California 2012: How do we get the No voters to vote yes?

[canndo]

The conversations I have had with people I would describe as average No people here suggested they are willing to entertain new concept.

The idea of opening a pot shop was not on the table.
They accept that organized drug dealing existed but didn't have a direct reference so my gossip about the who and where was a bit frightening from the reactions I saw but not a shock. Generality in this No community it's out of sight and out of mind although everyone I spoke with recently acknowledged that "kids" can get "drugs."

I believe there is a possibility of promoting "for the people" as a compromise solution since I am really sure the vote on Pro-Commerce is a flat no!

What do you think about selling "legalization" as just for the people?

In this No community they count on the out of sight out of mind so they will not want Mom and Pop Cannabis Company on Main Street or any street.
In defence we do now have 6 smoke shops where we once had one and a half.. Curiously more arose after the "One" was busted for dealing "E."

So this is a what if: Posting fuck yous or it won't works is lame.

---------------------------

What if we ditch commerce language an appeal to the base of "For the People Only" first step.

What are the Pro's and Con's you see?

Can you see voters you believe are No voters voting yes?

The political pitch is "Take Back your neighborhood" Get rid of drug dealing and drug profits for gangs.

Again I stress there is no need to pile on to defeat this exploration with fuck yous or it will never works because this is an exploration.

Lets explore our options for 2012 and 2014.

We are a country divided between consmers and producers. That is what we do here. There is very very little producing going on with consumers. In fact I wonder how many people who post here, and grow their own would continue to do so if they could purchase their herb at a reasonable price. That being said, I don't think people can wrap their minds around legalization of consumption but not legalization of large scale production.

 

[undertheice]

You are promoting commerce and California has voted No twice on Commerce.

what californians voted against were bills for legalization. they did not vote against commerce. in fact, many voted for simply because of the commerce and tax revenues. 215 contained references to commerce and it passed. those references were vague and that has been the major stumbling block for opening dispensaries, but those references were there.

 

[medicineman]

Hey, Just got back from a nice walk to get some Ice Cream and I had some interesting conversations.

What I'd like to share is that I spoke at length with a man who represents the position of "Cannabis Causes cancer" and Liberals still blame Bush for it all.

Now I had a long conversation because I was able to explain fractional reserve banking as the core issue in the financial and also explained how man made chemicals have properties that natural cannabis doesn't. Hence cannabis is safe beacuse Nature is a superior craftsman.
He was impressed.

I didn't get real far on the legalization but I did plant the seed and he did listen.

This is how we make progress. We need to be out of the cannabis closet and talk to people.

This seemed to be a conservative and said he was a No voter.

Any one have a human experience they can share?

No................................

 

[Ernst]

what californians voted against were bills for legalization. they did not vote against commerce. in fact, many voted for simply because of the commerce and tax revenues. 215 contained references to commerce and it passed. those references were vague and that has been the major stumbling block for opening dispensaries, but those references were there.

They did not vote against commerce.

Prove it. I am tired of jacking people off here.

 

[Ernst]

No................................

I didn't expect you to fly out..

Do you have other accounts here? I see you post so infrequently I assume you go by other names as well.

 

[Ernst]

So far all I see being offered is that some how it will work this time if we just sweeten the deal.
That Prop 19 is the right way we just need to fix the broken parts and put new paint on it.

From what I am reading Marijuana Policy Project is saying we can only expect a 1.4% increase in Yes voters for a prop 19 type of initiative.

So tell me anyone.. How does 1.4% more voters in 2012 translate into a majority?

MPP itself is focusing a more sustainable goal and that is to get Medical Cannabis in 24 states + Washington D.C.

In California we passed Prop 215 in 1996 and before that we had Prop 19 the first and that failed. Then year after year Jack Herer failed to make the grade of getting on the ballot. Then we had Prop 19 the second and that failed.

So what is the difference? What is the difference between winning and losing in 2012?

Commerce language..

When I walk around my town and ask I find most No voters have a point of view that doesn't include our progressive understanding of Cannabis. There are those who still believe Cannabis causes cancer.

