No power

[ivan]

man, thread hijack! shall we return to gay power questions now?

[rob]

Looks like we don't have to wait to see what Romney would do if 502 passes, turns out he's been pretty clear on this topic -- willing to oppose not only recreation marijuana use, but even fight medical marijuana "tooth and nail."

 

What a dickhead. I respect a lot of republican friends, but it's hard to imagine how they can bring themselves to vote for this guy.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/mitt-romney-marijuana_n_1931995.html

[tvashtarkatena]

Stoners rank too low on the Americaness scale to deserve representation.

[Crux]

 

Two chairs, please.

That'll be one for me, and one for my sociopathic friend here.

 

 

[ivan]

 

Ivan wants to portray everyone right of him politically as ignorant.

you are only partly right - actually i wish to portray everyone on every side of me as ignorant (i've no doubt that a disturbing # of self-proclaimed democrats don't know the history of their party as being pro-slavery either)

 

i'll gladly add that i'm full aware of my own limitations - that i'm a half-wit is obvious to more folks than just you

 

still, is it really that controversial that fucking raytards tend towards conservatism? not trying to be a dick, but conservatism is well aimed at the dim-witted and ill-informed - it has no subtleties, no gray zones, no self-doubt, no oh-my-god-i'm-actually-part-of-the-problem-existential-crises to overcome and jesus-fuck, fox news is sure easier to understand than an editorial in the economist, no?

 

of course there are plenty of smart republicans (they're just more inclined to be evil to the core! smart democrats, on the otherhand, harness their intellect to help the helpless, if for no other reason than to score sloppy bj's from their true-believers )

[tvashtarkatena]

Do I hear a Big Man selling himself Short?

[ivan]

Do I hear a Big Man selling himself Short?

need i quote dr. johnson at you twice in one day?

 

instead, i quote one of my libtard heroes, mark twain: “always acknowledge a fault - this will throw those in authority off their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more”

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

i'll gladly add that i'm full aware of my own limitations - that i'm a half-wit is obvious to more folks than just you

 

Not a half-wit, but seriously twisted. :-)

 

still, is it really that controversial that fucking raytards tend towards conservatism?

 

95% of people have stupid reasons for believing what they do and are adamant, rigid, and unable to justify those beliefs logically - that goes for left-of-center just as much as to the right. Of course there is a bias that those who disagree with you must be somehow stupid (or ill-informed as you state), but I maintain that that attitude is and of itself indicative of the very thing you are supposedly railing against. If you despise such blind adherence to political orthodoxy and bias you need to throw those shackles off yourself.

[ivan]

i'm not certain that's true though - while voters on both side might largely be made up of dipshits and devils, i do think there's clearly more of them right of center.

 

"political orthodoxy" doesn't seem to me to be the problem (that would assume some level of actual thinking), it's somethign else, and not anything that i think can be cured (god knows, my whole professional life being for this purpose, i feel firsthand the flimsiness the tool of education). i'm prepared to accept that this is just the nature of things, like flies on turds. i do think liberalism does have more to offer than old-skewl beat-em-harder-n-longer conservatism though...

[tvashtarkatena]

Attitude varies by situation and mood and doesn't indicate much of anything really, particularly through the narrow lens of the web. Hoomanz have a tendency to take a data point and construct a hypothetical planet out of it, but that's not a very data driven approach, which leads me to politics.

 

I work with a lot of activists and they come in all shapes, sizes, and attitudes - but unite for a common goal no problem. People vary. It's good to be flexible and not assume too much about em too fast.

 

Honey attracts more bees than vinegar for sure - I'm sweet as pie most of the time, particularly when dealing with the John Q, but you might not know it on certain days, no?

 

The centrist dems are data driven, the GOP (which doesn't seem to have much of center anymore) is ideologically driven. Look at Mitt's 'policies' - none of which survive the light of analysis or history, and you see what I mean.

[ivan]

"hoomanz?" you channeling yer inner lou gosset junior, boy-o?

 

speaking of alien life, jesus christ my fucking family! i come home today and find a new furry life-form, 4 paws n' canine-slobber n' all, infesting my goddamn little quite beach-front community...

