Legalize it thread

[tvashtarkatena]

Go Christine!

[ivan]

baby steps i guess. jesus harold christ, w/ every state bleeding red white n' blue from its fiscal asshole, why in the hell can't all the governors get behind taking pot-dealers businesses from them entirely for the glorified cause of pay bus drivers and welfare queens more?!?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

baby steps i guess. jesus harold christ, w/ every state bleeding red white n' blue from its fiscal asshole, why in the hell can't all the governors get behind taking pot-dealers businesses from them entirely for the glorified cause of pay bus drivers and welfare queens more?!?

 

Because they are all dumbasses.

[tvashtarkatena]

baby steps i guess. jesus harold christ, w/ every state bleeding red white n' blue from its fiscal asshole, why in the hell can't all the governors get behind taking pot-dealers businesses from them entirely for the glorified cause of pay bus drivers and welfare queens more?!?

 

Greqoire knows I502 is coming at her. She's knows we're gonna get the signatures, and she's gonna have to deal with this steaming pile of stankweed sooner than later. Better to get a jump on it.

 

Plus...the public in med marijuana states is REALLY FUCKING CONFUSED about what the feds are up to right now. Everybody believs the feds are putting the cabash on med weed. From what I know, that is not accurate...although if you don't actually work for the DEA offices involved in the raids, there's no way to really know that for sure.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

The feds are also aware that legalization initiatives will only multiply at this point. Gini's not going back in the bottle. It's in there best (political) interests to ride that wave and, at the very least, turn a blind eye to state level smokeouts, focusing their resources instead on international trafficking. They're budgets are non-existent, now, so its a good time for some long overdue shrinkage. The $ trillion plus War on Drugs has increased per capita illicit drug use, strength, variety, and availability. Pretty much a straight flush fail.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Just think how much tax revenue could be raised right now at all the OWS protests if legal weed was being sold at park-side vending stands. Lost opportunity....

[rob]

baby steps i guess. jesus harold christ, w/ every state bleeding red white n' blue from its fiscal asshole, why in the hell can't all the governors get behind taking pot-dealers businesses from them entirely for the glorified cause of pay bus drivers and welfare queens more?!?

 

Greqoire knows I502 is coming at her. She's knows we're gonna get the signatures, and she's gonna have to deal with this steaming pile of stankweed sooner than later. Better to get a jump on it.

 

Plus...the public in med marijuana states is REALLY FUCKING CONFUSED about what the feds are up to right now. Everybody believs the feds are putting the cabash on med weed. From what I know, that is not accurate...although if you don't actually work for the DEA offices involved in the raids, there's no way to really know that for sure.

 

The DEA, unfortunately, has recently closed some legitimate dispensaries here in the Seattle area (as well as some fraudulent ones). As far as I can tell, and they're being secretive about it, they're going after the dispensaries that are "most popular," regardless of anything else.

 

I guess it pays to keep your head down.

[Fairweather]

Just legalize the shit already. The irony here though is that, thanks to the efforts of gay-marriage advocates, anyone who signs TTKs petition will have their name and address open to public scrutiny--police, employers, family, etc.

[Off_White]

The DEA sucks green donkey dicks. I know of at least one occasion where $40,000 disappeared between the arrest and the inventory getting filed. In a number of ways, law enforcement is indistinguishable from a criminal gang. Woe unto those who rat on a fellow gang member.

 

FW, I'm not worried about anyone seeing my signature on any petition I deem worthy of support, this one's no different.

[Fairweather]

Neither am I. But the employer thing is kind of spooky.

[rob]

Just legalize the shit already. The irony here though is that, thanks to the efforts of gay-marriage advocates, anyone who signs TTKs petition will have their name and address open to public scrutiny--police, employers, family, etc.

 

I'm not expert, but I think I gotta call B.S.

 

People who sign petitions are ALWAYS public (as they damn well should be), except unless they can prove it will be dangerous for them to be public, which is what the gay-haters tried to claim.

[rob]

Looks like I'm right!

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/supreme-court-rules-petition-signers-names-secret/story?id=11003913#.TtbWAbKd7Ks

 

Washington law requires signatories to produce their names and addresses so that election observers can verify the signatures. It also mandates the information is open for public release.

