How to effectively debate someone who opposes Proposition 19

[WestCoast4Life]

This is an interesting article I found at opposingviews.com. Worth reading.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/how-to-debate-marijuana-user-who-is-anti-prop-19

 

[vta]

How to debate Anti-Prop 19 Stoners

How to debate Anti-Prop 19 Stoners



How to debate Anti-Prop 19 Stoners Against Legalization

By "Radical" Russ Belville on September 20, 2010

After viewing the Prop 19 “debate” at HempCon and battling many of these Stoners Against Legalization online, I’ve come up with some simple rhetorical tools for dealing with these terribly misguided individuals. Unfotunately, I feel like the YES campaign is making a mistake Democrats make in elections: depending on facts, logic, reason, and people voting for their own best interests.

This is an emotional issue and the NO side is doing a good job stoking fear, confusion, and anger. They’re playing right out of Karl Rove’s handbook – demonize the opponent (“millionaire Richard Lee!”, “corporate megagrows in Oakland!”) and obfuscate the issues. Our side is fighting within the opponents frames of “Prop 19 vs. Prop 215″ and “corporate control of cannabis” instead of defining the issue as legalization and improvement over the Jim Crow aspects of Prop 215.

Here are my suggestions for attacking the anti-Prop 19 side, fighting their emotion with more powerful emotion, attacking their strengths and using it against them, and redefining the frames.

Begin any question you have for Anti-Legalizers with “I’m a healthy adult without a Prop 215 recommendation; can you tell me why…?” and then ask. For example:

* “I’m a healthy adult without a Prop 215 recommendation; can you tell me why I should vote against being able to carry an ounce of marijuana on my person?”
* “I’m a healthy adult without a Prop 215 recommendation; can you tell me why I should vote against being able to grow marijuana in my house?”
* “I’m a healthy adult without a Prop 215 recommendation; can you tell me why I should vote to keep the risk of getting a criminal misdemeanor record for smoking pot?”

Almost all of their complaints come from the “Prop 19 destroys Prop 215″ myth they’ve been pushing. So hamstring that by pointing out you’re not a Prop 215 patient and neither are 80%-90% of California’s cannabis consumers.

Next, when the Stoner Against Legalization goes into the thicket of “Under Prop 215 this and that is legal and Prop 19 will make it illegal…” you simply respond with:

“Wow, those sound like powers that (LA District Attorney) Steve Cooley and (San Diego District Attorney) Bonnie Dumanis would love to have… so how come they’re asking people to vote NO?”

Hammer on the point that a NO vote on Prop 19 allies you with the cops, prison guards, drug dealers, drug traffickers, enemies of Prop 215 like Cooley, Trutanich, Dumanis, Brown, and Feinstein. ”If Prop 19 does everything you say to Prop 215, why doesn’t Steve Cooley support it?”

When a Stoner Against Legalization tells you about some terrible prediction of life after Prop 19, you can respond with “So that’s why we need to keep arresting and locking people up for marijuana, then?” Never let them off the hook on any of their points without forcing the audience to reconcile the point that a NO vote means “I am voting to keep myself a criminal.”

The Stoner Against Legalization may then try to steer the debate to the “But marijuana is virtually legal in California under Prop 215″ area. There are two quick replies to that notion. First:

“So why, exactly, have 77,000 Californians been arrested, tried, and convicted on marijuana charges in 2009 if marijuana is legal”

A side argument here from the Stoners Against Legalization is that the California legislature has passed a bill to downgrade possession of an ounce to a simple misdemeanor. The Anti-Legalizers will say, “it’s not even going to be a crime to possess an ounce anyway, it’s just a ticket like ‘flipping a U-ey’”. The proper response to that is, “So I should vote NO so I get a $100 ticket for an ounce and a felony for a plant, rather than making both of those things absolutely legal with no tickets or criminal record?”

They may also say that Prop 19 doesn’t legalize the things that most of those 77,000 got arrested for. Now you’ve got them where you want them with the reply:

“And how many of those 77,000 were busted because of evidence gained through the probable cause that illegal marijuana gives the cops? After Prop 19 passes, marijuana is LEGAL, so the smell of pot, the sight of a plant indoors, a bong on your table, stems in your trash, and multiple baggies of weed in your home are no longer crimes… and not probable cause to harass you in the first place.”

Another response to the “marijuana is legal under Prop 215″ line is to use their own cause célèbres against them.

