I522 - Pros and Cons

[Kimmo]

I was aiming that at Tvashtarkatena: he made some silly comment about the tide turning against 522 because "voters are smart".

 

Since we don't have single payer, I suppose that's because voters are smart too, right?

 

 

Regarding 522, we'll see next week. I sure hope voter intelligence doesn't depend on the Monsanto Education Program.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes, if I522 goes down, WA voters are all fucking idiots.

 

Read my opinion piece on 'progressives' above. Right on Q.

 

I502 came after a 12 year concentrated effort to reform WA's drug policies. Each year the organizations involved would get that much further in the legislature, reach that much more of the public, and gain that much more financial support (or future promise thereof).

 

If you think a defeat of I522 means all is lost - you're playing a really short game on an really long field.

 

I have a feeling, however, that Kimmo's attitudes remain unsoiled from never having any real contact on any political playing field, but that's fine. Some dogs need to remain crated when its time to mingle among voters and invite them to join your cause.

 

 

Edited October 31, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[Kimmo]

No no tvash, if 522 goes down, it's because voters are fucking geniuses.

 

I get your overall sentiment, and politically we're not that far apart; it's just that your soliloquy software tends to throw out a whole bunch of silly assertions that often have your entire arguments teetering uncontrollably.

 

That is, when your entire argument isn't itself ridiculous, like it is with I522. Sorry.

[tvashtarkatena]

In the interests of avoiding the unspecific tit for tat game you obviously can't get enough of, what aspect(s), specifically, of my arguments (which I believe I actually bullet pointed), do you disagree with and why?

 

I realize that some progressives love to burn 'traitors to the cause' at the stake, but real life activists typically don't. Sorry. I'm fine with anyone who votes yes on I522. You? After all, there are no two people on this planet who agree on everything - and this one is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. Christ, would you want them to?

[rob]

didn't you watch his youtube video? It's all in there.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Thank you OW

Edited November 1, 2013 by KaskadskyjKozak

[ivan]

what's the good of spray if you can't debase an entire political philosophy in it?

[Fairweather]

Rightycuntz. Republicuntz.

 

so much for Off_White enforcing the "language will get you banned" line...

 

I suppose he feels that putting a "z" on the end of his vile misogynistic rants will keep him safe.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2013 by Fairweather

[Kimmo]

I've decided to vote NO for the following reasons:

 

1) "The First Amendment requires the government not only to state a substantial interest justifying a regulation on commercial speech, but also to show that its regulation directly advances that goal." I522 doesn't even come close to doing this. Given that the smoking warning requirement in WA was just struck down based on this flaw, I don't see I522 - which has a far weaker case than smoking, will survive a 1st Amendment challenge. Had I522's authors not overstepped their bounds in requiring a new warning label rather than an addendum to existing food labeling, it might have squeeked past a constitutional challenge. This won't, and it will be a huge waste of money and time until it is inevitably kilt in court.

 

Opining on how a court *might* rule on the constitutionality of a particular initiative is a rather poor argument either for or against said initiative.

 

Having said that, I would like to read more fleshed out arguments about this issue. Links?

 

2) I522 is unfunded in a time of huge deficits. It also has no GMO testing provision.

 

Monsanto etal have you by the balls on this one: around 10 cents a year per Washingtonian.

 

Best source I found for actual costs:

 

Fiscal Impact

According to the official statement put out by the Washington Office of Financial Management, "Known state agency implementation costs are estimated at $3,368,000 over six fiscal years. State and local revenue and costs from enforcement activities are indeterminate." Based on state expenditure and cost assumptions, "the total cost of this expenditure over six fiscal years is estimated at $1,200,000." The following table shows Department of Health - the entity that would be responsible for enforcing the measure - estimated costs by fiscal year

 

[img:center]http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/images/0/09/WAI522fiscalimpact.png[/img]

 

 

 

 

3) Factory food producers will simply slap a generic "May Contain Some GMO" labell on everything - just like the peanut thing, but smaller business will disproportionately suffer under the cost and (very high) penalty burden.

 

Food producers change their labeling all the time. think "NEW AND IMPROVED!". "FAT FREE!". Now everything is "GLUTEN FREE!"

 

This is one of the worst arguments I've seen.

 

And not sure about you're saying with your assertion about smaller business disproportionate costs and penalty burden.

 

4) This labeling will hurt WA farmers who export to GMO free or restricted nations, not help them.

 

Can you explain this?

 

5) Finally, we already have an Organic designation for folks who want to eat healthier food. I would love to see a shift towards more sustainable, healthier food production, but I can't get from A to B regarding why this is one of the best approaches to doing that, particularly WA's budgetary triage right now. I will vote no. My friends may scream a bit, but that's the way of it.

