Oh, good grief! Let's just get this over with and have a live debate -- with copies of ALL the FINAL versions of ALL the initiatives for the audience members. And if we do that, then afterwards I'll GO to Canada and debate David there!
I am sick and tired of trying to respond to all David's convoluted crap. Hhe usually opens with something that's true, and then segues into something that's not true, but which then takes a lengthy explanation on my part to explain why the true thing -- and the untrue thing -- are not logically related.
So, "When a undercover Californian police officer gets busted in a drug sting by the DEA in his or her capacity as a undercover agent, they are immune from Federal drug laws.," is true -- but that does NOT make anything else he said true.
For example, this bit isn't true: "The HROs were an honest attemp by longtime pot activists." In e-mails copied to the RMLW team -- and not contradicted by them, the GlobalMarijuana Relegalization Yahoo discussion group was told that the HRO section was supposedly drafted by ONE person! That ONE person was a Libertarian who says he advises the party on statutory interpretation -- and who is NOT an attorney and who did NOT run his HRO provision by his party as a whole first -- or ever. I think his name was something like Michael Sebeck but I can't remember -- that was back in April or May.
Am I going to go into that now? NO! I have a life outside these discussions; that's why I've asked some of the rest of you RCP folks to respond to him for a change.