 

It's the gay haters who tried to block that, by filing suit in federal court. So "TTK's petition" didn't change existing law, it just defended it. Incidentally, the court did uphold sealing the names if harassment is an issue. They just didn't agree that it was, in this case.

 

Additionally, it's hard to see how you can blame gay-rights advocates for this. IMO the SCOTUS ruled correctly on this issue, upholding a reasonable law. Why in the world should petition signer's names be private????

Edited December 1, 2011 by rob

[Fairweather]

Not sure what you're calling "BS" on. Pointing out irony doesn't an argument make.

[rob]

I don't see the irony. I think you're just looking for it.

[Fairweather]

Re read, Rob. We're on the same side this time.

[tvashtarkatena]

Not much irony, considering that the ACLU filed an amicus brief strongly in favor of keeping those petition names from public disclosure. SCOTUS thought otherwise, so, yes, if you sign a petition, your name goes on the public record. I don't know what the disclosure process is. You have to apply for it, I believe. I was divided on the issue, as was our board of directors, but we eventually voted for nondisclosure.

 

It's helpful to realize that the plaintiffs were the very folks we fought tooth and claw with to get equal marriage rights in place. So, yeah, we really do do things on principle.

 

 

 

 

 

[sobo]

IMO the SCOTUS ruled correctly on this issue, upholding a reasonable law. Why in the world should petition signer's names be private????

And I disagree with you and the SCOTUS and side with TTK and the ACLU on this one. Disclosing a petition signer's name and address invites harrassment and intimidation of that signatory, just like that which (for example) the proponents of the same-sex marriage law threatened to visit upon signers of Protect Marriage Washington's (PMW) petition, as quoted in your link, above:

...As the [PMW] petition drive was organized, some supporters of the [same-sex marriage] law warned they would use a Washington State Public Records Act to identify the names of those who had signed the petition in order to encourage "uncomfortable conversation."

Now, if that isn't a direct threat of harrassment and a blatant attempt at voter intimidation, then I don't know what is. If a party can't make its point without resorting to harrassment and intimidation, then it has no point to make. Mark me, Rob, this isn't about same-sex marriage rights (which I support, BTW), so let's not get distracted from the real issue we're discussing here, and the wormhole that this thread has gone down, which is the privacy of the ballot...

 

Disclosing the petition signer's personal information removes his right to the "secret ballot" which has long been a hallmark of our society. If an opponent knows who signed a petition, then the opponent could be reasonably assured of how that signatory will vote upon the issue at the upcoming election, yes? Would not that knowledge make the potential of harrassment and intimidation of the signatory more likely? Might as well post a bunch of Black Panthers or some other such Sturmabteilung-esque group outside the polling booth and say "buh-bye" to the secret ballot...

 

To be sure, this is a tough issue and I sympathize with the agonizing that Pat and his ACLU crew went through on this one, but I believe they made the right choice. Preventing voter fraud and preserving the integrity of the electoral process are certainly worthy objectives and are goals that we should strive to achieve, but do they trump the right of a citizen's privacy in the manner in which he casts his ballot?

 

Given the recent trend of highly politicized elections (both state-wide and nationally), where both sides have resorted to extraordinary measures in attempts at siezing a victory, I can only conclude that allowing personal information on petitions to be publicly disclosed will invite voter intimidation and harrassment in this country on a scale which has not been seen since the end of the 19th century, when the secret ballot became the norm.

 

 

[rob]

And I disagree with you and the SCOTUS and side with TTK and the ACLU on this one. Disclosing a petition signer's name and address invites harrassment and intimidation of that signatory, just like that which (for example) the proponents of the same-sex marriage law threatened to visit upon signers of Protect Marriage Washington's (PMW) petition, as quoted in your link, above:

 

Disclosing the petition signer's personal information removes his right to the "secret ballot" which has long been a hallmark of our society. If an opponent knows who signed a petition, then the opponent could be reasonably assured of how that signatory will vote upon the issue at the upcoming election, yes? Would not that knowledge make the potential of harrassment and intimidation of the signatory more likely? Might as well post a bunch of Black Panthers or some other such Sturmabteilung-esque group outside the polling booth and say "buh-bye" to the secret ballot...

 

 

My point was, this is not a new rule. It's not a "new, dark path." This information has always been public. This is just an upholding of an existing law. Nothing has changed.

