|
Oh wow, that's great news! But, I'm surprised support isn't higher in Pima county. Where are the rocks these 43% of disapprovers live under? And even more surprised Maricopa has such a strong showing.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:My conspiracy theory: the monopoly guys know a non-oligarch version is likely to win in 2016, so by running it in 2015 they won't have any real competition, and with enough true believers and enough cash they may be able to shove it through. If I were Ohioan, I wouldn't volunteer on their campaign (let them spend their own money) but I would vote for it and encourage others to do. It still makes one more free state, adds momentum to the cause, and we can fight the monopoly later, especially once it's federally legal and unions of many other growers can muscle in and buy influence (or sue for trade restriction) to expand the number of grow sites. Some Ohioans I know were talking about the referendum on Facebook and they were all saying "I feel like I don't know enough about this to decide either way how to vote." What you posted here seems like a pretty reasonable stance - would you say you still feel this way about it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Some Ohioans I know were talking about the referendum on Facebook and they were all saying "I feel like I don't know enough about this to decide either way how to vote." What you posted here seems like a pretty reasonable stance - would you say you still feel this way about it? The thing lots of Ohioans don't seem to understand is that there's no guarantee that there will be a legalization initiative on the ballot next year, or really any year after it. There is an argument to be made that the only reason this issue made it on the ballot was because it was bankrolled by monied interests. This may be our one and only shot at legalization in Ohio.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
To get back to the whole David Brooks poo poo about decriminalization not being a silver bullet for the over-imprisonment issue, the hell of it is that he's not exactly wrong, he and the other drug warriors are just using a fair point to cynical ends. I am still 100% for decriminalization and legalization, don't get me wrong. But if/when it is federally legalized, I think an unfortunate side effect is that the public will lose some of its sympathy for people caught up in the cogs of the justice system, as the assumption will be that now all of the innocent users have been freed, anyone still in jail/with a criminal record must deserve it. There are hundreds of thousands of people whose lives have been pretty much destroyed by the courts after being convicted of "violent crimes" that wouldn't have even been prosecuted 40 years ago... without any illegal drugs being involved. When some 19 year old kid breaks into a suburban house and the owner happens to be sleeping on the couch, the local DA will typically paint a portrait of the offender as an unhinged psychopath who needs to be locked up for decades. Hooray for legalization wherever and however it occurs, but it won't be the silver bullet that slays the out-of-control beast that is our criminal justice system, not by a longshot. (of course taking the conclusion 'so legalization isn't worth it' from that is a horribly lovely thing for Brooks to do, but that's to be expected)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:For Arizona, polling released this June looks really surprisingly good: quote:Strongest support for legalizing possession is found in rural However, here in Arizona the pot activist community is severely divided. People are at each others' throats. Old friends have become enemies. There are now two competing initiatives. The MPP backed version is wimpy and doesn't even de-felonize simple possession over one ounce. Rumor has it that the moneyed interests emasculated the prop. The other proposition, backed by an outfit called Arizonans For Mindful Regulation , is much better but lacks sufficient financial backing. Many in the latter crowd have vowed to work against the MPP proposition even if the AZFMR version doesn't make the ballot. Things do not look good in Arizona.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:There was a poll taken back in March, 52–44 in favor of recreational legalization (like 84% in favor on just medical): I know a lot of people who are in favor of weed, from hippies to leftists, and while a few support the current effort solely for healthcare reasons, most are completely opposed. I think the word is really getting around. Noam Chomsky posted:The thing lots of Ohioans don't seem to understand is that there's no guarantee that there will be a legalization initiative on the ballot next year, or really any year after it. I don't think this is true. I think Responsible Ohio got enough attention for being a piece of poo poo that it'll be easy to push for the same law but with more opportunity for home growers and small business farms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I know a lot of people who are in favor of weed, from hippies to leftists, and while a few support the current effort solely for healthcare reasons, most are completely opposed. I think the word is really getting around. The hand-wringing over "but muh potential weed business!" is really loving dumb in the face of legalizing recreational use this year. You're basically the same as these Responsible Ohio guys; "hey, this is no good if I can't make some money on it!" This is the first legalization measure to make it on the ballot despite other attempts. We'd be stupid to not vote yes on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
