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

bajafox said:

I live in California and it's not about trying to get the no voters to say yes, it's like what canndo posted, how do you get the yes voters to get up off their ass and go vote? That, IMO, was the biggest blow to Prop 19. I know a lot of unregistered stoners who are of age that didn't fuckin bother to go vote.

Before trying to figure out how to convince the no's to yes'es, figure out how to get the lazy yes'es to register and go vote.

Click to expand...

The way to do that is to have a ballot initiative written in a way where they perceive it as being for them instead of for large corporations. Right or wrong many people who support legalization saw prop 19 as just a gigantic give away to corporations and something that could limit their medical rights.

It's pretty easy to clear that up.

The idea that legalizing black market dealing, commercial grow houses in residential neighborhoods, and removing all financial incentives for non-smokers is the thing that is going to get legalization passed is ridiculous.

undertheice said:

i find the liberal view of the tea party to be an amazing phenomenon. during the last election i asked a lot of people what their view on 19 was and found that those most aligned with tea party ideals were the most likely of the non-smokers to be on the pro side. at its most grass-roots level, the tea party is simply against the sort of rabid statism that seeks to regulate every portion of our lives and to grow itself beyond our capacity to control it. this is exactly the sort of ideology that demands prohibitions. that y'all see no connection between our problem and the fast food bans, the sugar-sweetened soda bans and the other "for the sake of the people" bans is absolutely amazing to me. this "totalitarianism in the guise of compassion" is precisely what got us to this point in the first place.

as for the demise of the tea party, that can only happen when we give up entirely on the idea of taking our country back from the corporate state. even as the movement is infested by religious fanatics and political animals, its roots in the belief in constitutional limits on the state are still strong. once enough of the citizenry has become anesthetized enough to accept authority's yoke, the last of the true individualists will finally go into hiding or simply leave.

Click to expand...

If the tea party was sticking to their original libertarian ideology I'd agree with you. But now look at what the tea party is really doing. They are going after abortion and all the usual social conservative stuff. They wanted to shut down the government over planned parenthood. That's not about being a fiscal conservative. That's about social conservatism.

When it came to cutting spending by removing oil company subsidies, the tea party caucus all voted against it. If they were about fiscal responsibility, I'd say they were going to be a powerful force for years to come. But their not. Now they are just extremist republicans.

The organization that was the tea party has been replaced by the social conservatives, the racists, and the extremists. They are no longer just about cutting spending and taxes. If they were, you'd be right. But they are not.

Yea, I agree that Prop 19 wasn't catered to everyone, but it would have been a big step in national legalization, IMO. When Prop 19 first came out almost everyone and their grandmothers were for it, but when the smoke cleared (no pun) and the prop was read, it looked like it was meant more for big corporations like you said, than the regular citizen.

If they can rewrite the one for 2012 to be less corporate and more personal, the way Jack Herer wanted it, then chances are it would have a better chance to pass. Prop 19 didn't get beat by too much, I still believe that if the lazy asses who wanted it to pass but didn't even bother to vote had voted, it would have been much closer and probably would have even had a chance to pass. Hopefully by 2012 some of the old conservatives who vote and are strictly against marijuana, regardless of it's financial or medical benefit, will not be alive and the 2012 Initiative will have a better chance.

undertheice said:

the single greatest fallacy in your argument is that it was commerce that defeated any legislation. quite to the contrary, it was the very idea of new revenue sources that made 19 palatable to many who would have otherwise voted against legalization. there are a bunch of people out there who only see this as a way for some folks to have a bit of fun and don't feel that having fun is an important enough reason to change the course of the law. we might very well have squeaked by this last time if there hadn't been so many pro-legalization folks who were a bit too greedy and thought they deserved a bit more than they were being allowed. we essentially torpedoed ourselves.

the greatest hope for turning many of those nays into yeas is to clearly spell out what the pathway is to legal commerce, to show that there is a way for even the small grower, under the umbrella of co-ops and clearing houses, to engage in that marketplace and to make it clear that recreational legalization in no way interferes with the medical community. those three areas spread a great deal of confusion and, i believe, were the cause for 19's downfall. massive disinformation campaigns were started to paint 19 in the worst possible light and too many folks, especially in the medical community, fell for the lies of that song and dance.

