Washington state megathread

[Alcon]

Election results are being certified today.  I'll report results as I see them.

Yakima County - City of Wapato
Obama 670 (85.35%)
Romney 102 (12.99%)
Other 13 (1.66%)

Yakima County - Town of Mabton
Obama 266 (84.98%)
Romney 44 (14.06%)
Other 3 (0.96%)

Something tells me that Romney might have had some problems with the Mexican-American vote.

[Alcon]

Thurston - College precinct - Final results

Obama 251 (82.3%)
Stein 31 (10.2%)
Romney 13 (4.3%)
Johnson 7
Anderson 3

Lol. Just imagine if they hadn't actually included the random subdivision in there.

Some close shaves for Romney versus Other elsewhere in Olympia:  Obama 235, Romney 26, Other 22 was the closest.

[Alcon]

These numbers exclude King County.

Top Obama
1. Nespelem - 92.00%
2. Wapato - 85.35%
3. Mabton - 84.98%
4. Langley - 81.18%
5. Port Townsend - 78.30%
6. Mattawa - 77.52%
7. Toppenish - 77.10%
8. Bainbridge Island - 74.76%
9. Index - 74.75%
10. Granger - 74.41%

Top Romney
1. Lamont - 84.38%
2. Hatton - 78.95%
3. LaCrosse - 77.90%
4. Waverly - 76.92%
5. Starbuck - 76.4%
6. Washtucna - 74.53%
7. Mansfield - 74.48%
8. St. John - 74.32%
9. Lynden - 73.74%
10. Davenport - 71.07%

R-74 Best Performances
1. Langley - 79.67%
2. Bainbridge Island - 79.32%
3. Port Townsend - 77.93%
4. Index - 71.88%
5. Bellingham - 70.88%
6. Olympia - 70.66%
7. La Conner - 69.91%
8. Friday Harbor - 67.34%
9. Pullman - 66.25%
10. Ruston - 64.08%

R-74 Worst Performances
1. Hatton - 15.79%
2. Starbuck - 20.00%
3. Lynden - 21.04%
4. Kahlotus - 21.33%
5. Malden - 21.51%
6. Coulee City - 22.45%
7. Washtucna - 23.36%
8. Warden - 24.62%
9. Mansfield - 25.35%
10. Reardan - 25.67%

[Alcon]

I put up some precinct maps from Snohomish County in my precinct map thread.

Those are great! I'm surprised how well Obama did in Monroe. Did it vote for him?

Oh... as for Burgess running... ehh.

Yeah, Monroe was Obama 2,966; Romney 2,738; Other 128.

[Alcon]

You probably guessed I would say this from my username, but you guys out in Washington state must have nothing better to do than to sit around the house, get high, and watch the tube.

Not every Washington poster voted to legalize marijuana.

More to point, anyone who voted on the basis of whether they like or dislike marijuana is an asshole.  I've never touched the stuff, but I'm less of a fan of drug cartels and indefensible enforcement costs.  Personal dis(taste) for marijuana and its smokers is an incredibly juvenile basis for deciding such a significant public policy.

[Alcon]

You probably guessed I would say this from my username, but you guys out in Washington state must have nothing better to do than to sit around the house, get high, and watch the tube.

Not every Washington poster voted to legalize marijuana.

More to point, anyone who voted on the basis of whether they like or dislike marijuana is an asshole.  I've never touched the stuff, but I'm less of a fan of drug cartels and indefensible enforcement costs.  Personal dis(taste) for marijuana and its smokers is an incredibly juvenile basis for deciding such a significant public policy.

I would respectfully disagree with pretty much all of that, but I would also point out that my preferred policy option wasn't on the ballot (decriminalization, not legalization).

I'm not sure which part of that was remotely controversial?  I can understand opposing marijuana on the basis that it's bad for people, but that's not the same thing as opposing it because it's distasteful.  What possible relevance to public policy could that have?  How could it possibly be more relevant to the financial costs, public health concerns, law enforcement concerns, effect on cartel drug trade, and pretty much all of the factors involved?

(I was just responding to Oldiesfreak's post, by the way, not alluding to the reason why anyone actually voted or didn't vote on the measure...just in case it seemed otherwise.)

[Alcon]

I wasn't completely sure about who you were responding to, but I thought that was the case.