[tvashtarkatena]

God a hate that movie!

 

you got...a...dog?

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

Step one: seal all of your climbing gear in a hardened bunker. Trust me on that.

[mattp]

Yo Tvash.

 

I believe Sarich is not behind sensiblewashington. Sarich is the medical marijuana guy you are criticizing, but sensiblewashington appears to be a different group. Just like my other friends who support the initiative, you have declined to answer the argument made in the link I posted.

 

Somebody I talked to today did provide a good counterargument, though: we have a lot of people arrested and going to jail over simple possession of small amounts of marijuana today and that is not be a good use of law enforcement and incarceration resources. Vote yes and hopefully this stops without waiting for a better proposal.

 

I still have concerns regarding points made by sensiblewashington. Should we adopt a DUI standard that is not clearly supported by science or does the current law about driving while impaired hit the right mark? Do we want the State of Washington regulating the strength of what is sold or regulating sellers this way? Will the State really be able to tax marijuana as long as it remains illegal under Federal law? Should minors be faced with DUI records if they have ANY measureable blood content, etc.?

 

Simple repeal of laws against marijuana possession and taxation and regulation under existing laws regarding commerce and pubic health and impaired driving might be better than a new set of laws specifically related to marijuana and cobbled together in an effort to garner support for this proposal. If you assume that public support for repeal of laws against marijuana possession is rising, might you be better off waiting until a better proposal comes along?

[ivan]

 

you got...a...dog?

 

i didn't get shit - these dickheads i live w/, despite all the negative-energy i could omit on the subject, did - i made it painfully clear how little i was planning on contributing to said canine

 

the few tiny shards of my personal life have long since been placed in a zombie-proof facility, which no doubt will withstand a determined assault for no more than a few hours- but hey, my ghetto-ass gear can't get much worse, can it?

 

hey, you're next trip down here, at least you'll have company on the bofa!

[ivan]

Yo Tvash.

 

I believe Sarich is not behind sensiblewashington. Sarich is the medical marijuana guy you are criticizing, but sensiblewashington appears to be a different group. Just like my other friends who support the initiative, you have declined to answer the argument made in the link I posted.

 

Somebody I talked to today did provide a good counterargument, though: we have a lot of people arrested and going to jail over simple possession of small amounts of marijuana today and that is not be a good use of law enforcement and incarceration resources. Vote yes and hopefully this stops without waiting for a better proposal.

 

I still have concerns regarding points made by sensiblewashington. Should we adopt a DUI standard that is not clearly supported by science or does the current law about driving while impaired hit the right mark? Do we want the State of Washington regulating the strength of what is sold or regulating sellers this way? Should minors be faced with DUI records if they have ANY measureable blood content, etc.?

 

Simple repeal of laws against marijuana possession and taxation and regulation under existing laws regarding commerce and pubic health might be better than a new set of laws specifically related to marijuana and cobbled together in an effort to garner support for this proposal.

any movement forward is better than the status quo - why is the state regulating this drug different than alcohol or tobacco?

[mattp]

any movement forward is better than the status quo - why is the state regulating this drug different than alcohol or tobacco?

 

Here's a point I added after your response:

 

I believe as does whoever posted sensiblewashington that public sentiment is in support of legalization. If that is true, might supporters be better off waiting for a better proposal?

 

I'm not sure that our current regulation of alcohol or tobacco is exactly right.

[ivan]

any movement forward is better than the status quo - why is the state regulating this drug different than alcohol or tobacco?

 

Here's the point I added after your response:

 

I believe as does whoever posted sensiblewashington that public sentiment is in support of legalization. If that is true, might supporters be better off waiting for a better proposal?

"public sentiment" is a fart in a stiff wind - fukkit - strike while the iron's hot - get the meat of the matter accepted now (pot should be legal, w/ sensible government oversight), using the power of the ballot measure which lets the politicians off the "soft-on-crime" hook, then the boys n' girls in olympia can mold it to make it more sensible.

[mattp]

the boys and girls in Olympia will mold it to make it more sensible? Really?

 

I'm not arguing one way or the other. But I'm suggesting we have not had much good discussion of this thing, or at least I have not seen it.