So will the Man or Woman who believes Cannabis is bad support Pot-Shops in their neighborhood or town?
Seriously think about that.

The question is will they support freedom of choice in your own house?

Will the right to Horticulture be the winning hand?

We already know Commerce has been defeated twice in California.

 

[Ernst]

We are a country divided between consumers and producers. That is what we do here. There is very very little producing going on with consumers. In fact I wonder how many people who post here, and grow their own would continue to do so if they could purchase their herb at a reasonable price. That being said, I don't think people can wrap their minds around legalization of consumption but not legalization of large scale production.

Do you see California voters legalizing large scale drug dealing? That is how my No voters here think of it.
We are progressive in the positive emotion of cannabis but the majority as per prop 19 vote in 2010 are not.
How do you see the No voter voting Yes in 2012?



MPP is projecting just a 1.4% increase in Yes voters for a prop 19 style initiative for 2012 and is backing medical efforts as the best thing at this time.

 

[Dan Kone]

So far all I see being offered is that some how it will work this time if we just sweeten the deal.
That Prop 19 is the right way we just need to fix the broken parts and put new paint on it.

From what I am reading Marijuana Policy Project is saying we can only expect a 1.4% increase in Yes voters for a prop 19 type of initiative.

So tell me anyone.. How does 1.4% more voters in 2012 translate into a majority?

If we fixed prop 19 to increase the limits, provide more clear fiscal incentives for non-smokers, and make it clear that it doesn't effect medical rights then we'd have a proposition everyone (except you obviously) could unite behind.

A prop 19 type initiative might fail again, but one that united the cannabis community, provided better non-smoker incentives, and was marketed better would not IMO.

MPP itself is focusing a more sustainable goal and that is to get Medical Cannabis in 24 states + Washington D.C.

MPP kicks ass. I like the theory behind what they are doing. Get medical in a majority of states then push the federal government to re-categorize cannabis. A very noble effort that could really work.

In California we passed Prop 215 in 1996 and before that we had Prop 19 the first and that failed. Then year after year Jack Herer failed to make the grade of getting on the ballot. Then we had Prop 19 the second and that failed.

So what is the difference? What is the difference between winning and losing in 2012?

Commerce language..

Notice that Jack Herer couldn't even get his on the ballot let alone pay for advertising. Ballot measures require funding. Take the money out and you're taking the funding out. That guarantees a loser. We all respect what Jack Herer did, but his ballot measure wasn't realistic.

When I walk around my town and ask I find most No voters have a point of view that doesn't include our progressive understanding of Cannabis. There are those who still believe Cannabis causes cancer.

The way to solve that problem is with information campaigns. Those are expensive. How ya going to pay for that once you're done pissing off everyone who would potentially make financial contributions?

So will the Man or Woman who believes Cannabis is bad support Pot-Shops in their neighborhood or town?
Seriously think about that.

Those people will never support legalization. The idea that legalizing black market dealing and putting unlimited scale commercial grow houses in residential neighborhoods while taking away all fiscal incentives is going to turn them into yes voters is outright stupid.

In case you haven't figured it out by now, repeating the false claim that people voted against prop 19 because it allowed for dispensaries isn't working on people. You can not just keep repeating it until it becomes true. I won't let you do that without reminding everyone that you're a fraud.

Repeating a false statement over and over hoping people believe it isn't going to work here.

 

[Ernst]

Dan, I will repeat this a second time for you.

I am done with engaging with you in argument. So why bother? I will not respond. You are alone in the argument with me therefore you automatically win so why bother? Why waste your time ? It isn't that you are secretly in love with me is it? I hope not.

So once again.. So long on the conversation and have a wonderful life who ever you are.

Now Undertheice and Canndo I welcome your input as well as others.

Since MPP is reputable and they are watching the trends I have faith in their statistics.

So are there statistics that support a win for a Initiative with Commerce language in 2012?
Dan Kone is excused and I wish him or her a long life.


