Comments on: Wall Street Journal examines the 2010/2012 division among pot legalization advocates

By: Toro

Toro — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 07:45:40 +0000

It’s interesting to read this article now that the election is over and it was clear that 2010 was not the year to run marijuana initiatives. I know people will say it elevated the conversation and some of that was true, but 2012 HAS to be the year where legalization breaks through or else people will start to see a marijuana ballot fatigue. I’m not sure running campaigns year after year is effective. At some point we have to break through or else demoralization takes over (I know stoners are passionate but the rest of the electorate could care less really). I also think we should focus on WA and CO in addition to or instead of CA. It has to be easier to run a campaign in those states rather than CA. All bets are off however if it turns out to be another referendum on Obama. We might lose in another Republican leaning political cycle.

By: Jose

Jose — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:37:46 +0000

Marijuana hatred is so embedded into half of the voting population that it only takes a small minority to sway the vote either way.

The only way to get legislation to pass will be to try something new as obviously it has taken too much time to get this far.

1. Stopping law enforcement from lobbying against legalization would have a major impact on the outcome. Having this legislation on the ballot would draw attention to their lobbying immediately. You could have advertisements showing cops giving tickets so they take your fines and use them to lobby to keep marijuana illegal.

2. Retirees on fixed income will no longer be able to buy beer and wine. A commercial that shows Social Security being cut and health care being rationed could be an argument for “Grow Your Own Medicine.” Some of the marijuana tax money could go to help seniors learn how to cultivate it for themselves.

3. Have a strong campaign to keep marijuana away from children.

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:26:54 +0000

Um, I don’t get it. It’s all one or the other? I’m ignorant to the ballot initiative rules, but did try to search google and wiki, with nothing saying a failed initiative can’t be re-tried two years later. Why not try in 2010? Do you honestly think it’d be debilitating to the 2012 attempt? Like a proposition of legalizing receiving a 48% yes would be a negative going forward?

I’d argue opposite, while it’d definitely invigorate both sides, the side where your more concerned with turnout is consistently on the yes initiative. 48% would make the lazy, non-believer, fence-watchers get off their but. It could lead to an increase of donations to NORMAL campaigns and everything. I felt that way about Nevada losing 44%, I thought, “that’s more than any year before and in one of the more conservatives states” It’s a bit of a paradox, I know, but it’s true, just look deeper. Then I thought about how national sentiments have changed since 06 and I feel like 2010/2012 is definitely within arms reach, if maybe just touching the fingertips.

Why not the same for Cali, is this just my small opinion gone awry? Would a 48% loss help or hurt other states’ chances, I could see this maybe being a blow to other states since we view California as the liberal state, especially in this realm. Please reply, I’m curious.

By: o0stonedagain0o

o0stonedagain0o — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:56:08 +0000

Law Enforcement are supposed to enforce the law, whatever it may be. Law Enforcement should NOT be concerned with making law.

cops don’t make the rules we do!

By: fallibilist

fallibilist — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:51:04 +0000

The first sentence of my second-to-last paragraph of the above post should have read “[...]should not be able to use either their paycheck or government resources to lobby for or against government policy”

Stupid mistake.

As the carpenters say, “measure twice, cut once.”

By: fallibilist

fallibilist — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:33:15 +0000

Jose makes an incredibly useful point. His comment is 10 million times more useful and practical than mine.

Right now, we have a situation where government officials (prosecutors, prison guards, etc.) are fighting to protect their jobs and livelihoods.

Those who are ostensibly servants of the people should be able to use either their paycheck or government resources to lobby for or against government policy. It ought to be illegal.

I think this should be an urgent priority of the marijuana legalization movement.

By: 2010 approved

2010 approved — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:13:47 +0000

If we put it on the 2010 ballot, (and I’m referring to AB 390, which will clear the records and release those with possession charges)I’m highly confident it will pass. Even those who don’t smoke will benefit from the boost to the state economy. So long as we keep spreading the word (and get your signature on the petition to get it on the 2010 ballot)next year ought to be the year!

Fingers crossed, spread the word!

By: Jose

Jose — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:08:51 +0000

First pass legislation that prevents law enforcement from using taxpayer money to lobby against marijuana legalization.

Then the chances of success will increase.

By: fallibilist

fallibilist — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:17:09 +0000

Normally, I’m an incrementalist. Half a loaf is better than none.

But at this point, you run up against the boundaries of rationality. You need to take an uncompromising stance. You keep the pressure on, adopt an obstinate pose, and take an failure as just a delay or a setback.

We need a sort of “religious revival” type of fervor for marijuana. We must continue growing our movement and fighting for our position until the other side decides it’s just not worth it to fight back.

By: moldy

moldy — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 21:46:22 +0000

The time is now! We even many women joining the cause lately so it has to happen now!