Click to expand...

Prop 19 would have worked if it would have been written more clearly and was slightly more liberal when it came to personal limits.

As I've demonstrated in other threads it would be pretty easy to write a law with all the financial benefits to the state and communities that could help people who don't care about legalization to vote yes while uniting legalization supporters.

bajafox said:

Yea, I agree that Prop 19 wasn't catered to everyone, but it would have been a big step in national legalization, IMO. When Prop 19 first came out almost everyone and their grandmothers were for it, but when the smoke cleared (no pun) and the prop was read, it looked like it was meant more for big corporations like you said, than the regular citizen.

If they can rewrite the one for 2012 to be less corporate and more personal, the way Jack Herer wanted it, then chances are it would have a better chance to pass. Prop 19 didn't get beat by too much, I still believe that if the lazy asses who wanted it to pass but didn't even bother to vote had voted, it would have been much closer and probably would have even had a chance to pass. Hopefully by 2012 some of the old conservatives who vote and are strictly against marijuana, regardless of it's financial or medical benefit, will not be alive and the 2012 Initiative will have a better chance.

Click to expand...

I think something half way between what Jack Herer and Richard Lee want would be perfect.

Jack Herer's plan focused on what is right and what we should have. The cannabis community loved it but it didn't have enough financial support to even make it on the ballot. Richard Lee's plan focused on how to get non-smokers to vote yes and how to get financial backing for legalization, but the cannabis community wasn't thrilled about it.

There is something to be learned from both both of their work. They both had great ideas. There is no reason why we can't learn from what did/didn't work in the past and apply that information to the future.

If we take the personal freedoms from Jack Herer's proposal and combined them with a financial infrastructure like Richard Lee attempted to do, then I think we have a winner.

The enemy of legalization is going to be extremism coming from one side or the other. Absolutists will insure the failure of legalization. What we need are passionate progressive centrists to make this happen.

We can have a ballot initiative that has healthy commerce and financial incentives for non-smokers without giving off the perception of large corporate monopolies and at the same time giving people the personal freedoms they require. That is what makes legalization happen. At least it's the best chance.

Dan Kone said:

If the tea party was sticking to their original libertarian ideology I'd agree with you. But now look at what the tea party is really doing. They are going after abortion and all the usual social conservative stuff. They wanted to shut down the government over planned parenthood. That's not about being a fiscal conservative. That's about social conservatism.

When it came to cutting spending by removing oil company subsidies, the tea party caucus all voted against it. If they were about fiscal responsibility, I'd say they were going to be a powerful force for years to come. But their not. Now they are just extremist republicans.

The organization that was the tea party has been replaced by the social conservatives, the racists, and the extremists. They are no longer just about cutting spending and taxes. If they were, you'd be right. But they are not.

Click to expand...

Gotta disagree. The Tea Party is MUCH more than extreme repubs or conservative dems. Want proof? Just at how both parties despise them. At the core, the Tea Party truly IS a grassroots movement. They are decentralized and therefore much more resistant to political favoritism and back-scratching. It also might interest you to know that there is a rift in the Tea Party specifically regarding marijuana legalization. Google Marijuana Tea Party. There's a rift within the Tea Party specifically regarding marijuana. These are older but check 'em out. The Tea Party (and Republican) stand on marijuana might surprise you...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/how-marijuana-could-split-the-tea-party/60921/

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/09/tea-party-marijuana-legalization

Yes, the Tea Party is indeed for defunding Planned Parenthood federally. Not only because their constituents generally oppose abortion in general but more importantly, because they believe it is wrong (and illegal) to fund entitlement programs with federal tax dollars. But it would be naive to believe that they were going to shut the government down over the abortion issue.... come on man, its much more complex and convoluted than that. But as you said Dan, if they stick to their Libertarian roots it will be a moot point. As fiscal conservatives they'll decriminalize marijuana thereby saving billions AND avoid polarizing the voting public by leaving the specifics up to each individual state. Ron Paul has publicly said he would do so... and I believe him. I'm actually surprised there aren't more Tea Party/Libertarians on RIU. The basic mantra is "leave me the fuck alone and mind your own business." Or is even RIU subject to decades of bipartisanship and never voting for who they want, but against who they do not?