After a year or two of legal weed, what are the medical growers/sellers who were against legal weed in CO and WA saying? I remember they were against it for mostly gently caress you got mine reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:The hand-wringing over "but muh potential weed business!" is really loving dumb in the face of legalizing recreational use this year. You're basically the same as these Responsible Ohio guys; "hey, this is no good if I can't make some money on it!" Eh. I think it sets a really lovely legal precedent. I thought the casino thing was bullshit the same way. If issue 2 retroactively applied to the casinos I'd be supporting that too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:This is the first legalization measure to make it on the ballot despite other attempts. We'd be stupid to not vote yes on it. If you vote yes for it, it will be the last legalization measure to make it, and you'll have forever handed over control of the recreational drug market in the state to a handful of oligarchs. Considering the way the wind is blowing, voting yes would be incredibly short-sighted if you're concerned about anything beyond being able to get high legally as soon as possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:The hand-wringing over "but muh potential weed business!" is really loving dumb in the face of legalizing recreational use this year. You're basically the same as these Responsible Ohio guys; "hey, this is no good if I can't make some money on it!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:You don't just get to dismiss the other side here - you certainly haven't convinced me that more good would be done by passing a lovely law than waiting and eventually passing a better one. Do you really think there won't be another ballot for weed ever? Obviously it sucks for anyone who is jailed between when this law would come into effect and when a future law would come into effect, but the good done by a better law passed later may well be worth it. I think it's a pretty tough ethical decision that you don't seem to be weighing your options in. No, I'd rather stop sending people to jail for stupid loving reasons right away. That's been kind of the point of the whole "the drug war has failed" message.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:You don't just get to dismiss the other side here - you certainly haven't convinced me that more good would be done by passing a lovely law than waiting and eventually passing a better one. Do you really think there won't be another ballot for weed ever? Obviously it sucks for anyone who is jailed between when this law would come into effect and when a future law would come into effect, but the good done by a better law passed later may well be worth it. I think it's a pretty tough ethical decision that you don't seem to be weighing your options in. Also medical marijuana. Child seizures, sick elderly, etc.. It is a very tough decision, I think it's a bit unfair to accuse people who disagree with us of not weighing their options. But it's definitely not "my weed business" it's whether we want this economic boost to go right back to the rich or give everyone a shot. I think that this law being lovely has gotten enough press that we can get a good law soon whichever way the wind blows. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Oct 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Frabba posted:No, I'd rather stop sending people to jail for stupid loving reasons right away. That's been kind of the point of the whole "the drug war has failed" message. The fact that Ohio is without medical is definitely another factor - you have to weigh in the marginal increase in suffering that they experience by having to get weed illegally. I'm still not convinced this outweighs the benefits of waiting, say, a year for a good law. (I personally think that is a reasonable timeframe to expect another initiative.) Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Oct 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
If you've learned nothing in the past year or two, a 150 dollar fine combined with court costs/time ruins lives, leads to futher arrests/jail times, and minor drug charges are used to trump and force pleas. hth. I know you're a "big picture" guy in regards to your amazing ability to quantify suffering but try a bit of empathy.quote:Obviously it sucks for anyone who is jailed between when this law would come into effect and when a future law would come into effect Also, the only reason this is on the ballot this year is due to the interests which would definitely not want it on a presidential year for your "better" law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:I really hope you end up being one of those people it "obviously" sucks for if this fails to pass. I don't even know if you smoke, but seriously, gently caress you. I would accept a $150 fine if it meant a better marijuana regulatory system in Ohio.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
My stance on Ohio: it's like the Dialectic in Marx, it has to inevitably move forward or it calls into question the validity of the whole process. If the Monopoly bill hadn't gotten the signatures, that's be one thing, but to have a state make it into the Novemebr ballot and fail could be a PR setback right when we want to be showing unstoppable momentum to breach the tipping point so that 2016 will be prepped for a surge of 6+ states voting on initiatives and possibly VT and/or RI legalizing legislatively. Having OH fail just gives fencesitting politicians an excuse to say "meh, the climate isn't ready yet".