Presumably if someone finds marijuana "distasteful" then there is reason behind it. If not and they still want to ban it, then you're probably right (though it's not guaranteed). Provided they have such reasoning, I see no reason why it would be any less valid of a basis for a vote than anything else. People's gut reactions to issues are probably the most widely used rationale for voting that there is, occasionally wrapped up in their own cherry-picked arguments that happen to align with that feeling. We all do it. Sure, it might not be the best reasoning, but I don't think it makes someone an asshole.

Teenagers, innocent people, are being slaughtered and left in shallow graves in Mexico.  Let's assume, for a minute, that legalizing marijuana decreases cartel profits -- which I think the weight of the evidence pretty clearly shows (the arguments criticizing this assertion are pretty weak, IMO.)  Why would someone rationalize and cherry-pick for their personal distaste for potheads above their personal distaste for mass slaughter?  I don't care how natural that is, or how common it is.  I don't understand why using the inferior reasoning can be morally justified.  It's choosing to preference personal prejudice over much, much more important things -- even, albeit indirectly, people's lives.  How is it not self-centered, vindictive and abhorrent?

[Alcon]

I wasn't completely sure about who you were responding to, but I thought that was the case.

Presumably if someone finds marijuana "distasteful" then there is reason behind it. If not and they still want to ban it, then you're probably right (though it's not guaranteed). Provided they have such reasoning, I see no reason why it would be any less valid of a basis for a vote than anything else. People's gut reactions to issues are probably the most widely used rationale for voting that there is, occasionally wrapped up in their own cherry-picked arguments that happen to align with that feeling. We all do it. Sure, it might not be the best reasoning, but I don't think it makes someone an asshole.

Teenagers are being slaughtered and left in shallow graves in Mexico.  Let's assume, for a minute, that legalizing marijuana decreases cartel profits -- which I think the weight of the evidence pretty clearly shows (the arguments criticizing this assertion are pretty weak, IMO.)  Why would someone rationalize and cherry-pick for their personal distaste for potheads above their personal distaste for mass slaughter?  I don't care how natural that is, or how common it is.  I don't understand why using the inferior reasoning can be morally justified.  It's choosing to preference personal prejudice over much, much more important things -- even, albeit indirectly, people's lives.  How is it not self-centered, vindictive and abhorrent?

Assuming your premise is true, it doesn't follow that legalizing marijuana would end the cartels or the violence around them. They make more money off other drugs that aren't going to be legalized any time soon. You can't assume that a vote for legalizing marijuana is a vote to save teenagers or that a vote to keep it illegal is a vote to kill them. Also, I don't think that legalizing drugs is the solution to ending cartels anyway; they are symptomatic of deeper economic and social problems in Latin America (e.g. institutionalized cultural corruption makes policing impossible, and inadequate human capital from no infrastructure, inadequate schooling, etc. holds back economic development from providing a standard of living prerequisite to make people not have to resort to violent criminal behavior, etc.).

When did I say that marijuana legalization would end the cartels?  I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that it would have a marginal effect in decreasing their revenues and, I think, the arguments that this would decrease violence is vastly better.  However, that's a not the point of what I'm saying.  The point of what I'm saying is that, if someone ranks something like the death of others below their personal distaste in choosing a public policy on this issue, it's abhorrent.  It doesn't matter if "cherry-picking" arguments that align with our "gut reactions" is natural/common/whatever.  If this involves:

1. Irrationally prioritizing one thing (e.g., personal distaste) over another, more morally important thing (e.g., life); or,

2. Claiming to maintain rational preferences (e.g. life > distaste for pot-smokers), but "cherry-picking" evidence in a way that skews the evidence in a way that  effectively orders the preferences irrationally (e.g., distaste for pot-smokers > life)

Then:

1. That's f**ked up; and,

2. We are absolutely morally responsible for the gap between our cherry-picked evidence and actuality, and our irrational prioritizations (whether explicit or demonstrated by the way we cherry-pick/rationalize) and our actual moral beliefs.

That's probably unnecessarily elaborate, so...in other words, how the hell can cherry-picking and rationalization logically be morally OK, except by pure accident?