[ivan]

shit, stoners done been discussing it since the first time they had a spliff!

 

my point is that olympia can't do something so dramatic as change a long-held-dear dip-shit national drug policy w/o ample amounts of cover - a ballot measure gives them that - this measure doesn't seem to have that many bugs, but those that it does, can right conceivably be fixed by the normal channels of government, once apparent, no?

[Pete_H]

Looks like we don't have to wait to see what Romney would do if 502 passes, turns out he's been pretty clear on this topic -- willing to oppose not only recreation marijuana use, but even fight medical marijuana "tooth and nail."

 

What a dickhead. I respect a lot of republican friends, but it's hard to imagine how they can bring themselves to vote for this guy.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/mitt-romney-marijuana_n_1931995.html

 

While Romney's rhetoric on the issue may seem extreme, he appears to be largely in step with President Barack Obama when it comes to marijuana enforcement. The tone from candidate Obama gave hope to marijuana reformers, but according to all measurable figures, the administration has increased crackdowns on medical marijuana facilities in states that have legalized the substance

 

Cuts both ways apparently.

[ivan]

Looks like we don't have to wait to see what Romney would do if 502 passes, turns out he's been pretty clear on this topic -- willing to oppose not only recreation marijuana use, but even fight medical marijuana "tooth and nail."

 

What a dickhead. I respect a lot of republican friends, but it's hard to imagine how they can bring themselves to vote for this guy.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/mitt-romney-marijuana_n_1931995.html

 

While Romney's rhetoric on the issue may seem extreme, he appears to be largely in step with President Barack Obama when it comes to marijuana enforcement. The tone from candidate Obama gave hope to marijuana reformers, but according to all measurable figures, the administration has increased crackdowns on medical marijuana facilities in states that have legalized the substance

 

Cuts both ways apparently.

indeed, neither obama nor romney inspire much hope, though, for political reasons, obama could have well been okay w/ weed but had to deprioritize it in order to get re-lection - all the more reason to stop hoping for an end to the madness from the feds - individual states have to man up and defy the big boys via the ballot measure - once a critical mass forms, the congress will have the cover they need to do what's right, just gotta get all the hippie states on-board

[tvashtarkatena]

Looks like we don't have to wait to see what Romney would do if 502 passes, turns out he's been pretty clear on this topic -- willing to oppose not only recreation marijuana use, but even fight medical marijuana "tooth and nail."

 

What a dickhead. I respect a lot of republican friends, but it's hard to imagine how they can bring themselves to vote for this guy.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/mitt-romney-marijuana_n_1931995.html

 

While Romney's rhetoric on the issue may seem extreme, he appears to be largely in step with President Barack Obama when it comes to marijuana enforcement. The tone from candidate Obama gave hope to marijuana reformers, but according to all measurable figures, the administration has increased crackdowns on medical marijuana facilities in states that have legalized the substance

 

Cuts both ways apparently.

 

Or not:

 

The DOJ has stated they are only busting dispensaries and grow ops in violation of state law (the busts are carried out by multi agency task forces that include state and local cops, actually). Alison Holcomb, Director of New Approach WA, told me that she has not received any information to the contrary. What we've been seeing is a clean up of dirty operations - and that's a good thing for bolstering public confidence.

 

The DOJ's currently policy is not to preempt state MJ laws. So far, we've seen no evidence to the contrary.

Edited November 2, 2012 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

 

I still have concerns regarding points made by sensiblewashington. Should we adopt a DUI standard that is not clearly supported by science or does the current law about driving while impaired hit the right mark?

 

newapproachwa.org has a whole section on the science behind the DUI limit. You might have taken the time to actually visit the website - it would have addressed most, if not all, of your concerns here. In addition, there's no way law enforcement and criminal justice professionals would have gotten behind this measure as they have without a DUI provision. Finally, a DUI provision makes the measure that much more defensible against federal interference.

 

Do we want the State of Washington regulating the strength of what is sold or regulating sellers this way? Will the State really be able to tax marijuana as long as it remains illegal under Federal law? Should minors be faced with DUI records if they have ANY measureable blood content, etc.?

