* Forwarded (from: NETMAIL) by L P using timEd 1.10.
* Originally from Alex Vasauskas (1:17/75) to carl@commonlink.net.
* Original dated: Mon Nov 10, 08:32
Hello Carl:
I had to respond to the last message you sent forwarding an
evaluation of the Washington and Oregon elections.  You may
publish it as you see fit.
carl@commonlink.net wrote in a message to Alex Vasauskas:
 cc> Polar da Bear  wrote:
> Subject: (fwd) I-685 gets trounced - evaluation
> Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
> Mark Greer  wrote:
> 
> It appears I-685 has lost by a 20 point margin.
> 
> I get Primestar and was able to monitor the Portland poll results which
> also announce on Washington. In my view this loss can be chalked up to a
> very simple cause (considering the limited amount I was able to monitor
> coverage). We blew it on marketing and media activism. The news (KOIN TV)
> all night long referred to I-685 as "The Drug Legalization Initiative."
> Every mention described it as "legalizing" (geez I hate that word) not only
> MJ but heroin, LSD, and other drugs. Little or no mention of the fact that
> this would be made to relieve pain or require a doctors approval.
> 
> Prop 51 the "right to die" initiative, OTOH not only won but won in a
> landslide. Why? The media covered it from a balanced perspective. Dr.
> Kavorkians attorney an ACE spokesperson was on TV all night debating an
> inept opponent and making a fool out of him. If this was any indication of
> how the pre election coverage went, loosing badly on I-685 was a foregone
> conclusion (and Prop 51 winning was a slam dunk). Think about it. The
> public has said that  It's ok to give a suffering person a lethal dose of
> drugs to kill them (prop 51) but not to relieve their pain (prop I-685).
> The only possible reason for such a dichotomy must be in presentation of
> the product to the public.
> 
> I would like to hear some of the media strategies that I-685 backers
> engaged in because we better learn from our mistakes or our great grand
> kids will be fighting to end this war. If this was a repeat of the "stealth
> strategy" used in CA and AZ the jig is up and it no longer works. This
> wasn't a loss it was an embarassment. 
> 
> Being right is not enough. The public must be SOLD on the benefits of
> passage and the media must be convinced to at least engage in balanced
> coverage. 
 cc> There is another reason why the medical marijuana initiative
 cc> failed.  It has nothing to do with the political climate in
 cc> Washington State, where the majority of people support the
 cc> legalization of marijuana for medical use.
 cc> The initiative, as well as the gay rights initiative, the health
 cc> insurance reform initiative, and the dental care reform initiative,
 cc> all failed even though they are the type of progressive legislation
 cc> that is normally supported in Washington, because of the presence
 cc> of another initiative, 676 on the ballot.  676 was an extensive
 cc> handgun control initiative; the National Rifle Association and
 cc> other groups of it's ilk poured millions of dollars into the state
 cc> to defeat the initiative and organized pro-gun voters like you
 cc> wouldn't believe.  The result was the descent of large numbers of
 cc> right-wing gun nuts and other reactionaries on the polls on
 cc> election day, the sort who would normally sit out off-year
 cc> elections like this one.  At the same time, the more progressive
 cc> voters who would have supported an initiative like this voted as
 cc> normal (the usual 20-40% of mainstream and progressive voters
 cc> voted, as opposed to the upwards of 90% of reactionaries who voted
 cc> due to the gun control initiative being on the ballot).  Other
 cc> voters, beguiled by the "No on 676" signs that sprouted like weeds
 cc> all across the state, went into the polling places with "no" on
 cc> their minds, and voted no on everything this year.  The result was,
 cc> even though the gun control initiative was supported 2 to 1 by
 cc> Washington residents, among those who actually took the time to
 cc> vote it failed by a miserable 29%-71%; the lesson here should be
 cc> clear for progressives and liberals:  VOTE!  Do NOT EVER sit an
 cc> election out.  With this in mind, it is a refreshing surprise that
 cc> the marijuana medicalization initiative and the gay rights
 cc> initiative did as well as they did (roughly 40%-60% on both); this
 cc> can probably be attributed to Libertarian-oriented voters and to
 cc> the minority of honorable conservatives who oppose gun control but
 cc> are enlightened on social issues like drug use and gay rights. 
 cc> The best way to get medical marijuana legalized is simply to refile
 cc> the initiative next year, and to try and work with the gun control
 cc> groups to make sure they, or somebody else, don't put an initiative
 cc> on the ballot that will mobilize the reactionary right wing.  Also,
 cc> I would recommend when it is refiled that 3 changes be made: 1. 