[Alcon]

Looking at the precinct results across the state, it's pretty clear that, despite their relatively low education and income levels and high levels of religiosity, Native Americans probably voted for gay marriage at rates comparable to or greater than whites.  Here's an aggregation of results from Native-heavy precincts, excluding areas like the Lummi Reservation, Suquamish Reservation and Tulalip, where there are lots of liberal whites around.

President
Obama 2,586 (75.92%)
Romney 751 (22.05%)
Other 69 (2.03%)

Referendum 74
Approved 1,812 (54.45%)
Rejected 1,516 (45.55%)

As you can tell from the number of Romney votes, there are definitely some white voters polluting the numbers, and they're not liberal ones; all but one of the precincts are in areas where the whites are mostly socially conservative.  It looks like reservation Indians voted for gay marriage by double digits.

[Alcon]

Top R-74
1. Seattle - 82.27%
2. Langley - 79.67%
3. Bainbridge Island - 79.32%
4. Port Townsend - 77.93%
5. Lake Forest Park - 72.84%
6. Index - 71.88%
7. Bellingham - 70.88%
8. Olympia - 70.66%
9. Mercer Island - 70.58%
10. La Conner - 69.91%
11. Friday Harbor - 67.34%
12. Shoreline - 67.09%
13. Yarrow Point - 66.96%
14. Beaux Arts Village - 66.51%
15. Pullman - 66.25%
16. Medina - 65.74%
17. Redmond - 65.39%
18. Kirkland - 65.18%
19. Kenmore - 64.39%
20. Ruston - 64.39%
...
273. Reardan - 25.67%
274. Mansfield - 25.35%
275. Warden - 24.62%
276. Washtucna - 23.36%
277. Coulee City - 22.45%
278. Malden - 21.51%
279. Kahlotus - 21.33%
280. Lynden - 21.04%
281. Starbuck - 20.00%
282. Hatton - 15.79%

[Alcon]

Top Obama
1. Nespelem - 92.00%
2. Wapato - 85.35%
3. Mabton - 84.98%
4. Seattle - 83.38%
5. Langley - 81.18%
6. Port Townsend - 78.29%
7. Mattawa - 77.51%
8. Toppenish - 77.10%
9. Bainbridge Island - 74.75%
10. Index - 74.74%
11. Granger - 74.41%
12. Tukwila - 73.89%
13. Lake Forest Park - 73.50%
14. Shoreline - 73.15%
15. Olympia - 72.16%
16. Winthrop - 71.87%
17. Bellingham - 70.36%
18. Mountlake Terrace - 70.12%
19. Bingen - 70.00%
20. Skykomish - 69.81%
...
273. Krupp - 26.08%
274. Washtucna - 24.52%
275. Lynden - 24.32%
276. St. John - 23.97%
277. Waverly - 23.07%
278. Mansfield - 22.75%
279. Starbuck - 22.09%
280. Hatton - 21.05%
281. LaCrosse - 20.44%
282. Lamont - 15.62%

Top Romney
1. Lamont - 84.37%
2. Hatton - 78.94%
3. LaCrosse - 77.90%
4. Waverly - 76.92%
5. Starbuck - 76.74%
6. Washtucna - 74.52%
7. Mansfield - 74.48%
8. St. John - 74.31%
9. Lynden - 73.74%
10. Ione - 71.06%
11. Davenport - 70.34%
12. Reardan - 70.12%
13. Prescott - 69.11%
14. Yacolt - 68.48%
15. Colfax - 68.37%
16. Pomeroy - 68.28%
17. Waterville - 68.26%
18. Colton - 67.19%
19. Nooksack - 66.31%
20. Hartline - 66.21%
...
273. Bainbridge Island - 23.07%
274. Mattawa - 21.70%
275. Toppenish - 21.37%
276. Index - 19.19%
277. Port Townsend - 17.30%
278. Langley - 16.53%
279. Mabton - 14.05%
280. Seattle - 13.80%
281. Wapato - 12.99%
282. Nespelem - 6.00%

Top Other
1. Krupp - 13.04%
2. Latah - 8.65%
3. Sprague - 6.12%
4. Index - 6.06%
5. Hamilton - 5.88%
6. Rock Island - 5.76%
7. Tonasket - 5.54%
8. Harrington - 5.40%
9. Riverside - 5.26%
10. Vader - 5.12%

[Alcon]