Dan Kone said:

If the tea party was sticking to their original libertarian ideology I'd agree with you.

Click to expand...

the same might be said of the liberal machine. gone are the days when liberalism stood against enforced authority and celebrated the individual. the difference between these two examples is that the grassroots levels of the tea party still maintain their ideology, while every level of liberalism has adopted the destructive redistributionist ideology of socialism. the names have remained the same, but the goals have been reversed. that's why an old commie like me is now considered a conservative and the left is fighting to maintain their version of the status quo. it isn't that the power structure has changed all that much, merely that liberalism's limited success has perverted its aim. in truth, the grassroots elements of the tea party have much more in common with the liberalism of my youth than tools like obama, pelosi and reed ever could. the violence of that liberalism was designed to wake the people up to the chains they were being fitted for. the violence of modern institutionalized liberalism is the violence inherent in the authority of the state, designed to enforce conformity on the unwilling.

Dan Kone said:

Prop 19 would have worked if it would have been written more clearly and was slightly more liberal when it came to personal limits.

Click to expand...

there really wasn't much wrong with 19. what muddied the waters were all those folks who insisted on obfuscation and disinformation for their own ends. the mmj industry, the criminal element and the greedy small timers had more to do with its defeat that even the rabidly prohibitionist reefer madness crowd. most were too concerned with their own bottom line to admit the benefits of allowing even the most limited version of full scale legalization. i'll admit that 25 sq. ft. isn't much, but my closet grow isn't much more than that and it provides for all my needs with some to spare and share.

Dan Kone said:

I think something half way between what Jack Herer and Richard Lee want would be perfect.

Jack Herer's plan focused on what is right and what we should have. The cannabis community loved it but it didn't have enough financial support to even make it on the ballot. Richard Lee's plan focused on how to get non-smokers to vote yes and how to get financial backing for legalization, but the cannabis community wasn't thrilled about it.

There is something to be learned from both both of their work. They both had great ideas. There is no reason why we can't learn from what did/didn't work in the past and apply that information to the future.

If we take the personal freedoms from Jack Herer's proposal and combined them with a financial infrastructure like Richard Lee attempted to do, then I think we have a winner.

The enemy of legalization is going to be extremism coming from one side or the other. Absolutists will insure the failure of legalization. What we need are passionate progressive centrists to make this happen.

We can have a ballot initiative that has healthy commerce and financial incentives for non-smokers without giving off the perception of large corporate monopolies and at the same time giving people the personal freedoms they require. That is what makes legalization happen. At least it's the best chance.

Click to expand...

One can only wish...

Another problem Prop 19 had was exposure, I saw almost nothing on tv until the last week or so before the polls opened. If the 2012 Initiative was written correctly where the recreational user, the medical user and the "for profit" user could all benefit, that would be enough to beat all of the voters who vote against it just because it's a "drug"

It needs to be in the public eye, not just as something that will benefit medicinally or financially. It has to somehow be viewed differently than cocaine, heroin, or any other "hard core" drug. As far as the general uninformed public is concerned, it's still just another drug that is bad for you. They are the same people who still believe in D.A.R.E and the stupid red ribbons, like it or not, there are still a lot of these people out there and the polls prove it.

undertheice said:

that y'all see no connection between our problem and the fast food bans, the sugar-sweetened soda bans and the other "for the sake of the people" bans is absolutely amazing to me. this "totalitarianism in the guise of compassion" is precisely what got us to this point in the first place.

Click to expand...

