Skip to content
Subscribe

California voters: reduce penalties for drug possession

California voters: reduce penalties for drug possession
Published:

In a fascinating poll conducted by Lake Research Partners, the professional polling company found that a full 75% of likely California voters in 2012 believe that possession of a small amount of illegal drugs for personal use should be downgraded from a felony crime to a misdemeanor.

The survey was conducted in late March by telephone with a sample population of 800 likely 2012 General Election voters in California. The study also found that 56% of California voters believe that too many people are imprisoned in California, and that support for downgrading personal drug use to a misdemeanor is strong and widespread, including majorities of Democrats (79%), Republicans (66%), and Independents (72%) who said they favored lessening criminal penalties for illegal drug possession even after hearing an opposing message.

While California drug politics often centers on cannabis, the survey did not name a specific drug, instead referring generically to illegal drugs in general. Interestingly, this means that if respondents understood the full implications of the survey questions, a solid majority of Californians believe that the use of narcotics, cocaine, and heroine should be treated as a misdemeanor, not a felony.

We've noted here before that trends toward decriminalization and treating drug use as a public health issue and not a criminal one are policies that have fared well wherever they have been tried. In Portugal for instance, drug use was decriminalized over a decade ago. Last year I wrote:

"Portugal has not only managed to avoid becoming a festering, unsavory  trainwreck of rampant drug addiction and ruined lives- its drug  situation has actually improved.  By all indications, the country has  more positive statistics on drug use than any other in the Eurozone as  well as compared to the United States."

There's another interesting twist for politicians:

"A 41% plurality say they'd be more likely to support a state representative who reduced these penalties, compared to 15% who say they'd be less likely. Similarly, a state representative who voted against reduction is more likely to face a backlash, with 31% saying they'd be less likely to support that candidate and 18% saying more likely."

This means that California state politicians who vocally advocate for reducing drug-related penalties are helped, not hurt by that position. The survey results are just one more indication that liberalizing (in the classical sense of that word) drug laws is becoming more and more mainstream on the West Coast.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

California voters: reduce penalties for drug possession

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us