Seattle Neighborhoods
Top Obama
1. Central District - 92.00%
2. Stevens - 91.49%
3. Columbia City - 90.92%
4. Broadway - 90.90%
5. Madrona - 90.20%
6. Mount Baker - 89.54%
7. Atlantic - 89.45%
8. Fremont - 88.34%
9. Phinney Ridge - 88.24%
10. Leschi - 88.21%
11. North Beacon Hill - 88.06%
12. North Stevens - 88.00%
13. Whittier Heights - 87.95%
14. West Woodland - 87.94%
15. Wallingford - 87.79%
16. South Beacon Hill/Holly Park - 87.17%
17. Ravenna - 86.75%
18. Meridian - 86.75%
19. Loyal Heights - 86.40%
20. Denny-Blaine - 86.33%
21. Brighton/NewHolly - 85.83%
22. Eastlake - 85.74%
23. Dunlap - 85.66%
24. Ballard - 85.63%
25. Montlake - 85.49%
26. Rainier View - 85.40%
27. Mid Beacon Hill - 85.28%
28. North Delridge - 85.17%
29. Roosevelt - 85.14%
30. North Broadway - 85.11%
31. Georgetown/SoDo - 85.09%
32. Greenwood - 84.99%
33. First Hill - 84.75%
34. Bryant - 84.25%
35. Roxhill - 84.21%
36. Wedgwood - 84.11%
37. Green Lake - 83.89%
38. Rainier Beach - 83.80%
39. Maple Leaf - 83.66%
40. Seward Park - 83.47%
41. West Queen Anne - 83.41%
42. South Park - 83.39%
43. Portage Bay - 83.36%
44. Victory Heights - 83.07%
45. Meadowbrook - 82.91%
46. High Point - 82.84%
47. University District - 82.54%
48. North Queen Anne - 82.14%
49. Fairmount Park - 82.11%
50. Gatewood - 82.02%
51. Pioneer Square - 81.99%
52. North College Park - 81.94%
53. Olympic Hills - 81.90%
54. East Queen Anne - 81.87%
55. West Seattle Junction - 81.80%
56. Lower Queen Anne - 81.78%
57. Crown Hill - 81.60%
58. South Delridge - 81.54%
59. Riverview - 81.50%
60. Cedar Park - 81.42%
61. Bitter Lake - 81.38%
62. Highland Park - 81.16%
63. Sunset Hill - 80.99%
64. Matthews Beach - 80.91%
65. Hawthorne Hills - 80.87%
66. Interbay/Gilman - 80.64%
67. Sand Point - 80.45%
68. Haller Lake - 80.18%
69. Westlake - 80.18%
70. International District/Yesler Terrace - 80.11%
71. Genesee - 79.98%
72. Seaview - 79.17%
73. Denny Regrade - 79.05%
74. Broadview - 78.89%
75. South Lake Union - 78.87%
76. North Admiral - 78.82%
77. Belltown - 78.71%
78. Pinehurst - 78.11%
79. Lawton Park - 77.90%
80. Fauntleroy - 77.26%
81. Madison Valley - 77.09%
82. Downtown - 76.32%
83. View Ridge - 76.19%
84. North Beach/Blue Ridge - 76.05%
85. Arbor Heights - 75.62%
86. Alki - 74.82%
87. Southeast Magnolia - 73.14%
88. Laurelhurst - 72.17%
89. Windermere - 71.12%
90. Briarcliff - 67.85%
91. Madison Park - 64.60%