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:My stance on Ohio: it's like the Dialectic in Marx, it has to inevitably move forward or it calls into question the validity of the whole process. If the Monopoly bill hadn't gotten the signatures, that's be one thing, but to have a state make it into the Novemebr ballot and fail could be a PR setback right when we want to be showing unstoppable momentum to breach the tipping point so that 2016 will be prepped for a surge of 6+ states voting on initiatives and possibly VT and/or RI legalizing legislatively. Having OH fail just gives fencesitting politicians an excuse to say "meh, the climate isn't ready yet". No one actually read the thing who signed it. They went to college campuses and bars and asked people if they wanted to legalize weed. Fortunately the nice thing about ballot initiatives is that fence sitting politicians can get hosed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:My stance on Ohio: it's like the Dialectic in Marx, it has to inevitably move forward or it calls into question the validity of the whole process. If the Monopoly bill hadn't gotten the signatures, that's be one thing, but to have a state make it into the Novemebr ballot and fail could be a PR setback right when we want to be showing unstoppable momentum to breach the tipping point so that 2016 will be prepped for a surge of 6+ states voting on initiatives and possibly VT and/or RI legalizing legislatively. Having OH fail just gives fencesitting politicians an excuse to say "meh, the climate isn't ready yet". I don't buy this. It's in an election year people don't care about and will be old news by the time they do. Other states have rejected far less atrocious ballot measures already and it doesn't seem to be slowing down momentum. I mean there's arguments to be made either way on this issue. It's the classic: "Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good" vs. "You've only got one chance, so get it right the first time instead of rushing into it."
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
I don't think anyone saw California fail in 2010 and concluded that California doesn't like weed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I don't think anyone saw California fail in 2010 and concluded that California doesn't like weed. Sure, but CA also just bumbled forward with no formally established commercial system for another five years, literally only resolving the issue (partially) this week when Gov. Brown finally set up statewide weed licensing measures. So it's not like it failed in 2010 and they turned around and fine-tuned it successfully for 2012. It's been another half-decade of cannabis being in this very dark-gray legal area in state law, with little ability to push back against federal encroachment. CA's incremental and thinly-rationalized quasi-legalization measures have resulted in all kinds of federal stings and shutdowns over 20 years, while CO and WA have just raised their freak flag and said "we're letting people sell pot" and largely been given a pass. quote:"Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good" Of the two extremes, this is my stance on Ohio. In 2015 multiple states' campaigns are going to be competing for donations from national-level organizations and businesses, and a state that just whiffed it 11 months ago is not going to be a top contender for NORML and MPP funds, nor for investors who just saw the previous batch of (overly-presumptuous) investors get burned. The Oligopoly getting OH's only weed licenses is bad in principle, but the net result is that a bunch of people get to legally buy cannabis, a bunch of stores open to legally sell it, people get jobs in the industry, investors realize profits in cannabis, and most importantly (for me personally) it's another nail in the coffin of the War on Drugs. Lots of states have silly monopolies on all kinds of things that cause varying levels of hassle, expense, and annoyance, but those can be chipped away at legislatively over time if people get that ornery about it, and if people don't care enough to change it they can muddle through. It's not like "handful of rich assholes has disproportionate influence in X economic sector" is somehow abnormal in this country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:EDIT: any syrup-sippers got any good summary of what Canada is up to with weed? I see Harper's making an rear end of himself: The positions of the three parties are: Conservative: Against it Liberals: Legalize it NDP: Decriminalize it Right now the Liberals are polling first, the Conservatives second and the NDP third, but it's a tight race and Canadian polling is notoriously unreliable. Our elections are also notable for dramatic shifts that can happen suddenly and without warning. If the Liberals do pull it off and win I'm not entirely convinced they'll get around to legalizing it, they'll probably set up a committee to "study the issue" for a few years or some BS. And that's assuming a majority - if they win with a minority they'll have to compromise with one of the other parties. But who knows, maybe they're sincere about it, stranger poo poo has happened.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