Thank you for your time and have a nice day

 

[Girdweed]

Joe Conservative isn't going to be swayed by a dude that likes pictures of himself holding a pussy cat. You may not like this fact but that's the way it is. You may surround yourself with folks who consider that acceptable but none of my non-mj consuming friends would be swayed by a dude that holds a kitty, uses the term intellectual like he is the only one who can construct logical argument, and prances around a keyboard like a fairy dancing in the forest.



You have to approach this from an image and rights perspective. Dudes talking about jacking other dudes off does not address the image issue. In fact, it builds walls that are harder to break down later.

 

[Ernst]

Joe Conservative isn't going to be swayed by a dude that likes pictures of himself holding a pussy cat. You may not like this fact but that's the way it is. You may surround yourself with folks who consider that acceptable but none of my non-mj consuming friends would be swayed by a dude that holds a kitty, uses the term intellectual like he is the only one who can construct logical argument, and prances around a keyboard like a fairy dancing in the forest.



You have to approach this from an image and rights perspective. Dudes talking about jacking other dudes off does not address the image issue. In fact, it builds walls that are harder to break down later.

What does a picture of me have to do with all the voters of California.
This is an inane post. Sorry but it's stupid.

 

[Ernst]

This is something my lady friend pointed out yesterday.. She believes many of you have Father issues so it's more about rebelling against a father authority figure.
I showed her the replies where people say "you cannot tell me what to do." She laid back on the pillow and sighed.. They are kids with issues and Daddy is one of them.

I have to admit it does fit.

Can we skip the Father issues?

 

[Dan Kone]

Dan, I will repeat this a second time for you.

I am done with engaging with you in argument. So why bother? I will not respond. You are alone in the argument with me therefore you automatically win so why bother? Why waste your time ?

Because you're a fraud who needs to be exposed. People like you hurt legalization. You're attempting to lead people down a path to nowhere. There is a certain amount of inertia in the legalization movement at the moment. People like you are capable of killing it with your unrealistic crackpot scheming. You're trying to lead people backwards and I'm not going to let you. Not here at least.

When ever you try and repeat your propaganda, I'll be there to expose it as a lie. I don't require that you respond to me in order to successfully do that.

Dan Kone is excused and I wish him or her a long life.

You're not the dictator of these forums. You don't get to tell me when/where I can post.

 

[Dan Kone]

This is something my lady friend pointed out yesterday.. She believes many of you have Father issues so it's more about rebelling against a father authority figure.
I showed her the replies where people say "you cannot tell me what to do." She laid back on the pillow and sighed.. They are kids with issues and Daddy is one of them.

I have to admit it does fit.

Can we skip the Father issues?

No father issues. Just issues with douchebags who come on here and act like they own the place. You can't just order people around, insult everyone who disagrees with you, then attempt to spread false information and then expect a warm response.

 

[Ernst]

Dan is all for one Party Rule friends.. Like communism.

In a democracy a free press is essential. I submit to this forum that I have a point of view and I am exercising first amendment rights.
Whoever the trolling Dan Kone is they believe they can crusade on what threatens them.
I suggest we continue with democratic dialog and skip the one Party Rule.

If you like Dan you can make a poll with me or perhaps you would just like to cut and paste what you want again?

Whatever.

So how about it..

MPP has 1.4% and that doesn't suggest a potential to pass Commerce language in 2012 in California.

At best the No voters are as confused as the Yes voters on what is really happening in California with budget issues and the ilk..

My thoughts are that a lower dynamic ( simpler ) initiative has a better chance.
If we split these issues up then freedom for the people has a better chance in uncertain times.

I welcome some statistics that prove otherwise.

Peace.

 

[Girdweed]

What does a picture of me have to do with all the voters of California.
This is an inane post. Sorry but it's stupid.

This is what makes communication so difficult. You fail to realize that many people who vote against marijuana also do not condone lifestyles and attitudes like yours. Your pompous attitude turns folks off.

I really don't give a fuck about you one way or another but I would like to see marijuana legalized in California.