Top Romney
1. Madison Park - 34.05%
2. Briarcliff - 30.40%
3. Windermere - 26.40%
4. Laurelhurst - 26.35%
5. Southeast Magnolia - 24.43%
6. Alki - 23.25%
7. View Ridge - 22.25%
8. Arbor Heights - 22.06%
9. North Beach/Blue Ridge - 21.92%
10. Fauntleroy - 21.32%
11. Madison Valley - 21.01%
12. Downtown - 20.92%
13. Lawton Park - 19.85%
14. Pinehurst - 19.19%
15. North Admiral - 19.09%
16. Broadview - 18.80%
17. Seaview - 18.66%
18. Genesee - 17.77%
19. South Lake Union - 17.66%
20. Belltown - 17.63%
21. Haller Lake - 17.13%
22. Matthews Beach - 17.12%
23. Sunset Hill - 16.90%
24. Denny Regrade - 16.57%
25. Hawthorne Hills - 16.42%
26. Highland Park - 16.39%
27. Riverview - 16.37%
28. Westlake - 16.36%
29. Cedar Park - 15.88%
30. South Delridge - 15.83%
31. Gatewood - 15.65%
32. East Queen Anne - 15.65%
33. West Seattle Junction - 15.65%
34. Olympic Hills - 15.49%
35. International District/Yesler Terrace - 15.41%
36. Crown Hill - 15.40%
37. Bitter Lake - 15.33%
38. North Queen Anne - 15.32%
39. Fairmount Park - 15.28%
40. Interbay/Gilman - 15.22%
41. Sand Point - 15.17%
42. North College Park - 14.81%
43. Rainier Beach - 14.75%
44. Lower Queen Anne - 14.58%
45. High Point - 14.44%
46. West Queen Anne - 14.31%
47. Victory Heights - 14.24%
48. Seward Park - 14.00%
49. Portage Bay - 13.90%
50. Meadowbrook - 13.72%
51. Roxhill - 13.17%
52. Green Lake - 13.14%
53. Maple Leaf - 13.07%
54. South Park - 13.06%
55. Pioneer Square - 13.05%
56. Bryant - 12.97%
57. North Broadway - 12.89%
58. Wedgwood - 12.88%
59. University District - 12.74%
60. Dunlap - 12.73%
61. Mid Beacon Hill - 12.72%
62. Montlake - 12.62%
63. Rainier View - 12.46%
64. Brighton/NewHolly - 12.40%
65. Denny-Blaine - 12.27%
66. First Hill - 12.17%
67. South Beacon Hill/Holly Park - 11.75%
68. North Delridge - 11.73%
69. Roosevelt - 11.68%
70. Greenwood - 11.58%
71. Loyal Heights - 11.32%
72. Ballard - 11.09%
73. North Stevens - 10.95%
74. Eastlake - 10.72%
75. Ravenna - 10.4%
76. Meridian - 9.73%
77. Georgetown/SoDo - 9.61%
78. Whittier Heights - 9.17%
79. Leschi - 9.14%
80. Phinney Ridge - 9.07%
81. Mount Baker - 8.91%
82. North Beacon Hill - 8.86%
83. Wallingford - 8.84%
84. West Woodland - 8.46%
85. Fremont - 7.67%
86. Madrona - 7.56%
87. Atlantic - 7.21%
88. Columbia City - 6.34%
89. Broadway - 5.29%
90. Stevens - 5.10%
91. Central District - 4.28%

