ADVERTISEMENT

LuciousBDragon

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Aug 31, 2017
9,982
14,465
113
The American Southwest
So here in the sunny state of AZ, recreational marijuana is on the ballot. The state has mailed out its voter guides which include a section on this ballot proposition. They are required to provide equal space in the guide for both pro and con arguments. I noticed for Prop 207, there were about 4 pages worth of pro arguments and there were about 16 pages of con arguments. Further, the con arguments were written by people with titles in their name like Doctor, Sheriff, PhD, Former Governor, MD, President State Board of Education, President Boys & Girls Club, County Attorney, State Senator, Addiction Psychiatrist, Registered Pharmacist, Superintendent, Executive Director National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association, Licensed MFT/LEP, President - Center for Public Policy, MA Mental Health & Substance Abuse Counselor, Forensic Scientist, Retired Director of Dept. of Public Safety. And so on, so forth.

Contrast that with the title's of the people who wrote the pro arguments like Director Dispensaries Association, Chair - Attorneys for Criminal Justice, CEO - Harvest & Health Recreation, and CEO - Giving Tree Dispensary, and also former Governor.

Knowing they would have made room for more pro-arguments, I was wondering what might account for the 4-to-1 ratio of con vs pro arguments? When similar initiatives were on the ballot in other states, what was witnessed in the public record? Are potheads too lazy to write a paragraph in support of their own self-interest?
 
The liquor distributors are very politically connected and motivated. Doesn’t McCain’s widow own one?
 
So here in the sunny state of AZ, recreational marijuana is on the ballot. The state has mailed out its voter guides which include a section on this ballot proposition. They are required to provide equal space in the guide for both pro and con arguments. I noticed for Prop 207, there were about 4 pages worth of pro arguments and there were about 16 pages of con arguments. Further, the con arguments were written by people with titles in their name like Doctor, Sheriff, PhD, Former Governor, MD, President State Board of Education, President Boys & Girls Club, County Attorney, State Senator, Addiction Psychiatrist, Registered Pharmacist, Superintendent, Executive Director National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association, Licensed MFT/LEP, President - Center for Public Policy, MA Mental Health & Substance Abuse Counselor, Forensic Scientist, Retired Director of Dept. of Public Safety. And so on, so forth.

Contrast that with the title's of the people who wrote the pro arguments like Director Dispensaries Association, Chair - Attorneys for Criminal Justice, CEO - Harvest & Health Recreation, and CEO - Giving Tree Dispensary, and also former Governor.

Knowing they would have made room for more pro-arguments, I was wondering what might account for the 4-to-1 ratio of con vs pro arguments? When similar initiatives were on the ballot in other states, what was witnessed in the public record? Are potheads too lazy to write a paragraph in support of their own self-interest?
People who have seen the impact in Ca and Wa. Gateway drug that leads to mental illness, homelessness, harder drug use.
 
ADVERTISEMENT