Forming a Pro-People Only Initiative for 2012 group
- Thread starter Ernst
- Start date
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
The people have spoken Ernest.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
How is that different? It's not a popularity poll between our personalities, I'm kind of a dick so I'd probably lose that one. It's to see who's ideas people prefer. What's wrong with that? I thought you want cannabis freedom for the people. Shouldn't you at least pretend to be interested in what they want?
That's fantastic. You invoke the idea of giving the people what they want to rationalize not participating in a poll to see what the people want. Well done. You could be on fox news.
Ernst
Well-Known Member
Define full proposal>?
Are you expecting me to be a lawyer>? I'm not so there is a natural scope to my human powers.
Ernst
Well-Known Member
It's the difference between me knowing what it is to be your age and what it is to be mine.
You know you but you are yet to see your 50th year.
I am no different than I was yesterday. So the drama huh that is the point not any debate.
Ernst
Well-Known Member
Look guys I am smart enough to find cycles in binary data then I am smart enough to think a cooperative poll through.
If I am to make the ruling then I would say Poll cannot be used to facilitate direct confrontation.
That can't be good on the insurance for sure.
So what? Poll or Grudge match>?
Which is it Dan?
If I am to make the ruling then I would say Poll cannot be used to facilitate direct confrontation.
That can't be good on the insurance for sure.
So what? Poll or Grudge match>?
Which is it Dan?
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
You don't need to use legal language. Just be thoughtful and express what you want to see out of a legalization ballot measure. Just think of everything you want to see in a legalization law and write that down. There is no penalties for not using legally correct terminology. Just look over how I wrote mine. There are no complicated legal terms. Just a clear plan. That's all you need. A clear plan. If you need any assistance I'd be glad to help. Or better yet, ask the ruiner. He's almost as smart as he thinks he is and he doesn't like me but does like you. I'm sure he'd help read it over to make sure you don't make any big mistakes.
You don't need complicated legal language nor does it need to be really wordy to be good. If you've got something simple, go with that. Just make sure it contains what you want to see in a legalization ballot measure.
Here is mine for reference:
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
We've debated this to death. We are talking in circles at this point. It's time to find out what the people want.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
It's a poll. A poll to find out what people want. It's that simple. Also people can comment saying which parts of either proposal they like or dislike. The purpose is to gauge public opinion, nothing more. There are no winners or losers. Everyone wins by finding out what the people want, we all lose by not taking the will of the people into consideration.
Ernst
Well-Known Member
That really sucked Dan.. Hype it up then present my arguments wrapped in Commerce.
Look.. I'll point to the statistics. Propositions 19 I and II failed to pass.
All I can do is point out the obvious "suggested" pattern that a third Commerce Initiative will more than likely fail again. We can try a for the people as a separate effort so we can get our foot in the door for more.
What do I need to write? It's either one side or the other.
If we do an All in one again and it fails then the people lose again. From what I can tell Business is doing okay without legalization so there can afford to lose.
So what is it that you are requiring? A text similar to yours?
This is not a poll situation as I understand the function of the poll privilege.
I have to act responsibility out of respect to the owners and moderators.
I'll write a text if that is what you want but it's blown over size as a poll.
Look.. I'll point to the statistics. Propositions 19 I and II failed to pass.
All I can do is point out the obvious "suggested" pattern that a third Commerce Initiative will more than likely fail again. We can try a for the people as a separate effort so we can get our foot in the door for more.
What do I need to write? It's either one side or the other.
If we do an All in one again and it fails then the people lose again. From what I can tell Business is doing okay without legalization so there can afford to lose.
So what is it that you are requiring? A text similar to yours?
This is not a poll situation as I understand the function of the poll privilege.
I have to act responsibility out of respect to the owners and moderators.
I'll write a text if that is what you want but it's blown over size as a poll.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
That is the original proposal I wrote pasted over here. The ideas you think are your own are the areas we agree. That's a good thing. Common ground.
I'm not sure what you mean. Propose what YOU think should be law. There is nothing wrong with agreement. You don't have to be against something just because I'm for it.
No. Quit stalling. Just write what you think should be in a legalization ballot measure and lets let the people decide which they prefer.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
That wasn't something I just typed up tonight. That was what I originally proposed. I did not change it at all. See for yourself.
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/422634-dan-kone-thread-legalizing-us-3.html
Repeating tired rhetoric proves nothing. Quit stalling. Let's do this.
Just write what you think should be included in a legalization law. It's that simple.
I just reposted that as an example to give you ideas. If you want to do it another way, go ahead. Just include what you think should be in a legalization law. Everyone understands you're not a lawyer and no one expects you to produce an airtight legal document. Just a collection of your ideas for legalization.
Cheap excuse.
Come on now. If you're really proposing something in the best interests of the people this should work out well for you. You've got nothing to worry about. Don't be scared.
We can make it work.
Boonierat
Well-Known Member
Pretty much what we all been thinking.
Ernst
Well-Known Member
It still comes down to the fact that California votes no on commerce.
How do you get past that?
In order to simplify the issue of cannabis in California for the voter and to attract the largest number yes voters I propose a common sense approach.
Since two efforts have been voted down that contained commerce language I propose that the efforts to legalize be divided into 3 or more separate efforts so that we can win one or more efforts in 2012.
Focus on getting legalization for the people first.
The first thing then is to legalize cannabis for the non-commercial use by the citizens of California. That would include employment protections, horticulture, use and the non-commercial trade I wrote about so often.
Apply these rights to cannabis to everyone including medical. I don't see why medical people cannot gain ground too.