Top R-74 (gay marriage)
1. Broadway - 94.47%
2. Fremont - 92.79%
3. North Stevens - 92.41%
4. Stevens - 92.05%
5. Eastlake - 91.43%
6. Wallingford - 91.03%
7. North Broadway - 90.97%
8. Phinney Ridge - 90.19%
9. Meridian - 89.97%
10. Portage Bay - 89.88%
11. Madrona - 89.35%
12. West Woodland - 89.05%
13. Montlake - 88.96%
14. West Queen Anne - 88.46%
15. Ravenna - 88.01%
16. Westlake - 87.87%
17. Lower Queen Anne - 87.84%
18. Whittier Heights - 87.77%
19. Madison Valley - 87.58%
20. Ballard - 87.55%
21. Roosevelt - 87.20%
22. East Queen Anne - 86.84%
23. Loyal Heights - 86.70%
24. University District - 86.53%
25. Central District - 86.44%
26. Green Lake - 86.05%
27. North Queen Anne - 85.93%
28. First Hill - 85.81%
29. Denny Regrade - 85.77%
30. Denny-Blaine - 84.81%
31. Wedgwood - 84.78%
32. Georgetown/SoDo - 84.64%
33. Bryant - 84.41%
34. Greenwood - 84.31%
35. Hawthorne Hills - 83.87%
36. Leschi - 83.50%
37. West Seattle Junction - 83.41%
38. South Lake Union - 83.09%
39. Interbay/Gilman - 83.03%
40. Mount Baker - 82.97%
41. Downtown - 82.95%
42. Maple Leaf - 82.86%
43. Sunset Hill - 82.84%
44. Belltown - 82.81%
45. Meadowbrook - 82.63%
46. Roxhill - 82.46%
47. Gatewood - 81.46%
48. Matthews Beach - 81.34%
49. Fairmount Park - 81.20%
50. North College Park - 80.88%
51. View Ridge - 80.87%
52. North Delridge - 80.83%
53. Seward Park - 80.81%
54. Seaview - 80.72%
55. Laurelhurst - 80.40%
56. Sand Point - 80.04%
57. North Admiral - 79.84%
58. Genesee - 79.55%
59. Victory Heights - 79.39%
60. Lawton Park - 79.36%
61. North Beach/Blue Ridge - 78.95%
62. Crown Hill - 78.87%
63. Windermere - 78.86%
64. Madison Park - 78.80%
65. Southeast Magnolia - 78.52%
66. Alki - 78.51%
67. Fauntleroy - 78.08%
68. Broadview - 77.54%
69. North Beacon Hill - 77.23%
70. Atlantic - 76.84%
71. Columbia City - 76.56%
72. Cedar Park - 76.50%
73. Briarcliff - 76.18%
74. Arbor Heights - 75.13%
75. Bitter Lake - 74.84%
76. Haller Lake - 74.74%
77. Olympic Hills - 73.91%
78. Riverview - 72.11%
79. South Park - 71.12%
80. High Point - 70.92%
81. Pioneer Square - 70.80%
82. South Delridge - 70.36%
83. Pinehurst - 70.16%
84. Highland Park - 69.45%
85. Mid Beacon Hill - 64.70%
86. International District/Yesler Terrace - 64.03%
87. Rainier Beach - 63.22%
88. Brighton/NewHolly - 59.29%
89. Dunlap - 58.22%
90. Rainier View - 57.53%
91. South Beacon Hill/Holly Park - 55.14%

[Alcon]

Finally, Romney placed third in three high-vote Seattle precincts: two performances behind Stein in the Central District and, amusingly, a loss to Gary Johnson in a Wallingford precinct.

In Seattle, R-74's best performance was 628-11 (98.28%) at a Capitol Hill precinct.  It got rejected in four precincts -- the one including Yesler Terrace, and three in the Rainier Valley.  All were minority-heavy, and two (Yesler Terrace and one in the Holly Park area) were over 60% Reject.  The other two Seattle precincts that Rejected R-71 voted for R-74.

Obama's best Seattle precinct, in the Central District, gave him 96.23%.  This was also Romney's worst, at 1.67%.  Obama lost only one Seattle precinct, the one covering Broadmoor Golf & Country Club, which voted for him in '08 but voted Romney by 13 points.

bgwah noted that Mitt Romney's showing of 13.80% in Seattle is actually less than John McCain's 13.81% from 2008.

[Alcon]

Did Montlake Park swing to Obama? I don't believe he got over 70% there in 2008. I think Skykomish also swung to Obama.

Sorry, Montlake Park?  Not sure what you mean.

[Alcon]

What's with the pair of anti-gay marriage, anti-marijuana precincts in Shoreline? They really stands out and are the only precincts I see in liberal suburban areas that were opposed to both.

Christian retirement home.

Looks like Mountlake Terrace was 68.95%-29.11% in 2008 and 70.13%-27.28%.  Actually a notable swing there.

[Alcon]

Thanks as always, RI.

Looks like Finkbeiner broke 40% on Cap Hill.  Some big swings in that race -- Finkbeiner outperformed Romney by 37 percentage points on Cap Hill, 33 in Georgetown and the Central District, and 32 in Fremont.  Both Cap Hill and the Central District cast about eight times as many votes for Finkbeiner as for Romney.

[Alcon]

Why did Finkbeiner do so well in King County? He didn't seem to do that well as compared to other Democrats in other parts of the state.

He's more liberal on social issues (abortion, drug law, and arguably gay rights) than the incumbent Democrat.

[Alcon]

You probably guessed I would say this from my username, but you guys out in Washington state must have nothing better to do than to sit around the house, get high, and watch the tube.

Not every Washington poster voted to legalize marijuana.

Yeah, but a majority of you did.  I would love your state if it weren't for your backwards social policies.

Instead of condescending to us and assuming our vote was based on personally enjoying marijuana, how about you present an argument for why it's a bad policy?  I've already presented one (albeit in little detail) for why I voted yes.  Or is logically defending your position more "backward" than just moralizing?