I don't see the Liberals becoming the opposition again any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
I just effort posted this to various pro weed, anti Responsible Ohio people I know. Thoughts?quote:Effort post incoming. The short verison is if you are pro legalization you should Vote yes and fix it next year. If you are against legalization and just using the monopoly as an excuse then obviously you are voting no on everything anyway so this isn't directed at you. I am strongly for full legalization, but I think it's important that we pass 3 now. I'll explain my reasoning:
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure "I smell weed" will remain sufficient for probable cause as long as it is federally illegal, and even afterward because of "a public safety risk," real or imagined from drugged-drivers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I'm pretty sure "I smell weed" will remain sufficient for probable cause as long as it is federally illegal, and even afterward because of "a public safety risk," real or imagined from drugged-drivers. Driving high is going to be like driving drunk is now. A huge number of people do it and very few get caught, but the ones who do have trumped up charges.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
quote:Pass - Fix is where we pass issue 3 then work very hard for full legalization next year. This is the other very good option. If you're gonna include this as an option like that, you should really try to justify a path where it can happen and quote:Reject- Legalize requires a lot of people to work very hard to get legalization on the ballot next year. It's possible that since they already have a plan to start farms the RO people will jump on the legalization bandwagon. This is a very good option Otherwise it's not really worth including. If it's likely enough to be a real possibility, reject-legalize is practically guaranteed. With the RO org money and organization against a full-legal referendum, do you really think it would have any chance of passing? That being said, I do wonder how RO will interact5 with a federal legalization attempt - if the feds legalize (and I think they might, not too long from now, to be honest) and it wipes away the whole RO thing, then it's worth doing RO. If the Feds legalize and it leaves RO in place, you're going to be stuck with it basically forever if it passes at all. I think it's important to consider the other effects as well - will RO be a supporter of continued drug reform? It's not just about marijuana, in the end, for many of us, but about comprehensive reform, and RO groups will likely oppose any additional changes to drug legislation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
If it passes it won't get fixed, but there are worse things than that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I'm pretty sure "I smell weed" will remain sufficient for probable cause as long as it is federally illegal, and even afterward because of "a public safety risk," real or imagined from drugged-drivers. When DC decriminalized, the year before we fully legalized, the new law explicitly stated that the smell of weed was no longer Probable Cause to search a person/vehicle/building because (afaik) you can't do a full criminal search over a suspected civil infraction. I'm pretty sure on the result since it explicitly said so on the "understanding decrim" card that MPD issued (I picked up a stack from my precinct to hand out in my neighborhood) but the technical reason I'm guessing at; not sure if places outside DC have similar PC laws. Like can cops search you for guns in other states if they ticket you for an expired parking meter or jaywalking, or does there have to be a criminal suspicion to justify a search? TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Oct 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
The Liberal Party just secured a Parliamentary majority in Canada, so stand by for a march, fast or slow, to legalized weed in Canada. Maybe they can knock out just a basic nationwide decrim first and then move gradually to developing commercial regulation?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:The Liberal Party just secured a Parliamentary majority in Canada, so stand by for a march, fast or slow, to legalized weed in Canada. Maybe they can knock out just a basic nationwide decrim first and then move gradually to developing commercial regulation? Does that mean Harper's out? I know nothing except that John Oliver was talking about him. The yes/no decision on Ohio 3 is really tough. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Does that mean Harper's out? I know nothing except that John Oliver was talking about him. Oh yes, finally free of that rear end in a top hat: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/20/us-canada-election-idUSKCN0SD17X20151020 quote:Canada's Liberal leader Justin Trudeau rode a late surge to a stunning majority election victory on Monday, toppling Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives with a promise of change and returning a touch of glamor, youth and charisma to Ottawa. I guess we've finally, finally gotten over 9-11 here. Ran Mad Dog fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Oct 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