 cc> limit it to soft drugs like marijuana, peyote and psilocybin,
 cc> instead of an all-inclusive initiative which would have legalized
 cc> heroin and crack cocaine; this fact gave the opponents grounds to
 cc> attack the initiative this year, 2. leave out the part that
 cc> increases sentences for violent drug offenders; this part of the
 cc> initiative was the reason why civil liberties groups like the ACLU
 cc> and several progressive publications refused to endorse this
 cc> initiative, and 3.  include a section allowing for the legal
 cc> cultivation, at home, of marijuana and the other two soft drugs by
 cc> those who need it, like the California legislation did; as it stood
 cc> right now, the Washington initiative allowed the legal use of drugs
 cc> for medical reasons but did not specify how they were to obtain it,
 cc> leaving them having to go to illegal drug dealers for their source.
 cc> Allowing growing at home legally would provide a legal and safe
 cc> source and would cut back on gang/pusher activity and the like.
 cc> In my view, the reason Prop 51 in Oregon did not pass was because
 cc> doctor-assisted suicide is supported by a majority of Oregonians;
 cc> had that initiative been on the Washington ballot this year
 cc> however, it probably would have passed and dr. assisted suicide
 cc> repealed, simply because of the reactionary nuts that descended on
 cc> the polls this year.  Washington and Oregon are both very similar
 cc> in political makeup (strong progressive element, strong
 cc> green/environmentalist contingent, strong libertarian contingent)
 cc> yet put an initiative like 676 on the ballot and anything
 cc> progressive on the same ballot is doomed.  The gun nuts are too
 cc> well organized even though they are in the minority.
 cc> You may forward this advice to any hemp-related lists and activist
 cc> groups if you like.
 cc> Hemp for Victory!
 cc> Polar
Maybe it is the kind of insulting, divisive attitude expressed in this
letter that helps people to vote against each other's issues.  It also
demonstrates a myopic perspective by suggesting that working with gun-
control groups rather than gun-rights groups is a key toward success.
As you know, I support complete marijuana legalization.  In fact, I
support an end to the entirety of Prohibition II for all drugs.
But, I also believe that private gun ownership and the Second Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution are essential to maintaining all of our
freedoms -- including what should be our freedom to exercise our adult 
prerogatives to do with our bodies and our lives as we deem fit as long
as we do not take away from someone without their voluntary consent
anything that belongs to them, or things that belong to everyone (e.g.
commonly owned resources such as clean air, unpolluted water, renewable
resources, etc.).  So, you might say I am a gun nut.
Although the writer does respectfully concede that there might be those
who would vote as I would on the issues in Washington:
 cc> ...  With this in mind, it is a refreshing surprise that
 cc> the marijuana medicalization initiative and the gay rights
 cc> initiative did as well as they did (roughly 40%-60% on both); this
 cc> can probably be attributed to Libertarian-oriented voters and to
 cc> the minority of honorable conservatives who oppose gun control but
 cc> are enlightened on social issues like drug use and gay rights. 
his disparagement of politically active gun owners is not conducive to
maintaining or winning their cooperation or support, which it is
evident (and I am very pleased to see) can be very important.
I support the NRA because of its influence relative to maintaining
gun rights.  I do so reluctantly because of its otherwise generally
neo-conservative bent and involvement in political issues other than
gun rights.
I support the ACLU because of its influence relative to maintaining
civil rights and civil liberties.  I do so reluctantly because it is
evident that they have been influenced by a neo-liberal attitude into
not defending ALL civil rights and civil liberties -- particularly
gun ownership rights.
I am sure that the "gun nuts" would be willing to listen to self-
described progressives and liberals on these issues if these neo-
liberals were willing to offer to give up gun control in exchange
for ending an exhorbitant, destructive, crime-producing, and
big-government- and big-law-enforcement-generating Prohibition II.
However, as long as the neo-liberals disrespect and insult those who
appreciate the continuing importance of the Second Amendment
and/or enjoy private gun ownership, the neo-liberals are likely to
receive the response of hardened hearts rather than open minds and
intelligent cooperation toward everyone obtaining the freedom to have
and exercise the adult prerogatives we all should have -- and not only
the rights those who agree with us would grant -- whether we choose to
exercise them or not.
Bests,
Alex
--- 
---------------