So you figure that the essence of freedom is being able to drink sugary drinks, eat trans-fat fries and buy burgers with as much salt in them as the company that manufactures them thinks might taste good. You see that is my problem with the Tea Party, they don't actually understand freedom, they don't actually understand government and they don't, for the most part even understand taxation and representation. Believe me, no one died for your "right" to an incandescent light bulb or a fuel guzzling car. You have been lead to believe that consumer choices are the same as rights and sir, they are not.

Two things kicked prop 19 in the ass in the end.

National public radio took the side of the little guy ( dragon fly ) {it's the little guy you have to fear } and the Federal Government reminded everyone that they will not allow Commerce which is their domain.

So without the people behind any effort and the Federal Government willing to step in and take action legally and financially ( by cutting funds to Law enforcement ) we will have No voters out in force again.

The only thing that will pass is non-commerce people's rights.
The right to grow and use it for you own personal use.

We don't have the tax base to support risking federal funds..

No mature voter will gamble like that.

And the youth vote is nothing anyone can count on either.

canndo said:

So you figure that the essence of freedom is being able to drink sugary drinks, eat trans-fat fries and buy burgers with as much salt in them as the company that manufactures them thinks might taste good. You see that is my problem with the Tea Party, they don't actually understand freedom, they don't actually understand government and they don't, for the most part even understand taxation and representation. Believe me, no one died for your "right" to an incandescent light bulb or a fuel guzzling car. You have been lead to believe that consumer choices are the same as rights and sir, they are not.

Click to expand...

but the freedom to choose and to choose freely is really the most basic of our rights. you may not agree with another's choice, but that they have that choice is what is most important. it is becoming more obvious every day that the very concept of freedom is being redefined out of existence. it isn't only the popular and acceptable choices we must be free to choose from, but even those that others may see as unacceptable or disgusting. as long as it isn't infringing on the liberties of others, there is no reason to limit the available choices of any individual. even behavior that may seem self-destructive has its place in a free society.

But will it be a vote of logic or one of emotion?
Those already in "emotional favor" in the first place will consider logic but only emotion can get the No voter to vote yes.
What would do that?

Well if they thought it would somehow stop pot-shops by ruining the market then they would have a good feeling about it.. Wouldn't they? After all no God Fearing Sunday church going crowd wants to have to drive by Mo'Buds pot emporium on the way to church do they?


They don't want their kids thinking Pot is okay.
I live in Church-ville
They have to believe that legalizing is good for our State not that it makes sense.

Ernst said:

Two things kicked prop 19 in the ass in the end.

National public radio took the side of the little guy ( dragon fly ) {it's the little guy you have to fear } and the Federal Government reminded everyone that they will not allow Commerce which is their domain.

Click to expand...

if you really believe npr has any sort of power over the electorate, you're more delusional than i thought. what killed 19 was fear and greed. yes, the feds are going to demand their pound of flesh. they're going to come in after any sort of legalization and make their challenge to state's rights. under the same pretense as the civil war, they will make another stand in their claim to total dominion over the lives of the people. this time, as on so many other occasions, there will be court battles over where the dividing line falls. isn't it better that we force such a confrontation sooner rather than later, that we demand our unresponsive representatives plainly state whether they are actually working for the people or against them? the only way to keep the feds happy is to remain in the shadows with legislation such as you propose, to eschew legalization in favor an uncomfortable limbo, and keeping the feds happy shouldn't be our greatest concern.

undertheice said:

there really wasn't much wrong with 19.

Click to expand...

IMO the main problem with prop 19 was the perception of it. It was good enough as far as I was concerned. I voted for it.

what muddied the waters were all those folks who insisted on obfuscation and disinformation for their own ends.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But those problems were enabled by the obtuse language in prop 19. The actual mechanisms put in place by prop 19 were just fine. People just didn't understand them.

the mmj industry, the criminal element and the greedy small timers had more to do with its defeat that even the rabidly prohibitionist reefer madness crowd. most were too concerned with their own bottom line to admit the benefits of allowing even the most limited version of full scale legalization. i'll admit that 25 sq. ft. isn't much, but my closet grow isn't much more than that and it provides for all my needs with some to spare and share.