“So if Prop 215 makes medical marijuana legal, what were Felix Kha, Jovan Jackson, Donna Lambert, Eugene Davidovich, Charles Lynch, Craig X Rubin, et al doing in a California courtroom, losing their businesses, their net worth, and in some cases, their families?”

This pivots to the discussion that after 14 years of Prop 215, there still isn’t a definitive right to buy and sell cannabis. But you have to be careful here, because there is a huge emotional investment by Californians in Prop 215. The best way is selling Prop 19 as an improvement, not a replacement, for Prop 215. They’ll wail about the mentions of Prop 215 being in the Purposes and Intents and how those parts aren’t “codified into law”, but that’s easy enough to dismiss:

“The Purposes and Intents ARE used by the legislature to determine how the laws shall be interpreted. So if the intent says ‘Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes’ it’s not going to be possible for lawmakers to reconcile an interpretation that makes medical access more difficult and dangerous.”

Another place they’ll go to is talking about how wicked evil Oakland is licensing megagrows with $211,000 fees or how Rancho Cordova is planning on taxing grows at $600 per square foot. The solution here is to point out that’s happening NOW regardless of Prop 19, so a NO vote still means expensive grows in Oakland and Rancho Cordova, but without carrying an ounce and growing at home being legal.

“Prop 19 does not overturn or supersede Prop 215. #1) Its Purposes and Intents are to make medical access safer and easier. #2) It’s loaded with “Notwithstanding any other provision of law” clauses that mean “except where another law already makes something more legal” – like Prop 215. #3) All powers over cultivation given to localities specifically mention “commercial” purposes.”

This is especially important for the Rancho Cordova line. Hammer away at that one by pointing out that renegade pot-hating cities will try to tax grows out of existence and that is easier for them to do when you don’t have an explicit right to home grow. What they pass and what stands up after inevitable court challenges are two different things. Prop 215 activists will hit that $600/sqft as an unconstitutional infringement on medical rights and Prop 19 activists will hit it by pointing out Prop 19 only gives cities power to regulate commercial grows while explicitly defining the right to personal consumption and the right to grow 25 sqft for personal consumption.

The corollary of this point on the Stoners Against Legalization side is that none of the cities that hate dispensaries are going to approve retail sales once Prop 19 passes. ”Do you think San Diego, which doesn’t even believe in medical distribution, is going to allow recreational?” I’ve heard one of them say. The simple response:

“You mean like now? So because 1 or 2 or 12 or 40 cities might ban commercial marijuana, we should keep it like it is now where all 478 cities ban commercial marijuana?”

So San Diego may not approve recreational marijuana cultivation and sales… just like now. But you’ll still be able to possess your personal ounce in San Diego. You’ll still be able to grow your 25 sqft garden at home in San Diego. And if you really want to, like the Anti-Legalizers always say, you can always go get your Prop 215 recommendation and join a collective just like you can now.

Another facet to the argument is the Anti-Legalizers support of the status quo regarding the “small grower”. This is a powerful emotional meme because they conjure up the small-time family-man grower, forced by tough economic times to make a living growing and supplying to dispensaries, cloaked in all sorts of rebel-with-a-cause fight-the-man folklore. They’ll posit that meme vs. the big bad evil corporation meme.

Karl Rove would use his opponent’s strength as their weakness. Remember Sen. John Kerry, the thrice-decorated Vietnam war hero? That became his weakness once the Swift Boaters were through with him. So here’s how you “swift boat” the “pity the small grower” meme:

“Every dollar earned while marijuana is illegal equals some kid getting a misdemeanor, some mom doing jail time, or some dad being shot by a cop. I support any person who wants to make money growing marijuana, but not at the cost of 77,000 arrests in California every year. Prop 19 will allow cities – not the state – to create commercial regulations. Why wouldn’t a city like, say, Ukiah, make regulations that best support their small grower economic base? That’s the cool thing about something being legal; if it’s not working properly, you can vote in new people and laws to make it work better. But if you vote no on 19, no city can do anything to support their small growers and the state can still send helicopters and cops after them.”

This may lead to a response of “but the small grower can’t compete with the megagrows / corporations!” You can point out that Prop 19 allows any of those growers to form their own corporations; they could truly be a commercial collective of small growers big enough to compete with anybody. They would even have the cache of being “the little guys” and could market their wares as “boutique”, “hand-trimmed”, “home-grown”, “organic”, etc. and charge more than the megagrows. But if they persist on the “pity the small grower” meme, you can always take it back to:

“OK, so then we need to vote no on legalization and continue to arrest and lock up small growers for felonies because they can’t compete in a open legal market? Small growers can’t exist unless we subsidize their jacked-up prices by arresting 77,000 Californians per year, is that what you’re saying?”

Some miscellaneous rejoinders:

They say, “We’re for legalization; we’re just against Prop 19.”

“Prop 19 is legalization: it says “it shall be LAWFUL to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal consumption” and you are telling me to vote against that, so you’re against legalization.”

They say, “We should wait until 2012 when a better initiative will be on the ballot.”

“Prop 19 is on the ballot now. How many legalization votes were on the ballot in the past forty years? One, back in 1972. How much money have other legalization initiatives raised for 2012? Zero. How much support did these other initiatives get in the past dozen elections? Not enough to make the ballot. Besides, if a better initiative can make the ballot in 2012, it still can when Prop 19 passes. Vote yes on 19 now, and then go ahead and vote yes on the better initiative in 2012!”

They say, “This is written for lawyers and corporations to get rich!”

“Prohibition keeps lawyers in business defending people from marijuana crimes. And I’d rather see a legal taxpaying corporation making money in a competitive market where I’m allowed to grow my own than to see murderous Mexican drug trafficking organizations making money and cops making money when they bust me for growing my own!”

When they paint the picture that all of Southern California will be forced to drive up to buy from the overpriced megagrows in Oakland, call it out for the ridiculous assertion that it is:

“Yeah, I suppose if Prop 19 passes and Los Angeles refuses to allow commercial sales, everyone will have to drive to Oakland. That is, if people in LA don’t grow their own. And don’t have any friends who grow their own and share. And they don’t get Prop 215 recommendations to buy in dispensaries. And the black market sales of marijuana completely disappear. And none of the other 87 cities in Los Angeles County decide to allow commercial sales to beat LA to that thriving tax base and economic windfall. And all of the other 477 California cities but Oakland decide to forbid commercial sales. Sure. But even in that ridiculous worst case scenario, there will still be one legal place in California to buy marijuana and it will still be legal to carry an ounce of it anywhere in the state!”

Finally, deal with their ad hominem attacks – don’t underestimate how vicious lies and false characterizations can sink a campaign (c.f. Sen. John Kerry, 2004; Gov. Michael Dukakis, 1988). When they set up their attacks on “millionaire Richard Lee”, respond with:

“Wait, I thought you guys were supporters of patients and medical access under Prop 215? Last I checked, Richard Lee was a disabled patient in a non-motorized wheelchair whose Oaksterdam University and dispensaries have provided more medical marijuana to sick and disabled patients than all of you combined. Or are profits from medical marijuana only a good thing when you’re making them?”

I also like to throw in “Richard Lee is gambling $1.4 million of his own money to make you legal. How much of your money have you gambled to make me legal?”, but you need to judge the right audience for that dose of snark.

A vote NO on Prop 19 is a vote for at least 150,000 more criminal prosecutions of Californians. It’s a vote to support the prohibition price structure that funds Mexican murderers. It’s a vote to continue costing young people their scholarships and student aid. It’s a vote to continue the discriminatory drug testing of workers to fire and not hire marijuana consumers. It’s a vote to continue the criminal distribution of marijuana that provides no controls, no checks of ID, and no benefit to society by taxation. It’s a vote to continue the prosecution of patients that is inevitable when cops have to determine who’s healthy enough to arrest. It’s a vote that joins the side of cops, prison guards, prosecutors, corporations, and politicians who already persecute patients and demonize marijuana consumers.

Vote YES ON 19! For California, For America, For the World!

 

[mean mr.mustard]

If they needed any help.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

How to demonize a fellow pothead.

Great.

 

[WestCoast4Life]

Noted. haha. I found it a bit useful the way everything is laid out, good wording.

 

[vta]

lol...I type slow as I posted this right after you. Great find btw

 

[dagnabit]

How to show a prohibitionist for what they are

a little repair for the sensitive one

 

[kmk420kali]

In all fairness...the Anti's need to have a fair chance--
Hit me up, i will come up with a better argument against 19 than ya'll have been able to--
You have set the bar kinda low...so I will only charge a minimal fee--

 

[dagnabit]

In all fairness...the Anti's need to have a fair chance--
Hit me up, i will come up with a better argument against 19 than ya'll have been able to--
You have set the bar kinda low...so I will only charge a minimal fee--

and i believe you could to bro....
you just have those pesky morals to contend with...
unfortunately (as has been proven on the various threads here) the prohibitionists have no compunction concerning outright LYING.

 

[igrowone]

it's a pretty old formula, but it does work, just gets rediscovered from time to time
'When you tell a lie, tell a big lie, and tell it loudly. Even when it's disproven, some doubt will remain'

 

[jaysplifferton]

righteous post! It has been hard for me to follow much of the logic on the anti-19 side; except for "we don't want to be taxed" and similar reactionary status-quo-isms.

drug laws have always been steeped in hypocrisy. ("Don't smoke that, drink this!")

The fact that members of the pot community are against legalization of their product... well that's gotta take the cake. I guess self interest is relative to some folks.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

It's not so much being against the idea as being against this bill.

 

[Lazyman]

Things I dislike about 19:

Every city and county can (and probably will) have its own laws and regulations. Adding this confusing set of regulations on top of the already-confusing 215 laws will make any kind of travel particularly tricky and confusing. What is legal in your city might get you arrested 5 miles away in the next town.

Pro-19 people theorize that it will eliminate the black market. Yeah, because the black market pays the $50/oz tax? Right, it will still be cheaper to buy on the black market than any place that has to pay these taxes. The black market can undercut where the legal shops cannot. To think otherwise is laughable.

I'm all for making cops jobs harder, and eliminating our common giveaways as probable cause, but anyone who thinks this is a good idea needs to spend a week in Eureka or Arcata. After you've gotten in several near-misses by stoners lighting their pipes as they drive, you'd reconsider the wisdom of the masses being on another intoxicant.

I don't think this bill is anywhere NEAR as much about legalization as it is a taxation grab by a broke government. They don't really want you to have pot, but they REALLY want to get a cut of it. It feels more like extortion to me. If I wanted a partner that took 25% of my sales I'd take on a partner!

 

[dagnabit]

Things I dislike about 19:

Every city and county can (and probably will) have its own laws and regulations. Adding this confusing set of regulations on top of the already-confusing 215 laws will make any kind of travel particularly tricky and confusing. What is legal in your city might get you arrested 5 miles away in the next town.

Pro-19 people theorize that it will eliminate the black market. Yeah, because the black market pays the $50/oz tax? Right, it will still be cheaper to buy on the black market than any place that has to pay these taxes. The black market can undercut where the legal shops cannot. To think otherwise is laughable.

I'm all for making cops jobs harder, and eliminating our common giveaways as probable cause, but anyone who thinks this is a good idea needs to spend a week in Eureka or Arcata. After you've gotten in several near-misses by stoners lighting their pipes as they drive, you'd reconsider the wisdom of the masses being on another intoxicant.

I don't think this bill is anywhere NEAR as much about legalization as it is a taxation grab by a broke government. They don't really want you to have pot, but they REALLY want to get a cut of it. It feels more like extortion to me. If I wanted a partner that took 25% of my sales I'd take on a partner!

wrong bill bro thats the amiano prop...

there is no $50.00 tax in 19
19 sets uniform statewide standards for possession
19 allows for municipalities to control commercial production.

ill link you to the correct bill

http://yeson19.com/node/6

hope that clears it up for you

 

[vta]

Good post..check out my comments in Green.

Things I dislike about 19:

Every city and county can (and probably will) have its own laws and regulations. Adding this confusing set of regulations on top of the already-confusing 215 laws will make any kind of travel particularly tricky and confusing. What is legal in your city might get you arrested 5 miles away in the next town.

Only travel with an ounce...problem solved. For non Med peeps that is...the rest of us Med users...biz as usual

Pro-19 people theorize that it will eliminate the black market. Yeah, because the black market pays the $50/oz tax? Right, it will still be cheaper to buy on the black market than any place that has to pay these taxes. The black market can undercut where the legal shops cannot. To think otherwise is laughable.

As dagnabit said, there is no $50 tax you speak of, that is from a different bill. Also, if I have a choice to buy pot that I know is safe, I'll buy it. As I don't buy moonshine. The black market will be there but not so much for pot. laughable to the full extent- yes, but common sense will tell anyone that this will obviously put a dent in their operations.

I'm all for making cops jobs harder, and eliminating our common giveaways as probable cause, but anyone who thinks this is a good idea needs to spend a week in Eureka or Arcata. After you've gotten in several near-misses by stoners lighting their pipes as they drive, you'd reconsider the wisdom of the masses being on another intoxicant.

That sounds like a cop or something...not calling you out{ No doubt your not} just that is the same crap they say..."Do you really want a bunch of stoned drivers on the road?" Well 19 doesn't make driving stoned legal, so your point is moot. Nanny States suck! By what your saying, booze should be illegal also. btw...I have been stoned pretty solid the last 20 years...a morning, afternoon or evening doesn't past without me hitting the pipe. That said, I have never caused and accident and during that time have driving about a million miles on LA freeways....stoned the whole time It's all about tolerance.

I don't think this bill is anywhere NEAR as much about legalization as it is a taxation grab by a broke government. They don't really want you to have pot, but they REALLY want to get a cut of it. It feels more like extortion to me. If I wanted a partner that took 25% of my sales I'd take on a partner!

That is your opinion but keep in mind a few things....such as 19 doesn't setup taxation, the only things 'granted' off the bat is that people are legal to grow and posses pot. IF, and that's an IF, cities want to regulate...then they can. IF they want to tax...then they can. It doesn't set this up from the passing. To me that sounds more like Legalization rather than Taxation...considering what 'actually happens' after the passage of the law.

Regulation is a good thing...I don't want my pot to have Raid in it. I want a product that is grown following food standards. Taxing the profits of a 'commercial' business is nothing new and every fuking business has to pay taxes. Why is pot so special??? Why should pot above all else not be taxed? Commercially speaking here! We are not talking about personal grows...19 specifically states that cities can regulate and tax COMMERCIAL BUSINESS. So I ask again...If I set up a business and grow pot and then sell it to liquor stores...why should I not have to pay taxes on my income?

Also you say "I don't think this bill is anywhere NEAR as much about legalization as it is a taxation grab by a broke government." Can you explain that one to me? 19 is not a Government sponsored prop...that would make it a bill. 19 was funded by a guy who sells Medical pot..not the government. That is a big twist if you ask me. Is there some conspiracy I'm not getting? Wait let me guess, the State is using R. Lee as a front right? hehe

 

[Lazyman]

LOL, man VTA you have managed to kick my ass every time I open my yap on this subject. Humbling! So I guess I was misinformed on the tax thing, that isn't part of prop 19? Or just for retail sales? Oops nevermind, just saw Dagnabits post, thanks for clearing that up DB, I was mistaken.

I will admit, if I was Dick Lee and had the money and the clubs, I would be trying to push the same thing. I'm also going to admit I wish I had started growing 15 years ago instead of 6, so I could be in a better position to do something like 19. Just color me jealous if you want, it fits.

Question for you: I've read that all of the medical clubs will be able to openly sell pot to anyone 21 and up, have you seen anything to the contrary? It would sure be nice to have one of those eh?

 

[Lazyman]

Sorry one more question, you say you would elect to buy safe pot. How does 19 provide this? When I read the bill I don't recall seeing quality restrictions or inspections of grows, but I've smoked a few bowls since then.

 

[vta]

Question for you: I've read that all of the medical clubs will be able to openly sell pot to anyone 21 and up, have you seen anything to the contrary? It would sure be nice to have one of those eh?

I do see some current MMJ clubs 'converting' or opening up to commercial sales...go where the money is. Also competition to consider. But all of that would only happen if that particular city or county regulated it as such. but we all know some cities will go for it, Oakland, Berkley, etc... and when they do, it will be very cool to have that kind of access. The hash bars!

Sorry one more question, you say you would elect to buy safe pot. How does 19 provide this? When I read the bill I don't recall seeing quality restrictions or inspections of grows, but I've smoked a few bowls since then.

19 doesn't provide safe pot. I was referring to the regulation aspect. When the pot is growing commercially, there will be health codes and such...what pesticides are safe and what not. So...me being the consumer will have a choice, buy pot at a store from known reputable grower...or buy from Julio, who you know just raped 10 acres of the Sierra's and used raid and bug bombs.

 

[joe fresh]

i think the ONLY way to open the eyes of ppl who vote no is for them to get busted....i know it sucks....but

"the only way for a rich man to feel what a poor man feels is for him to loose what he has and be in the same position as a poor man, only then will he really know..."

they are greedy....IMO, if your growing weed to make money and are too GREEDY and SELFISH to pass this law, then you should sell cocaine instead....big money, will always be illegal, and huge profit margins.....hey wait, you no voters are no different than drug lords...actually you kind of remind me of the low lifes from new jack city......

....bunch of profiteers willing to put someone else in the gutter(jail...and bitching about prices.....) for your own profit.....

 

[WestCoast4Life]

Read the bill, read the debate article. It is a very simple thing to me. I like growing and smoking cannabis. This will be completely legal for me in the golden state. Would be nice.