 

This initiative isn't about "sustainability", but about letting consumers know if GMO's are in their food.

 

To date, no one has given me a credible reason to vote for it, other than Monsanto is bad. Well, there are principles and there are players. The NAZIs are bad, but they still get to march. That Monsanto is against this and PCC is for it does not make it good policy. I522 isn't IMO.

 

One knows quickly if the marcher is a NAZI.

 

Monsanto has played a neat trick where they get to march anonymously. Thanks to the FDA and people like you (sorry but it's true).

 

 

I522 will cost a lot of money, despite being unfunded, have little to no real positive effect, have many unintended consequences for smaller healthy food producers, and be quickly killed in court. In a state with a huge deficit and many other more worthy projects to work on, this one doesn't even come close to making the cut.

 

1. 10 cents per Washingtonian is "a lot of money"?

2. Please don't tell me what is "positive" or not. I'm a smart voter!

3. What are these "many unintended consequences" you speak of?

4. Have you been hanging with Scalia? Or Sotomayor?

[rob]

Don't worry kimmi, not everyone is good at science

[Off_White]

Rightycuntz. Republicuntz.

 

so much for Off_White enforcing the "language will get you banned" line...

 

I suppose he feels that putting a "z" on the end of his vile misogynistic rants will keep him safe with the selectively-outraged modes. But here's your real answer:

 

"me and Ivan own this here website and all you mouth breathers in it."

 

I Thought Jon and Porter had gotten cc.com's junkyard dog under control since I stopped posting 18 months ago. Guess I was wrong.

 

Bloody freaking jeebus, can't a guy step away from the computer and work for awhile? I don't hover waiting for transgressions, and when you push the "notify moderator" button the notice goes to an email account I only check once a day.

 

I'm so sorry if you're upset that your concerns weren't addressed promptly enough for your tender sensibilities.

[Kimmo]

I'm fine with anyone who votes yes on I522. You?

 

Not sure what you mean, "fine", in this context. Yes, I'm "fine", in that my emotional balance will not need recalibration, sure, but it's my sincere wish that people do not fall for the disingenuous arguments about "apocalyptic expenditures" and "bureaucratic nightmares" that seem to be the entirety of the "NO" side's arsenal.

 

Quite reminiscent of the arguments against single-payer, really.

 

 

 

[Crux]

I saw the leaflets available in the processed junk food section next to the roasted chickens. And I read the info posted in the PJFS over by the incense and artisanal dog whistles. I even grabbed a flyer, found by the sugar pies at the check-out stand (staffed by the obligatorily chirpy-sweet cashier named Persia Fountain). But I never got wise to it all like Kimmo. What more can I do?

 

Disclaimer: Our unfunded mandates may or may not be printed upon organically farmed paper. Please vote flower child, thank you.

[Off_White]

I saw a Monsanto truck swerve to run over a box full of kittens.

[AlpineK]

[img:center]https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/q75/s720x720/1385282_10151665910376160_352375928_n.jpg[/img]

 

[img:center]https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1384280_645594392147041_1274076946_n.jpg[/img]

 

[img:center]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1385851_577565648958175_352417827_n.png[/img]

 

[img:center]https://sphotos-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/603367_645273348824455_277745484_n.jpg[/img]

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Thank you OW!

Edited November 1, 2013 by KaskadskyjKozak

[nordicpunk]

I keep hearing the argument the people just want to be informed about their food choices. This strikes me as the most ridiculous argument for 522. What choice has one made when they understand nothing about it? I don't mean this to be derogatory- just that if you look at a label with saturated fat content in one column and daily value in the next, most people can come up with an idea of the implications of that content. Show me someone that can discuss transgenic mutations! Clearly that is not a common consumer and a GMO sticker on the food informs almost no one.

[Crux]

Some contents of this package are known to may or may not put you out of your misery, sooner of later. What part of this democrant do you republicant understand?

[olyclimber]

[Rad]

I saw a Monsanto truck swerve to run over a box full of kittens.

 

 

Just what this thread needed!

 

[Crux]

That settles it for me. Go ahead and call me stupid, but I'd vote against just about anything if Monsanto would step it up and take a swerve at a box of babies.

 

 

[Fairweather]

I don't know about kittens, but Montesano has a lot of these:

 

[Jim]

That settles it for me. Go ahead and call me stupid, but I'd vote against just about anything if Monsanto would step it up and take a swerve at a box of babies.

 

 

Ditto - while I've some qualms about, voting yes. That and hearing, again, free speech for corporations (read money) is getting quite old.

[rob]

Thank the goddess for wholefoods

[E-rock]

So, like, did it pass?