Click to expand...

100% agreed. The 25 sq ft limit wasn't the end of the world either IMO. It's better than zero sq ft. Anyone who needs a bigger limit can just go get a medical rec and then problem solved.

HuffPuppy said:

At the core, the Tea Party truly IS a grassroots movement. They are decentralized and therefore much more resistant to political favoritism and back-scratching.

Click to expand...

Sponsored by freedomworks.

The original tea partiers voices have been drowned out by corporate interests and religious right wing, the racists, and down right insane tea baggers.

The original tea party people would have never pushed to shut down the government risking a double dip recession in order to fight abortion. That's all the proof you need to know that the original ideas behind the tea party have now been marginalized.

Yes, the Tea Party is indeed for defunding Planned Parenthood federally. Not only because their constituents generally oppose abortion in general but more importantly, because they believe it is wrong (and illegal) to fund entitlement programs with federal tax dollars.

Click to expand...

Funny how entitlements are bad but corporate welfare is ok. How do you rationalize the tea party not supporting cutting oil subsidies to multinational energy corporations?

bajafox said:

Another problem Prop 19 had was exposure, I saw almost nothing on tv until the last week or so before the polls opened. If the 2012 Initiative was written correctly where the recreational user, the medical user and the "for profit" user could all benefit, that would be enough to beat all of the voters who vote against it just because it's a "drug"

It needs to be in the public eye, not just as something that will benefit medicinally or financially. It has to somehow be viewed differently than cocaine, heroin, or any other "hard core" drug. As far as the general uninformed public is concerned, it's still just another drug that is bad for you. They are the same people who still believe in D.A.R.E and the stupid red ribbons, like it or not, there are still a lot of these people out there and the polls prove it.

Click to expand...

A very good point. Hopefully that will be a lesson learned next time legalization makes it on the ballot.

How exactly do you get a measure on the ballot? Who do you have to blow?

undertheice said:

if you really believe npr has any sort of power over the electorate, you're more delusional than i thought. what killed 19 was fear and greed. yes, the feds are going to demand their pound of flesh. they're going to come in after any sort of legalization and make their challenge to state's rights. under the same pretense as the civil war, they will make another stand in their claim to total dominion over the lives of the people. this time, as on so many other occasions, there will be court battles over where the dividing line falls. isn't it better that we force such a confrontation sooner rather than later, that we demand our unresponsive representatives plainly state whether they are actually working for the people or against them? the only way to keep the feds happy is to remain in the shadows with legislation such as you propose, to eschew legalization in favor an uncomfortable limbo, and keeping the feds happy shouldn't be our greatest concern.

Click to expand...

One Morning Drive show will influence more people than you or I ever will. I base that on the fact that a million or more people listen on any given day to NPR.

Everyone I talk to Knows Dragon Fly. I just asked a Neighbor if they had heard of "Jim-Crow-Cannabis" and they had. I didn't tell them a thing prior and I asked follow up and they knew it was about Medical Rights.

Does the Media like NPR reach more people than you or I .. Absolutely.

I disagree.. I will wager that it will be harder for the Federal Government to go after Non-Commercial in State. They would have shut down the Medical if they could have.
I am not a lawyer but from what I have seen as long as it's non-commercial and the use is within the State's law then the Feds step back.
It's when we sell for profit that the Feds claim clear rights to control Commerce. They have that right even in State.

So lets skip commerce for 2012 and get gardens up and all over the State.

Around here it was the fear that there would be public drug-dealing. They don't want their kids to see that drugs are ok.

Mind ya we have major dealing like any area does.. It's just out of sight.

So yeah I think NPR influences voters.. The No voters listen and so do the Maybe voters.. better we get NPR on our side because we are non-commercial pro people then to get them to report Drug-dealers may win.

D.A.R.E.=drugs are really exciting!