[Alcon]

Marijuana has been proven to be a gateway to using other drugs.  I had a cousin who died from a heroin addiction, so I know just how destructive drug abuse can be.

I'm sorry for the loss of your cousin.  But I'm a 22-year-old who lives in a city -- do you really think I've never known a drug addict?  Drug addiction is a horrible disease and we all know it.  However, there are two questions here before we can make the jump to prohibition:

1. Does pot substantively contribute enough to drug addiction to justify prohibition?

2. Is the prohibition system the most effective means of combating drug addiction?

You seem to be convinced #1 is true.  I'm not sure why.  I've read the studies on marijuana as a gateway drug.  Most heavy drug users have been, or are, marijuana users.  However, that's not entirely surprising; heavy drug users tend to use all forms of drugs, and nearly all of them smoke cigarettes.  The question is whether causality exists.  You seem convinced it does.  Why?  I've read quite a few studies on this subject, and the consensus seems to be that there isn't a strong indication of causality.  Why do you disagree?

Since establishing #1 is a necessary condition to even engage #2, we'll hold off on #2 for now.

And as for gay marriage, I support equal rights for homosexual couples, but don't redefine marraige to do that.  Call it a "civil union" and give them the rights, but don't be changing a religious definition.

Churches are not forced to recognize gay marriages.  Individuals are forced to contribute to the tax base that includes gay couples...although that would be true under civil unions and domestic partnerships, and you support that.  So, if this is a substantive and not a language issue, I'm not sure what you're arguing.

If it's a language issue, your argument is pretty scary.  There were (and are) people with sincerely-held religious beliefs against interracial marriage.  Should we avoid the government calling interracial marriage "marriages" because of this?  This argument seems to obligate that the government not enforce any policies, in name or in substance, that might offend some individuals' religious beliefs.  Is that seriously the position you want to take as someone so gung-ho about racial civil rights?

[Alcon]

Marijuana legalization by city:

1. Seattle - 74.28%
2. Port Townsend - 73.82%
3. Langley - 70.10%
4. Bainbridge Island - 69.71%
5. Bingen - 68.14%
6. La Conner - 67.44%
7. Bellingham - 66.92%
8. Nespelem - 66.00%
9. Lake Forest Park - 65.85%
10. Friday Harbor - 64.09%
11. Index - 63.54%
12. Olympia - 63.40%
12. South Prairie - 62.98%
13. Rockford - 62.83%
14. Twisp - 62.77%
15. Leavenworth - 62.76%
...
273. Harrah - 36.67%
274. Granger - 36.65%
275. Mesa - 36.36%
276. Hartline - 35.21%
277. Kahlotus - 34.67%
278. Rosalia - 34.39%
279. Almira - 33.33%
280. Warden - 33.03%
281. Royal City - 31.45%
282. Lynden - 30.60%

[Alcon]

Leavenworth? That surprises me, though I guess I don't really have any idea what sort of people actually live there. How did it vote for President?

Obama 59%, Romney 38%

Referendum 74 was 60% Approved

[Alcon]

Interesting that Whitman voted for both Gay Marriage and Pot Legalization...

And then went for Romney.

It even went for Baumgartner.  It looks like there were a lot of straight-ticket Republican students in Pullman who voted for R-74.  Similar patterns in Bellingham (WWU) and Seattle (UW.)  The most extreme example was a Pullman precinct that gave Baumgartner 41%, but only voted 15% Reject on R-74.

(Students didn't vote that overwhelmingly for pot legalization, but it gained more Republican votes outside of Pullman than it lost Dems vote inside of it.  That was good enough for a win.)

[Alcon]

There were some places that supported gay marriage more than pot, but were there places that were against pot more than they were against gay marriage?

In other words what locations voted more No for R72 than No for R502?

Good question.  There weren't many places where this happened.  Some subdevelopment precincts.  Parts of Richland.  Some seniors-only communities.  No significant geographical area did this consistently, but the outer-ring Vancouver subdevelopments rejected both by about the same margin, and pot didn't fare much better than gay marriage in the Eastern Washington Hispanic enclaves.

[Alcon]

- Pam Roach, Government Operations (!!!)

hahahah oh god oh god oh god

[Alcon]

Interesting map, and not what I expected: