Difference between "symbolic" and "real" measures/Initiative strategy

This sounds like an excellent study.

I recommend an open-ended question, such as, "in your view, what does the Libertarian Party stand for?" I think this would garner more useful responses.

Best, Michael

Starchild,

I love the bet you propose! However, my perception is carved in
granite for the moment, and I can see myself saying "Well, the
survery is wrong too."

BTW, am wondering if EBLP will share with the LP eventually the
results of the survey they recently did, which sounded very similar
to the one you propose.

Regarding Michael Edeslstein's suggested question, my perception
there is that around 60% of the answers would consist of "The WHAT
party?" .....We better get busy and do some tabling, bet or no bet.

Marcy

This sounds like an excellent study.

I recommend an open-ended question, such as, "in your view, what

does the Libertarian Party stand for?" I think this would garner more
useful responses.

Best, Michael

From: Starchild
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 6:37 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Difference between "symbolic"

and "real" measures/Initiative strategy

Marcy,

I am quite certain that your perception about us having an image in

San Francisco as the "sex and drugs" party is incorrect. However you
seem firmly convinced of it, and I am hard pressed to think of a
means of persuading you otherwise via our dialogue here.

Therefore I propose that you and I do an outreach table together at

a relatively neutral location (e.g. the Safeway you and Morey tabled
at a few weeks ago), and survey people who claim some familiarity
with the LP on whether they see us as more of a conservative-oriented
party, or more of a sex-and-drugs oriented party. I am willing to bet
you $50 (or any reasonable amount you choose) that more people will
have the former impression than the latter, with the loser of the bet
donating the money to the party and agreeing to seek an LPSF
initiative of the type favored by the other.

What do you say?

Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>

  Starchild,

  I will address your last point first: Perhaps an anti-tax

initiative

  is just what we need to balance out the image I perceive we

currently

  have as the sex and drugs party.

  Your comment about anti-tax measures appealing to the conservative
  wing of the LP is contradicted by, for example, your excellent

ballot

  arguments which noted that money going to point "X" would prevent

it

  from going to point "Z", and point "Z" might constitute a more
  socially beneficial target. In my opinion, how an position is

framed

  will determine to whom it appeals.

  In spite of your good arguments, I remain opposed to symbolic
  initiatives. Wasting taxpayers' money not only on paper and ink,

but

  also, in so many cases, on attorneys' fees to defend an untenable
  position is more than I can handle! I say, go for the jugular,

and

  change and enforce the law.

  We have voted to pursue the anti-tax initiative. And I am

personally

  committed to urge the Initiative Committee to frame our arguments

in

  a liberal-leaning, San Franciscan position.

  Marcy

  --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>

wrote:

  >
  > Marcy,
  >
  > Are you saying there is necessarily a vast difference

between

  the
  > practical effect had on real-world politics by symbolic "sense

of

  the
  > voters" measures, and measures which make actual changes to the
  law? Do
  > the former accomplish nothing, while the latter accomplish
  something?
  > To believe this, we would have to believe (a) that politicians

pay

  no
  > attention to the polls, and (b) that they can be relied upon to
  follow
  > the law!
  >
  > When voters pass a symbolic initiative, it is the

equivalent

  of taking
  > a reliable and highly publicized poll. We know that politicians
  care
  > about such things. Meanwhile, many compulsory laws currently on

the

  > books are simply ignored by those in power. So just because an
  > initiative actually changes the law does not mean that it will
  > necessarily make more difference than an initiative (read:

official

  > opinion poll) that does not. It all depends on the circumstances
  and
  > the nature of the initiatives.
  >
  > Of course if two measures are written exactly alike except
  that one is
  > statutorily binding while the other is just a resolution, the
  binding
  > measure can be expected to have more impact. However it may be

more

  > difficult to convince voters to make actual changes in the law

and

  thus
  > be more difficult to pass, it may require a higher threshold to
  pass
  > (as in the case of city charter amendments), and it may be open

to

  > legal challenges and reversals that a resolution would not. So
  there
  > are often good reasons to support resolutions.
  >
  > * * *
  >
  > Getting back to practical issues, my main point here is

not

  that we
  > should pursue an initiative in the form of a resolution --

alhough

  I
  > think a resolution against the "PATRIOT" Act would be a good
  choice. My
  > main point is that we should pursue an initiative that will

help us

  > make inroads with the left-leaning San Francisco majority. The

tax

  > measures currently under discussion will not do that. If we

want to

  get
  > a tax initiative or initiatives passed, I think we should submit
  our
  > ideas to the Taxpayers Union and let that group consider

whatever

  comes
  > out as "their" measure (which they'll be more likely to put more
  > resources and energy into passing than if it's seen as

primarily an

  > LPSF initiative), while playing more of a supporting role

ourselves.

  >
  > I don't know exactly what was discussed on Saturday

regarding

  > initiatives, but I am concerned that we are not pursuing a

clear or

  > well thought-out strategy. Consider for a moment, what

significant

  > publicity did the LPSF have this election season? The name of

our

  group
  > appeared on three ballot arguments, A, B and F. In each case, we
  made
  > economic liberty arguments that would appeal more to fiscal
  > conservatives. Our name also appeared in full-page ads taken

out by

  the
  > Taxpayers Union -- again associating us with fiscal

conservatism.

  > Economic liberty is an important part of our platform, but

should

  these
  > concerns be seen as our primary focus, especially in San

Francisco?

  I
  > say no. We need to do something to regain an appropriate

balance,

  not
  > pursue even more priorities on the same side of the fence.
  >
  > Yours in liberty,
  > <<< Starchild >>>
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > > Starchild,
  > >
  > > No, I would not want to see an initiative urging Supervisors

not

  to
  > > pass any more city taxes. However, I would love to support an
  > > initiative FORBIDDING them from passing any more City taxes.
  > > Symbolic initiatives such as the Gun Ban (which is now going

to

  cost
  > > us taxpayers good hard earned money to "defend" in court),

strike

  me
  > > as half baked attempts to accomplish objectives. If we don't

like

  > > drug prohibition or the PATRIOT Act, let's have an influence

on

  those
  > > that are directly responsible for these legislations, by
  identifying
  > > them and campaigning against their re-election to their

seats; or

  > > conversely, campaigning for those who oppose such legislation.
  > >
  > > Agreed, we are a local group, but as the Federal layer of
  government
  > > grows to have more and more influence in our lives, perhaps we
  should
  > > find ways to address that fact.
  > >
  > > Marcy
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild

<sfdreamer@e...>

  wrote:
  > > >
  > > > Marcy,
  > > >
  > > > Government at the federal level is driving the raids,

but

  not
  > > only is
  > > > the SFPD not standing in the way, they are actively

cooperating

  > > with
  > > > the Feds. Local measures like Denver's put pressure on local
  police
  > > by
  > > > letting them know that voters find such actions

unacceptable.

  > > >
  > > > To me, the merit or lack thereof of any symbolic
  initiative
  > > lies in
  > > > what it says. For example, I would love to see the city

pass a

  > > > resolution urging the Supervisors not to pass any new taxes,
  > > wouldn't
  > > > you?
  > > >
  > > > Yours in liberty,
  > > > <<< Starchild >>>
  > > >
  > > >
  > > >
  > > > > Personally, I am not in favor of symbolic initiatives (Gun
  Ban,
  > > > > College Not Combat, for example). In San Francisco we

have a

  law
  > > on
  > > > > the books that encourages the city police to leave

marijuana

  users
  > > > > alone; narrow perspective, but the law accomplishes a

specific

  > > > > objective. It is my understanding (please correct me if I

am

  > > > > mistaken) that it is government at the federal level that

is

  > > raiding
  > > > > clinics, etc. If we can find a way to encourage drug
  > > > > decriminalization at the federal level, I would support

such

  an
  > > > > endeavor.
  > > > >
  > > > > Marcy
  > > > >
  > > > >
  > > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Michael R.
  Edelstein"
  > > > > <dredelstein@t...> wrote:
  > > > > >
  > > > > > Suggested initiative for LPSF for 2006.
  > > > > > ---------------------------------------
  > > > > >
  > > > > > Denver Votes to End Marijuana Use and

Possession

  > > Penalties
  > > > > >
  > > > > > On November 1, Denver became the second major city in

less

  than
  > > a
  > > > > > year to eliminate all civil and criminal penalties for

the

  > > > > possession
  > > > > > of up to one ounce of marijuana by citizens age 21 and
  older.
  > > > > >
  > > > > > Fully 54 percent of voters passed "I-100: The Alcohol-
  Marijuana
  > > > > > Equalization Initiative." This initiative, led by the
  > > organization
  > > > > > SAFER (Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation),

argued

  that
  > > > > local
  > > > > > laws should treat the private adult use and possession

of

  > > marijuana
  > > > > > in a manner similar to alcohol, and that its use by

adults

  > > should
  > > > > not
  > > > > > be subject to criminal penalties.
  > > > > > ############################################
  > > > > >
  > > > >
  > > > >
  > > > >
  > > > >
  > > > >
  > > > >
  > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
  > > > <image.tiff>
  > > > >
  > > > >
  > > > <image.tiff>
  > > > >
  > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
  > > > >
  > > > > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
  > > > >
  > > > > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  > > > > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  > > > >
  > > > > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
  Terms of
  > > Service.
  > > > >
  > > > >
  > > > <image.tiff>
  > > > >
  > > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > <image.tiff>
  > >
  > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
  > >
  > > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
  > >
  > > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  > > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  > >
  > > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!

Terms of

  Service.
  > >
  > >
  > <image.tiff>
  > >
  >

<image.tiff>

  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
   
  + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
  + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

I suspect you're right regarding the question Michael Edelstein proposed, which is why I suggested including only those with some familiarity with us in the survey, in order not to waste time with all the people who would not be able to give any meaningful feedback on the question of whether we're perceived as more conservative-leaning or more sex-and-drugs. On the other hand, Michael is right that it would still be useful (and interesting) to hear the full range of responses, even those of the totally uninformed (a set which probably overlaps significantly with the set of people who don't ever vote).

  As far as the EBLP's survey, I don't remember what questions were on it. I think the results were publicized, but I could be wrong -- maybe Terry Floyd or Richard Newell can provide further info. But if your mind is already made up regardless of what any survey can tell us, then does it even matter? What evidence *would* convince you?

      * * *

  On another subject, it's not tabling, but we do have an important outreach opportunity tomorrow afternoon. The Board of Supervisors will be considering not only the contentious and important medical marijuana regulation issue which is coming to a head and sure to draw a large crowd, but there are also proposals up for discussion which would raise the fine for failing to obtain a dog license and impose other fees and additional regulations on certain breeds such as pit bulls (we have my not-so-super-visor Bevan Dufty to thank for these).

  Anyway, it's an excellent opportunity to get some of our ideas, and the Libertarian Party name, on television. I've had numerous people say they saw me on TV at one of these meetings, and I haven't even spoken at that many. The meeting starts at 2:00 p.m., but they probably won't make much headway into the marijuana issue before 2:30 or so. See <http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/bosagendas/a111505.htm> for the agenda.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

The typical response I get when I ask people if they are familiar with the Libertarian Party is: "It's that party all about smaller government, isn't it?". Most also associate it with conservatism.

-- Steve

Starchild,

I modified my carved in granite stance about how I perceive our
party, so I will see what I can do to participate in the survey the
EBLP is conducting.

We really should participate more in Board of Sups meetings, etc, as
you have been doing. Regarding Board of Sups meeting of 11/15, I
can't handle two LPSF things in the same day.

Marcy

  I suspect you're right regarding the question Michael

Edelstein

proposed, which is why I suggested including only those with some
familiarity with us in the survey, in order not to waste time with

all

the people who would not be able to give any meaningful feedback on

the

question of whether we're perceived as more conservative-leaning

or

more sex-and-drugs. On the other hand, Michael is right that it

would

still be useful (and interesting) to hear the full range of

responses,

even those of the totally uninformed (a set which probably

overlaps

significantly with the set of people who don't ever vote).

  As far as the EBLP's survey, I don't remember what questions

were on

it. I think the results were publicized, but I could be wrong --

maybe

Terry Floyd or Richard Newell can provide further info. But if

your

mind is already made up regardless of what any survey can tell us,

then

does it even matter? What evidence *would* convince you?

      * * *

  On another subject, it's not tabling, but we do have an

important

outreach opportunity tomorrow afternoon. The Board of Supervisors

will

be considering not only the contentious and important medical

marijuana

regulation issue which is coming to a head and sure to draw a

large

crowd, but there are also proposals up for discussion which would

raise

the fine for failing to obtain a dog license and impose other fees

and

additional regulations on certain breeds such as pit bulls (we have

my

not-so-super-visor Bevan Dufty to thank for these).

  Anyway, it's an excellent opportunity to get some of our

ideas, and

the Libertarian Party name, on television. I've had numerous people

say

they saw me on TV at one of these meetings, and I haven't even

spoken

at that many. The meeting starts at 2:00 p.m., but they probably

won't

make much headway into the marijuana issue before 2:30 or so. See
<http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/bosagendas/
a111505.htm> for the agenda.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

> Starchild,
>
> I love the bet you propose! However, my perception is carved in
> granite for the moment, and I can see myself saying "Well, the
> survery is wrong too."
>
> BTW, am wondering if EBLP will share with the LP eventually the
> results of the survey they recently did, which sounded very

similar

> to the one you propose.
>
> Regarding Michael Edeslstein's suggested question, my perception
> there is that around 60% of the answers would consist of "The WHAT
> party?" .....We better get busy and do some tabling, bet or no

bet.

>
> Marcy
>
> >
> > This sounds like an excellent study.
> >
> > I recommend an open-ended question, such as, "in your view, what
> does the Libertarian Party stand for?" I think this would garner

more

> useful responses.
> >
> > Best, Michael
> >
> > From: Starchild
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 6:37 PM
> > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Difference between "symbolic"
> and "real" measures/Initiative strategy
> >
> >
> > Marcy,
> >
> > I am quite certain that your perception about us having an

image in

> San Francisco as the "sex and drugs" party is incorrect. However

you

> seem firmly convinced of it, and I am hard pressed to think of a
> means of persuading you otherwise via our dialogue here.
> >
> > Therefore I propose that you and I do an outreach table

together at

> a relatively neutral location (e.g. the Safeway you and Morey

tabled

> at a few weeks ago), and survey people who claim some familiarity
> with the LP on whether they see us as more of a conservative-

oriented

> party, or more of a sex-and-drugs oriented party. I am willing to

bet

> you $50 (or any reasonable amount you choose) that more people

will

> have the former impression than the latter, with the loser of the

bet

I've been presently surprised when I ask the uninitiated about the LP. As Steve indicates, they are often much closer to the mark than "the sex and drugs party" or "what's the librarian party?"

Best, Michael

As requested, here is the result of our October survey along with the
analysis of the responses. We will likely be discussing this
extensively at our meeting tomorrow night in Oakland.

Guy wrote:

The initial analysis of the EBLP Branding Benchmark Survey is ready, and
attached. I have also posted a copy to the "files" section of the Yahoo
group. I suspect this needs to be the top agenda item at either the
next success group meeting, or regular business meeting.

And, lest I forget, great thanks to Nick, Richard, and Terry for an
incredible effort to get as many survey results as possible.

One note - the results are interesting enough that a larger scale survey
should be performed in the future. If volunteers are in short supply,
it might well be worth paying survey takers if we believe it gives us an
edge in elections or success.

Dear Terry,

I would love to see the survey results you mention in your e-mail.
Thank you for posting them. However, I cannot access the attachment,
probably because I am set to receive lpsf-discuss e-mails in "Digest"
form.

Regards,

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Terry Floyd" <tlfloyd3@c...>
wrote:

As requested, here is the result of our October survey along with

the

analysis of the responses. We will likely be discussing this
extensively at our meeting tomorrow night in Oakland.

Guy wrote:

The initial analysis of the EBLP Branding Benchmark Survey is

ready, and

attached. I have also posted a copy to the "files" section of the

Yahoo

group. I suspect this needs to be the top agenda item at either the
next success group meeting, or regular business meeting.

And, lest I forget, great thanks to Nick, Richard, and Terry for an
incredible effort to get as many survey results as possible.

One note - the results are interesting enough that a larger scale

survey

should be performed in the future. If volunteers are in short

supply,

it might well be worth paying survey takers if we believe it gives

us an

edge in elections or success.

  _____

Guy Smith
510-521-4477 (T)
510-217-9693 (F)
guy@S...
IM: AIM,siliconstrat

Silicon Strategies Marketing
630 Taylor Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
www.SiliconStrat.com
<http://www.siliconstrat.com/?camp=email&source=sig> (web)
siliconstrat.blogspot.com <http://siliconstrat.blogspot.com/>

(blog)

From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-

discuss@yahoogroups.com]

On Behalf Of Amarcy D. Berry
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 8:49 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Difference between "symbolic" and "real"
measures/Initiative strategy

Starchild,

I love the bet you propose! However, my perception is carved in
granite for the moment, and I can see myself saying "Well, the
survery is wrong too."

BTW, am wondering if EBLP will share with the LP eventually the
results of the survey they recently did, which sounded very similar
to the one you propose.

Regarding Michael Edeslstein's suggested question, my perception
there is that around 60% of the answers would consist of "The WHAT
party?" .....We better get busy and do some tabling, bet or no bet.

Marcy

>
> This sounds like an excellent study.
>
> I recommend an open-ended question, such as, "in your view, what
does the Libertarian Party stand for?" I think this would garner

more

useful responses.
>
> Best, Michael
>
> From: Starchild
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 6:37 PM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Difference between "symbolic"
and "real" measures/Initiative strategy
>
>
> Marcy,
>
> I am quite certain that your perception about us having an image

in

San Francisco as the "sex and drugs" party is incorrect. However

you

seem firmly convinced of it, and I am hard pressed to think of a
means of persuading you otherwise via our dialogue here.
>
> Therefore I propose that you and I do an outreach table together

at

a relatively neutral location (e.g. the Safeway you and Morey

tabled

at a few weeks ago), and survey people who claim some familiarity
with the LP on whether they see us as more of a conservative-

oriented

party, or more of a sex-and-drugs oriented party. I am willing to

bet

you $50 (or any reasonable amount you choose) that more people will
have the former impression than the latter, with the loser of the

bet

donating the money to the party and agreeing to seek an LPSF
initiative of the type favored by the other.
>
> What do you say?
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< Starchild >>>
>
>
>
>
> Starchild,
>
> I will address your last point first: Perhaps an anti-tax
initiative
> is just what we need to balance out the image I perceive we
currently
> have as the sex and drugs party.
>
> Your comment about anti-tax measures appealing to the

conservative

> wing of the LP is contradicted by, for example, your excellent
ballot
> arguments which noted that money going to point "X" would

prevent

it
> from going to point "Z", and point "Z" might constitute a more
> socially beneficial target. In my opinion, how an position is
framed
> will determine to whom it appeals.
>
> In spite of your good arguments, I remain opposed to symbolic
> initiatives. Wasting taxpayers' money not only on paper and

ink,

but
> also, in so many cases, on attorneys' fees to defend an

untenable

> position is more than I can handle! I say, go for the jugular,
and
> change and enforce the law.
>
> We have voted to pursue the anti-tax initiative. And I am
personally
> committed to urge the Initiative Committee to frame our

arguments

in
> a liberal-leaning, San Franciscan position.
>
> Marcy
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
wrote:
> >
> > Marcy,
> >
> > Are you saying there is necessarily a vast difference
between
> the
> > practical effect had on real-world politics by

symbolic "sense

of
> the
> > voters" measures, and measures which make actual changes to

the

> law? Do
> > the former accomplish nothing, while the latter accomplish
> something?
> > To believe this, we would have to believe (a) that

politicians

pay
> no
> > attention to the polls, and (b) that they can be relied upon

to

> follow
> > the law!
> >
> > When voters pass a symbolic initiative, it is the
equivalent
> of taking
> > a reliable and highly publicized poll. We know that

politicians

> care
> > about such things. Meanwhile, many compulsory laws currently

on

the
> > books are simply ignored by those in power. So just because an
> > initiative actually changes the law does not mean that it will
> > necessarily make more difference than an initiative (read:
official
> > opinion poll) that does not. It all depends on the

circumstances

> and
> > the nature of the initiatives.
> >
> > Of course if two measures are written exactly alike

except

> that one is
> > statutorily binding while the other is just a resolution, the
> binding
> > measure can be expected to have more impact. However it may

be

more
> > difficult to convince voters to make actual changes in the

law

and
> thus
> > be more difficult to pass, it may require a higher threshold

to

> pass
> > (as in the case of city charter amendments), and it may be

open

to
> > legal challenges and reversals that a resolution would not. So
> there
> > are often good reasons to support resolutions.
> >
> > * * *
> >
> > Getting back to practical issues, my main point here is
not
> that we
> > should pursue an initiative in the form of a resolution --
alhough
> I
> > think a resolution against the "PATRIOT" Act would be a good
> choice. My
> > main point is that we should pursue an initiative that will
help us
> > make inroads with the left-leaning San Francisco majority.

The

tax
> > measures currently under discussion will not do that. If we
want to
> get
> > a tax initiative or initiatives passed, I think we should

submit

> our
> > ideas to the Taxpayers Union and let that group consider
whatever
> comes
> > out as "their" measure (which they'll be more likely to put

more

> > resources and energy into passing than if it's seen as
primarily an
> > LPSF initiative), while playing more of a supporting role
ourselves.
> >
> > I don't know exactly what was discussed on Saturday
regarding
> > initiatives, but I am concerned that we are not pursuing a
clear or
> > well thought-out strategy. Consider for a moment, what
significant
> > publicity did the LPSF have this election season? The name of
our
> group
> > appeared on three ballot arguments, A, B and F. In each case,

we

> made
> > economic liberty arguments that would appeal more to fiscal
> > conservatives. Our name also appeared in full-page ads taken
out by
> the
> > Taxpayers Union -- again associating us with fiscal
conservatism.
> > Economic liberty is an important part of our platform, but
should
> these
> > concerns be seen as our primary focus, especially in San
Francisco?
> I
> > say no. We need to do something to regain an appropriate
balance,
> not
> > pursue even more priorities on the same side of the fence.
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > <<< Starchild >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Starchild,
> > >
> > > No, I would not want to see an initiative urging

Supervisors

not
> to
> > > pass any more city taxes. However, I would love to support

an

> > > initiative FORBIDDING them from passing any more City

taxes.

> > > Symbolic initiatives such as the Gun Ban (which is now

going

to
> cost
> > > us taxpayers good hard earned money to "defend" in court),
strike
> me
> > > as half baked attempts to accomplish objectives. If we

don't

like
> > > drug prohibition or the PATRIOT Act, let's have an

influence

on
> those
> > > that are directly responsible for these legislations, by
> identifying
> > > them and campaigning against their re-election to their
seats; or
> > > conversely, campaigning for those who oppose such

legislation.

> > >
> > > Agreed, we are a local group, but as the Federal layer of
> government
> > > grows to have more and more influence in our lives, perhaps

we

> should
> > > find ways to address that fact.
> > >
> > > Marcy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild
<sfdreamer@e...>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marcy,
> > > >
> > > > Government at the federal level is driving the

raids,

but
> not
> > > only is
> > > > the SFPD not standing in the way, they are actively
cooperating
> > > with
> > > > the Feds. Local measures like Denver's put pressure on

local

> police
> > > by
> > > > letting them know that voters find such actions
unacceptable.
> > > >
> > > > To me, the merit or lack thereof of any symbolic
> initiative
> > > lies in
> > > > what it says. For example, I would love to see the city
pass a
> > > > resolution urging the Supervisors not to pass any new

taxes,

> > > wouldn't
> > > > you?
> > > >
> > > > Yours in liberty,
> > > > <<< Starchild >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Personally, I am not in favor of symbolic initiatives

(Gun

> Ban,
> > > > > College Not Combat, for example). In San Francisco we
have a
> law
> > > on
> > > > > the books that encourages the city police to leave
marijuana
> users
> > > > > alone; narrow perspective, but the law accomplishes a
specific
> > > > > objective. It is my understanding (please correct me if

I

am
> > > > > mistaken) that it is government at the federal level

that

is
> > > raiding
> > > > > clinics, etc. If we can find a way to encourage drug
> > > > > decriminalization at the federal level, I would support
such
> an
> > > > > endeavor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marcy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Michael R.
> Edelstein"
> > > > > <dredelstein@t...> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suggested initiative for LPSF for 2006.
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denver Votes to End Marijuana Use and
Possession
> > > Penalties
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On November 1, Denver became the second major city in
less
> than
> > > a
> > > > > > year to eliminate all civil and criminal penalties

for

the
> > > > > possession
> > > > > > of up to one ounce of marijuana by citizens age 21 and
> older.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fully 54 percent of voters passed "I-100: The Alcohol-
> Marijuana
> > > > > > Equalization Initiative." This initiative, led by the
> > > organization
> > > > > > SAFER (Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation),
argued
> that
> > > > > local
> > > > > > laws should treat the private adult use and

possession

of
> > > marijuana
> > > > > > in a manner similar to alcohol, and that its use by
adults
> > > should
> > > > > not
> > > > > > be subject to criminal penalties.
> > > > > > ############################################
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > <image.tiff>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > <image.tiff>
> > > > >
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email

to:

> > > > > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@...m
> > > > >
> > > > > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the

Yahoo!

> Terms of
> > > Service.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > <image.tiff>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > <image.tiff>
> > >
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> > >
> > > + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of
> Service.
> > >
> > >
> > <image.tiff>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <image.tiff>
>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> <image.tiff>
>

  _____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

* Visit your group "lpsf-discuss
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss> " on the web.
  
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?

subject=Unsubscribe>