This will create an atmosphere in the State of California which will allow a transition for our communities and law enforcement.
I have stated that over sight is necessary and that a system of permits can generate revenue for the State. I have stated that a central authority is better than 600 jurisdictions so I am in favor of that if in it's existence all citizens enjoy equal rights to the peaceful and lawful use of cannabis and it's related activities such as horticulture all up and down the State.
Now I can gather up every article I have written and synthesise something larger but the point is California will shoot any commerce language down because we can show directly that it has twice.
They do not want pot shops on main street.
It will be an enormous change for our State to have just legalizing for the people.
So trying to find enough votes to pass something that has proven to be unpopular twice and ignoring what did pass is a gamble.
Is it time to Gamble or is it time to sacrifice and pass simple for the people only legalization.
So that is it. Are you voter willing to gamble on a polished up version of failure or shall we narrow our scope and get legal?
------------
That is it Dan what else is there? I mean details? None of that matters since the main debate is to go with a gamble or play it safe.
It is an issue of which Green is more important to get first. Cannabis smoking green or Cannabis profits Dollars Green.
California doesn't like drug gangs and drug dealing. They will vote no to legal drug gangs and legal drug dealing but they just might allow people to grow and trade their own.
So are you willing to gamble with all our lives and possibly squander our next chance at legalization for the people because of trying to attach a commerce rider?
That is the debate.
Is it to be or not to be that is the question. Whether is is wiser to follow repeating failure or plot a safer course to success.
2 strikes for commerce and one Home Run for the people. You tell us; are we to have freedom or are we hostage to profiteers?
------------------------
How do you get past that?
In order to simplify the issue of cannabis in California for the voter and to attract the largest number yes voters I propose a common sense approach.
Since two efforts have been voted down that contained commerce language I propose that the efforts to legalize be divided into 3 or more separate efforts so that we can win one or more efforts in 2012.
Focus on getting legalization for the people first.
The first thing then is to legalize cannabis for the non-commercial use by the citizens of California. That would include employment protections, horticulture, use and the non-commercial trade I wrote about so often.
Apply these rights to cannabis to everyone including medical. I don't see why medical people cannot gain ground too.
This will create an atmosphere in the State of California which will allow a transition for our communities and law enforcement.
I have stated that over sight is necessary and that a system of permits can generate revenue for the State. I have stated that a central authority is better than 600 jurisdictions so I am in favor of that if in it's existence all citizens enjoy equal rights to the peaceful and lawful use of cannabis and it's related activities such as horticulture all up and down the State.
Now I can gather up every article I have written and synthesise something larger but the point is California will shoot any commerce language down because we can show directly that it has twice.
They do not want pot shops on main street.
It will be an enormous change for our State to have just legalizing for the people.
So trying to find enough votes to pass something that has proven to be unpopular twice and ignoring what did pass is a gamble.
Is it time to Gamble or is it time to sacrifice and pass simple for the people only legalization.
So that is it. Are you voter willing to gamble on a polished up version of failure or shall we narrow our scope and get legal?
------------
That is it Dan what else is there? I mean details? None of that matters since the main debate is to go with a gamble or play it safe.
It is an issue of which Green is more important to get first. Cannabis smoking green or Cannabis profits Dollars Green.
California doesn't like drug gangs and drug dealing. They will vote no to legal drug gangs and legal drug dealing but they just might allow people to grow and trade their own.
So are you willing to gamble with all our lives and possibly squander our next chance at legalization for the people because of trying to attach a commerce rider?
That is the debate.
Is it to be or not to be that is the question. Whether is is wiser to follow repeating failure or plot a safer course to success.
2 strikes for commerce and one Home Run for the people. You tell us; are we to have freedom or are we hostage to profiteers?
------------------------
Ernst
Well-Known Member
How about this for a poll.
Given the fact that two cannabis initiatives have failed that contain commerce language and one has passed that did not have commerce language would you support a third attempt to pass commerce language or would you support legalization for just private citizens this next election.
I have thought and thought this and that there is only one point of debate..
Do we let business ruin another chance to be legal?
That is all I have. If that is the debate I can work on a nice post but it comes down to breaking up the efforts so we get some place this next time.
My point of debate is one of observation of the voting results.
Write a poll on that. I'm cool with a poll on that.
Given the fact that two cannabis initiatives have failed that contain commerce language and one has passed that did not have commerce language would you support a third attempt to pass commerce language or would you support legalization for just private citizens this next election.
I have thought and thought this and that there is only one point of debate..
Do we let business ruin another chance to be legal?
That is all I have. If that is the debate I can work on a nice post but it comes down to breaking up the efforts so we get some place this next time.
My point of debate is one of observation of the voting results.
Write a poll on that. I'm cool with a poll on that.
Ernst
Well-Known Member
Go ahead Dan a write the poll already..
You know my position you should be able to write a poll.
As for what people will vote for I see only one argument. Do we support another commerce initiative or do we go with a people only initiative in the spirit of prop 215.
Anything other than this debate is pointless to me because California votes down Commerce every time and I believe cannabis industry at this time is a non-starter.
So go on Dan make the poll.
Boonierat
Well-Known Member
I think you keep generalizing too much. You say they vote down commerce? No, they voted down prop 19 because of the wally-worlds of pot. It wasn't just because of commerce. If anything, it was voted down because it was going to kill commerce on the smaller scale. I personally think a "commerce initiative" (I really don't like calling it that) could still pass. I am in favor with Dan's initiative, after a little more debate and maybe a few changes of course.