Keep pushing your fantasy ideas around instead of working on the image. Also, keep thinking that folks like me are wrong. Remember, you need our vote, not the other way around. Judging by your lack of acceptance of constructive criticism, I'd venture a guess that your legalization efforts will FAIL again.

Keep up the good work!

 

[Dan Kone]

I welcome some statistics that prove otherwise.

Everything you're saying is based on the false assumption that people voted against prop 19 because it contained commerce language. You offer no proof of this what so ever then you expect people to disprove you're false assumption? lol

Ok fine. Not a single person on here except yourself is objecting to legalization because it allows dispensaries. That's 0%. How's that for statistics. You claim that the position you hold is the majority yet zero percent of people agree with it.

If what you were saying was truly a majority opinion how come you can't find a single person to back the claim that people voted against prop 19 because it allowed dispensaries?

You're a fraud Ernest. You're spreading false information, repeating it over and over again in the hope that if people hear it enough they'll start to believe it. You're not clever enough to be Carl Rove, so I suggest you stop trying to emulate him.

 

[Ernst]

This is what makes communication so difficult. You fail to realize that many people who vote against marijuana also do not condone lifestyles and attitudes like yours. Your pompous attitude turns folks off.

I really don't give a fuck about you one way or another but I would like to see marijuana legalized in California.

Keep pushing your fantasy ideas around instead of working on the image. Also, keep thinking that folks like me are wrong. Remember, you need our vote, not the other way around. Judging by your lack of acceptance of constructive criticism, I'd venture a guess that your legalization efforts will FAIL again.

Keep up the good work!

But it wont be a vote about me friend. Hopefully..
We would be voting on freedom for everyone.

Surly I am not your God and Saviour.
If I am it is one thing but if I am not then I decline any invitation to be your Crucified Cannabis-Jesus.

Perhaps what you fear is change as in death? We all go there.. Only mythos live forever.

You talk as if you know me personally. Care to share? What did I eat today? What did I do?

The gravity of your claim of familiarity is unproven yet you demand control and offer judgement as love.

Hey Tossing some Hippy beads and flowers what the hell..

What is my lifestyle? Is it time for a T.V. Show about me?

If that is the case well show me the cash but make the Legal Free Forever.. Don't accept Decriminalization as Gospel...

 

[Girdweed]

I should go back and change my comment to pompous and narcissistic.

You will continue to FAIL.

Don't worry. Your kitty will still love you even if you fail!

 

[Ernst]

Everything you're saying is based on the false assumption that people voted against prop 19 because it contained commerce language. You offer no proof of this what so ever then you expect people to disprove you're false assumption? lol

Ok fine. Not a single person on here except yourself is objecting to legalization because it allows dispensaries. That's 0%. How's that for statistics. You claim that the position you hold is the majority yet zero percent of people agree with it.

If what you were saying was truly a majority opinion how come you can't find a single person to back the claim that people voted against prop 19 because it allowed dispensaries?

You're a fraud Ernest. You're spreading false information, repeating it over and over again in the hope that if people hear it enough they'll start to believe it. You're not clever enough to be Carl Rove, so I suggest you stop trying to emulate him.

I lived in California in the Foothills and there was industry in those areas.
Allowing people to grow free meant that there would be industry a plenty and that voting yes meant that it allowed commerce.

We didn't have much Mexican cartels then and the best we saw was Acapulco Gold, Panama Red and Columbian.
So in the day. Since I was there.

Prop 19 the First contained pro-commerce language.
Prop 19 The second attempted to go the other way and it too contained Commerce language.

Between them California doesn't want Cannabis Communes Nor does it want Pot-Shops along the streets near schools.

So what does that leave us?

Private community controlled Horticulture and a safe first step.

Now Dan you just keep milking my teat man.. Think for yourself I'm not your dad. Okay?

I know I will get another round of up yours cat man do...

What do you want for nothing? A Rubber biscuit?

[video=youtube;jYyBZE0kBtE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYyBZE0kBtE[/video]