 

It's not a "secret ballot." It's a petition. Sure, if I sign a petition, that might show my hand regarding how I might vote. But if I donate money, that would do the same thing. Should political donors be secret now, too? You know, to protect them from harassment!

 

Gimme a break. I have a right to know who in congress sponsored a bill, and I have a right to know who among the citizenry "sponsored" an initiative (by signing a petition). You really think that should be secret?

 

Tempest in a teapot.

 

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php

 

OH NO!!! PUBLIC DONATION RECORDS??!! Next come the "Sturmabteilung-esque" groups outside the polling booths!!!

[rob]

I have a right to know who in congress sponsored a bill, and I have a right to know who among the citizenry "sponsored" an initiative (by signing a petition). You really think that should be secret?

 

Imagine how terrifying it would be if there were no non-government agency capable of verifying a petition's legitimacy, and therefore the legitimacy of the initiative on the ballot itself? Fucking terrifying.

[tvashtarkatena]

Petitioning is not voting, which is anonymous (although, historically, it wasn't always so). It's also not legislating or lobbying, which require disclosure under the PRA (public records act of WA). It's something in between. Is it more like voting or legislating/lobbying?

 

The answer, IMO, is the latter. A petition signer is 'voting' to put a specific piece of legislation, AS WRITTEN, before the legislature and/or voters. The PRA's requirement for disclosure, provided that disclosure doesn't constitute a substantial harm to the signer.

 

That leads to the second question: the possibility of intimidation. Bottom line: it never happened, and the anti disclosure folks couldn't present a credible instance where it it had. It remains a potential harm, but, so far, not an actual one.

 

Finally, there is the 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Petition forms in WA contain 20 names. They are gathered by thousands of signature gatherers, who can see all of those names. This is a much more open process than voting.

 

Full disclosure: For the reasons above I either voted for disclosure or abstained because I was on the fence. Can't remember.

 

This is an instance where the democratic principle of open government is pitted against privacy. Its not a simple issue.

[sobo]

My point was, this is not a new rule. It's not a "new, dark path." This information has always been public. This is just an upholding of an existing law. Nothing has changed.

I'm aware it's not a new rule. I just don't like the rule as it currently exists.

 

It's not a "secret ballot." It's a petition. Sure, if I sign a petition, that might show my hand regarding how I might vote. But if I donate money, that would do the same thing. Should political donors be secret now, too? You know, to protect them from harassment!

In my opinion, a petition is essentially a ballot, or rather an indication of how one will likely vote in the future. When you sign a petition, there's a resonable expectation of how you will vote upon that issue. Granted, a person may sign a petition for a particular cause, and then vote against that cause when the issue comes up in an election, but I suspect that doesn't happen very often.

 

I think you may have extrapolated my meaning in my previous post, so allow me to clarify. I do indeed want to know who is sponsoring (sponsor, defined as who or what group put the legislation forward, not support, defined as who is voting in favor of it - these are two different things) a particular piece of legislation, be it a bill, a petition, or a referendum. And I want to know who the major contributors to that effort are. But I do not think it's necessary to seek out and destroy John Q. Public for his penny-ante donation or support of a petition, which is currently possible under the disclosure law in the Public Records Act. And your Huffington Post Fundrace search engine, which, BTW, I find to be a bit too intrusive, in an Orwellian sort of way...

 

Fundrace makes it easy to search by name or location to see which candidates or political parties your friends, family, co-workers and neighbors are contributing to.

Nice going, Big Brother... Please tell me why, rob, it is any business of yours, or anyone else's, who or what causes or candidates I support and/or contribute to? I'm not Exxon, Monsanto, Enron, Microsoft, Cisco, etc., so pardon me if I don't see where my support or donations are your business. Just as I don't see where yours are any business of mine.

 

Gimme a break. I have a right to know who in congress sponsored a bill, and I have a right to know who among the citizenry "sponsored" an initiative (by signing a petition). You really think that should be secret?

I don't deny your right, and mine, to know who in Congress sponsored a bill. Those are elected representatives of the people and we should know what they're up to and from whom they're taking money. But we're not talking about Congressional legislation here (this is where I think you extrapolated my earlier post). We're talking about petitions. And I don't begrudge you your right, and mine, to know who sponsored a petition, by my earlier definition of sponsor. But when it comes to opponents data-mining the petition record to determine who among the general citizenry supported a petition, there can only be one reason for that, and that is to sally forth and harrass, intimidate, and otherwise violate that supporter's right to privacy.