So what are some realistic timelines now? I know that the Liberal Party sorta ran on "We will legalize this poo poo, quote us on it", so does this mean that widescale action is possible by the end of the year? I have no idea how Canadian politics work so I presume that it's not like everyone shows up to work this morning and it's all different, that there's a transition period, but then after that, what are realistic time frames?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:If you vote yes for it, it will be the last legalization measure to make it, and you'll have forever handed over control of the recreational drug market in the state to a handful of oligarchs. They already own everything else and the rich will, naturally, own the cannabis market, too. They own this whole loving state at this point. They own the state legislature. Voting no on legalization this year won't change anything at all for them. They'll still be incredibly rich and powerful, and you'll still go to prison for growing. Eke out what benefits you can, while you can.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:You don't just get to dismiss the other side here - you certainly haven't convinced me that more good would be done by passing a lovely law than waiting and eventually passing a better one. Do you really think there won't be another ballot for weed ever? Obviously it sucks for anyone who is jailed between when this law would come into effect and when a future law would come into effect, but the good done by a better law passed later may well be worth it. I think it's a pretty tough ethical decision that you don't seem to be weighing your options in. "People going to prison is a small price to pay so that I, too, can one day open my own legal weed business!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Sure, but CA also just bumbled forward with no formally established commercial system for another five years, literally only resolving the issue (partially) this week when Gov. Brown finally set up statewide weed licensing measures. So it's not like it failed in 2010 and they turned around and fine-tuned it successfully for 2012. It's been another half-decade of cannabis being in this very dark-gray legal area in state law, with little ability to push back against federal encroachment. CA's incremental and thinly-rationalized quasi-legalization measures have resulted in all kinds of federal stings and shutdowns over 20 years, while CO and WA have just raised their freak flag and said "we're letting people sell pot" and largely been given a pass. You can also grow at home.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:"People going to prison is a small price to pay so that I, too, can one day open my own legal weed business!" Who is going to prison for possessing the small amounts of weed that would be illegal for an additional year or three? Under 100g is a $150 fine. Anything worth doing is worth doing right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:So what are some realistic timelines now? I know that the Liberal Party sorta ran on "We will legalize this poo poo, quote us on it", so does this mean that widescale action is possible by the end of the year? I have no idea how Canadian politics work so I presume that it's not like everyone shows up to work this morning and it's all different, that there's a transition period, but then after that, what are realistic time frames? I can't give you an exact timeline, but in parliamentary democracies - like Canada - the political process is much, much faster than in America, especially so because the Liberals have a majority. Basically, whatever the prime minister says goes. If Trudeau says, "Let's have legal weed", he's got the majority of supporters in parliament to pass that legislation. He'll have to choose his cabinet and that won't take very long, and then they can start getting down to business in a matter of months. This majority is a huge deal precisely because of this reason. Unlike in American democracy, where the President's promises can be roadblocked by Congress, there is nothing stopping Trudeau from accomplishing what he promised to accomplish.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Who is going to prison for possessing the small amounts of weed that would be illegal for an additional year or three? Under 100g is a $150 fine. Anything worth doing is worth doing right. You can and do go to prison for growing, and they weigh the whole plant, which is enough to get you federal charges. Cultivation is a whole different matter than just possession.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:You can and do go to prison for growing, and they weigh the whole plant, which is enough to get you federal charges. Cultivation is a whole different matter than just possession. Okay but lol, I don't think going to jail for growing marijuana is quite the human rights issue that going to jail for possessing it is. Not being able to grow weed is a bummer but it's not really a very big deal to not do. I don't think the lovely law is worth people being able to grow weed a little bit sooner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 16:23
|
|