cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
There are several ballot initiatives in California running from no-brainers (like Prop 1, a Yes making it harder to assail reproductive rights) to headscratchers.
This thread is intended for California voters and interested observers to talk about why an initiative is on the ballot … who benefits?
For example some years ago there was a ballot initiative that was ostensibly about reducing trafficking, but buried in the fine print was an expansion of property forfeiture privileges by law enforcement. “Follow the money.”
Because it looked like a slam dunk social justice issue, it got 86% of the vote. I was in the minority voting No because I dug enough to find the forfeiture clause, a cession of too much power to the police. Forfeiture biases the way laws are prosecuted, imo in a bad way.
Now we have the third go at tightening laws around dialysis centers. Pro: it seems to protect jobs. Con: it seems to be a hurdle to unionizing.
I voted no the first two times, but am now inclined to vote yes, since the money trail seems to lead toward profit protection by the big corporations running most dialysis centers. Anything that discourages unionizing now smacks of “pro-business” which correlates with Repug policy.
I thought I’d solicit opinions on this and the other initiatives on the state ballot, like the sports betting and EVs/taxes initiatives.
This thread is intended for California voters and interested observers to talk about why an initiative is on the ballot … who benefits?
For example some years ago there was a ballot initiative that was ostensibly about reducing trafficking, but buried in the fine print was an expansion of property forfeiture privileges by law enforcement. “Follow the money.”
Because it looked like a slam dunk social justice issue, it got 86% of the vote. I was in the minority voting No because I dug enough to find the forfeiture clause, a cession of too much power to the police. Forfeiture biases the way laws are prosecuted, imo in a bad way.
Now we have the third go at tightening laws around dialysis centers. Pro: it seems to protect jobs. Con: it seems to be a hurdle to unionizing.
I voted no the first two times, but am now inclined to vote yes, since the money trail seems to lead toward profit protection by the big corporations running most dialysis centers. Anything that discourages unionizing now smacks of “pro-business” which correlates with Repug policy.
I thought I’d solicit opinions on this and the other initiatives on the state ballot, like the sports betting and EVs/taxes initiatives.
