest Ipsos poll to be fake, but wishing it so doesn't make it so. Here's the link to the actual research on the Ipsos website: http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=4983 and here is the link to the actual poll in PDF format: http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10037

I'll let somebody else add it back into the actual page. Alexkreuz (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see what's going on here. Yes, the "Rasmussen" poll is real. Except for the fact that its not a Rasmussen poll at all, but an Ipsos poll. The poll is real, but the label "Rasmussen" is wrong. Alexkreuz (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. There used to be both an ipsos and Rasmussen poll on the page. The Rasmussen poll could not be verified so it was deleted. The Ipsos poll can be verified and should be replaced. I will do that. The Ipsos poll has 448 subjects for ballot measures, 600 for other election races. Thus the Ipsos poll was accurately reported on the table.Jlange (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is, the Rasmussen poll also had 448 subjects with results of 44% to 53%. That leads me to believe that the Rasmussen poll is in fact the Ipsos poll, simply mislabeled. 76.167.246.10 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)\

What is happening is vandals keep deleting the Ipsos poll and adding a fake Rasmussen poll which show the opposite findings.Yonskii (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Somebody is erasing a USA Survey poll that found a majority for prop19. the poll was listed and then erased, and then i wrote a comment about it and it was erased. here's the link to the poll (where are the pro prop19 wikis who can protect this info?) http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2010/10/08/in-ca-democrats-cling-to-ever-so-slight-advantages-in-governor-senator-lt-gov-contests-yes-7-puffs-ahead-of-no-on-marijuana/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.127.74 (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That poll is in there. It's the SurveyUSA poll completed October 3rd -- one day before the Ipsos poll, and therefor listed right before it. I discovered this by looking at the link you just gave and following its link to the actual poll results/summary. ;) Prop 19 --MQDuck (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Yes on 19 campaign has released the results from an Internal Poll they conducted .. If anyone feels it should be added, here's the link: http://yeson19.com/internalpoll 76.167.246.10 (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

where it was conducted for and paid for by the yes on 19 crew I don't think it neutral enough anymore then a poll from the no on 19 campaign would be. -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

maybe not, but the results were fairly similar to the rest of the polls .. live responses were slightly against prop 19, whereas automated responses were significantly for 76.167.246.10 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

InTrade

Ballotpedia mentions them, so I thought it may be relevant here as well. Intrade is predicting a 69% probability of Prop 19 passing: http://data.intrade.com/graphing/jsp/closingPricesForm.jsp?tradeURL=https://www.intrade.com&contractId=702407 Alexkreuz (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Intrade has been added Arkane2 (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would advise to not add such speculations, for neutrality's sake.Yonskii (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what intrade has to do with a lack of neutrality .. its just a unbiased casino .. besides, its at 35.3% now .. 76.167.246.10 (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is just gambling that also includes non california residents so is irrelevant in relation to this "california" ballot initiative. We already have polling numbers from california residents. also, We don't list a bookies point spread on the page of football teams either when they are playing a game. -05:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why californian residents are better at guessing whether the prop. will pass than non-californians. Remember, this is not saying that it should pass, simply how likely that is. The catagorization of Intrade as gambling is inaccurate as it attempts to predict realworld event. The outcome of these events is not random. Intrade has proven itself as an accurate indicator of what all knowledge available at a given time suggests will happen, so i think it is relevant.Olyus (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

because we don't do "guesses" first and foremost. Polls are slightly different because at least they poll voters in the state thats applicable and will be effected by the resolution and have a say in its passing or failing. You have a different mindset in say florida or texas then you do in massachusetts and california. And regardless of wether its called the "predictions" market its still gambling. The way to make the most money would be to buy low as possible and sell high.. so you hope for an upset.. no point buying in at 93 and being proven right..lastly, we are not an advertising service / legitimizer for a for profit gambling business. -Tracer9999 (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Official advocacy group

The article describes Yes on 19 as the "official advocacy group" for the initiative. What does that mean? The link is to a general article about advocacy groups, not to anything that would explain what formal role a designated advocacy group has in the California initiative process. The article on California ballot measures is not much past the stub stage, and a quick search isn't turning up an answer elsewhere. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes on 19 is the official campaign group. Yonskii (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a reference to the California Secretary of State's Voting Guide (where it states "Yes on 19" as the advocacy group) as well as added the 'official' opposition group. Arkane2 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection?

This article is being targeted with a large amount of vandalism, which may only increase as we approach the election. Should some sort of protection be applied to the article? --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I support this. I expect even more frequent vandalism as it gets closer to election day.Yonskii (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Jlange (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be some agreement, then. I will be away from a computer for a while, but I will try to remember how to request protection unless someone else beats me to it. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've put in the request Jlange (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears our request was denied. Unfortunate. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

CNN source

In case this can be used to improve the article: CNN link. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

For someone such as myself who is curious about the outcome of this i am having trouble discovering certain things on this article, For example its states a simple majority to pass. A simple majority by who ? Who exactly votes on this?.. Do the people vote like they would "Physically" in an election? Are Senators/Congressman voting on it? If so who are some of the Key supporters ? Who Oppose? I understand that perhaps a prop bill article probably should not explain such things as how a prop becomes law and the whole voting process but where are the links to explain such things? anyone care to explain it to me ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.59.82 (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

uhm, its a ballot initiative.. so it would be on the ballot on the "November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot".. which means the people would vote. a simple majority is just that.. 1 vote over 50% of all votes cast and there is a long list of supporters and opponents on the page. did you read even the article? Im not sure what your question actually is as it all seems to be explained quite clearly in the article -Tracer9999 (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your sarcastic yet timley response you helped —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.59.82 (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Tracer, it's only clear if you are familiar with the ballot initiative system. In fact, only 24 U.S. states have initiatives, and only a small handful of non-U.S. countries have them. For example, the other day I tried to explain this proposition to someone in Japan, and then I had to backtrack and explain the whole ballot initiative system. They actually found the initiative process as strange as the idea of making marijuana legal. So, if the IP is from some place where they don't have initiatives, I can understand why it sounds strange. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No im from jersey i just wasnt sure about the whole STATEWIDE BALLOT thing which i obviously was unfamiliar with ,, But i thank you both —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.59.82 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

to be honest. I was not aware only 24 states had an initiative system.. prob because both states that I live in do. I assumed it was a national deal. So, in other states you just have to count on the politicians without any of the failsafes provided by the initiative process? wow.. I wonder how that works out for them. You learn something new every day. -Tracer9999 (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

538 Article

I asked Nate Silver to write an article about prop 19. He does statistical analysis of the various house, senate and gubernatorial races across the country. Here's the article in his NY Times blog:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/is-proposition-19-going-up-in-smoke/

From his meta-analysis of the polling, he thinks it has an even chance of passing. You guys should be able to use it as a source. --71.194.190.179 (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Prop 19 was defeated

{{edit semi-protected}} All major outlets are reporting that prop 19 was defeated.

 Done I added a sentence in the lead. Someone want to clean up this article properly? Lots of outdated info now. ☢Pufferfish¹⁰¹⑨ 05:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done a little past-tensing, but yeah, the page really needs some cleanup/shrinking/splitting.  — SheeEttin {T/C} 05:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)