 

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php

Welcome, Big Brother is watching you...

 

OH NO!!! PUBLIC DONATION RECORDS??!! Next come the "Sturmabteilung-esque" groups outside the polling booths!!!

Laugh it up, rob. In the current explosive, politically-charged atmosphere, with so much at stake in November 2012, I would not be surprised if we see the Black Panthers loitering outside polling stations again.

[sobo]

I have a right to know who in congress sponsored a bill, and I have a right to know who among the citizenry "sponsored" an initiative (by signing a petition). You really think that should be secret?

 

Imagine how terrifying it would be if there were no non-government agency capable of verifying a petition's legitimacy, and therefore the legitimacy of the initiative on the ballot itself? Fucking terrifying.

We're not talking about verifying legitimacy. We're talking about data-mining for nefarious purposes. A non-governmental agency charged with verifying the accuracy of legitimacy of the electoral process is one thing, and a thing which I believe everyone can support. But when any opponent of a petition can summon the personal information of the supporters of that petition (by invoking the PRA), what other purpose would there be in that if not to attempt to change those supporters' minds? And just how do you think those opponents might go about doing that? Could that be by harrassment, intimidation, and "uncomfortable conversations"...??

 

Personally, I prefer to be left alone about my voting decisions. Just one of the reasons I never sign petitions.

[tvashtarkatena]

Wellllll...here's what I tell people who 'don't sign petitions' out of fear of (to date nonexistent) retribution.

 

"Dude...that 80 year old lady over there just signed. Grow a pair."

 

They usually sign.

 

 

 

[sobo]

Petitioning is not voting, which is anonymous (although, historically, it wasn't always so). It's also not legislating or lobbying, which require disclosure under the PRA (public records act of WA). It's something in between. Is it more like voting or legislating/lobbying?

 

The answer, IMO, is the latter. A petition signer is 'voting' to put a specific piece of legislation, AS WRITTEN, before the legislature and/or voters. The PRA's requirement for disclosure, provided that disclosure doesn't constitute a substantial harm to the signer.

I disagree. I find signing a petition to be closer to voting than to lobbying, which is why I believe that personal information should not be disclosed to opponents. Would you not agree that the accuracy and legitimacy of the petition's signature count can be verified without the ability to disseminate personal information to opponents of the petition?

 

That leads to the second question: the possibility of intimidation. Bottom line: it never happened, and the anti disclosure folks couldn't present a credible instance where it it had. It remains a potential harm, but, so far, not an actual one.

Maybe it hasn't happened yet... But do we wait for it to eventually occur (which it will, eventually), and jeopardize the results of an election? Or do we prevent it from ever happening now, before the intimidation occurs and forfeits the result?

 

Finally, there is the 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Petition forms in WA contain 20 names. They are gathered by thousands of signature gatherers, who can see all of those names. This is a much more open process than voting.

Those gathering the signatures and those signing the petition can be said to be "on the same side" of the issue, so why would either of them care that they saw names and addresses? The "reasonable expectation of privacy" comes into play when opponents want to data-mine the personal information of supporters so that they can go forth and attempt to change people's minds through "uncomfortable conversations" or other means of harrassment and intimidation.

 

Full disclosure: For the reasons above I either voted for disclosure or abstained because I was on the fence. Can't remember.

Your choice, friend. I would have voted with your greater Board and gone with non-disclosure. This isn't Congress we're talking about here... It's John Q. Public's private information, and I can see why your board voted the way they did.

 

This is an instance where the democratic principle of open government is pitted against privacy. Its not a simple issue.

No, it is not a simple issue, but I know where I stand upon it, and am not afraid to make my stance known.

[sobo]

Wellllll...here's what I tell people who 'don't sign petitions' out of fear of (to date nonexistent) retribution.

 

"Dude...that 80 year old lady over there just signed. Grow a pair."

 

They usually sign.

I have a pair, thankyouverymuch. Have had them for a very long time. I still don't sign petitions.

But by your own admission, it sounds to me like you do your own share of intimidation at the clipboard...