 

There is nothing in I 502 about regulating the strength of marijuana. You're an attorney - I provided the link to I 502. Presumably you can use your 'find' feature to verify the accuracy of claims like this before parroting them, no? If, at some point in the future, the state require labeling of THC content, as it does alcohol content for booze, is this not information a consumer should be armed with before ingesting? Why would this be a bad thing?

 

Simple repeal of laws against marijuana possession and taxation and regulation under existing laws regarding commerce and pubic health and impaired driving might be better than a new set of laws specifically related to marijuana and cobbled together in an effort to garner support for this proposal. If you assume that public support for repeal of laws against marijuana possession is rising, might you be better off waiting until a better proposal comes along?

 

There would be nothing simple about simple repeal of existing laws. First, the public in WA will not vote to legalize weed without regulation. NWA studied the defeat in California extensively - and that was the number one reason voters cited as to why they voted against. Polling in WA indicates the same sentiment here, so the assumption above is incorrect. In order to legalize, we must regulate.

 

Secondly, I 502 wasn't 'cobbled together'. It was carefully considered and drafted by two of the most talented public policy attorneys in WA, employing the experience from over a decade of drug policy reform efforts both here and in other states. It was drafted with political considerations in mind - a necessity for actually passing the initiative that seems to be lost on some critics. To pass a controversial, landmark change in policy like this, one needs to 'cobble together' many pieces - credible endorsements (criminal justice, education, and health professionals particularly), legislative support (many years of lobbying), funding (over $7 M worth), voter support (polls indicate a narrow lead, even with all these efforts in place), public education and high profile spokespeople, and messaging. The campaign isn't targeted at potheads - its targeted at swing voters like soccer moms and the elderly who are neither familiar nor comfortable with the issue, but who can be persuaded by civil liberties, waste of law enforcement, and fiscal considerations. This is also lost on our critics - without those non-pothead voters, any legalization effort will fail in WA, period.

 

Far from being 'just what we could come up with for now' - if I 502 passes, it will serve as a model for other states. It IS the 'better proposal' - its passing, particularly after the dismal failures of previous proposals, which have closely resembled the ideas you've put for here (yup, they've been tried already), will prove that.

 

Who, exactly, would come up with this 'better proposal'? Anyone can write up an initiative. Raising a million bucks to get 300K signatures - not so easy. Constructing and executing a 7 million dollar campaign to victory, with all the considerations I've listed above, and timing it during a presidential election to raise its visibility and voter turn out? Not easy. Populating your campaign with the most experienced drug policy experts in the country? Even harder. This is as good as it gets, and failure means you don't get another opportunity - from cashed out donors, from weary voters, from legislators concerned with being lampooned from across the aisle, for years to come.

 

Finally, we arrest nearly 10,000 people a year in WA for weed. Wait for a better proposal? How many tens of thousands of people are we going to 'wait' for? (40,000? 100,000?), just so a few irresponsible potheads can drive around stoned?

Edited November 2, 2012 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

We should totally let people's lives continue to be ruined while we wait for a proposal that contains better DUI language. That's not selfish at all.

[tvashtarkatena]

BTW, I do not agree with the zero tolerance provision for minors. I'm not sure the drafters do, either, but it was a deal breaker criminal justice professionals, mainly law enforcement, and without their support, I 502 is DOA. Even so, the net effect of I 502 will be a reduction in arrests due to a reduction in the black market and therefore availability - like alcohol and tobacco today. The 'more kids will be arrested' argument is a misinformation talking point. It makes zero sense under analysis - and we did the experiment with Prohibition. Anyway, reform of certain provisions can and will happen. Nothing will happen, however, if I 502 doesn't pass.

 

Getting anything done in politics requires compromise. Success takes years and years of trying, failing, and revising, and waiting. Its long, hard, and frustrating work. Welcome to the real world.

 

Carping from the sidelines about a Utopia that satisfies one's personal interests, and ignoring of the opinions of a large percentage of a voting public wary from 41 years of Drug War propaganda, and having no plan or funding for an actual win, requires no compromise, of course.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2012 by tvashtarkatena