The Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative

Suggested initiative for LPSF for 2006.

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

Dear Amarcy;

You are correct. Until Congress re-writes the Drug War law AND cuts the funding which is handed out to local law enforcement for being " tough on drugs" local initiatives are purely symbolic. The symbolism would no longer be there if all major cities across the US passed such laws. Then Congress would have to face the facts on personal drug use use vs. dealers and growers.

The best thing would be to completely repeal all War on Drug laws.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...> wrote:
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
U s government grant Libertarian party U s government student loan California politics

Dear Ron,

You say that "The symbolism [of local initiatives] would no longer be
there if all major cities across the US passed such laws. Then
Congress would have to face the facts on personal drug use use vs.
dealers and growers." According to NORML, 11 (out of 50) states
have "decriminalization" laws; however, the description of
decriminalization as no arrest or criminal record for first time
offenders carrying a small amount of marijuana for personal use in
itself seems symbolic to me. Thus no matter how many cities passed
such laws, the War on Drugs would probably remain intact.

Personally, it is the huge amount of resources being applied to the
War on Drugs that bothers me. So, I would rather work on removing
the funding of the War (yes, both wars) by supporting anti-tax
legislators and legislation.

Marcy

Dear Amarcy;

You are correct. Until Congress re-writes the Drug War law AND cuts

the funding which is handed out to local law enforcement for being "
tough on drugs" local initiatives are purely symbolic. The symbolism
would no longer be there if all major cities across the US passed
such laws. Then Congress would have to face the facts on personal
drug use use vs. dealers and growers.

The best thing would be to completely repeal all War on Drug laws.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@h...> wrote:
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
U s government grant Libertarian party U s government student loan

California politics

---------------------------------
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.

Dear Amarcy;

I'll drink to that.

How about starting locally and putting a ballot inititiative on the San Francisco ballot to Ban All San Francisco City Taxes??? As the saying goes first you learn to crawl then walk then run.

So a first small baby step would be this SF City Tax Ban... Okay???

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...> wrote:
Dear Ron,

You say that "The symbolism [of local initiatives] would no longer be
there if all major cities across the US passed such laws. Then
Congress would have to face the facts on personal drug use use vs.
dealers and growers." According to NORML, 11 (out of 50) states
have "decriminalization" laws; however, the description of
decriminalization as no arrest or criminal record for first time
offenders carrying a small amount of marijuana for personal use in
itself seems symbolic to me. Thus no matter how many cities passed
such laws, the War on Drugs would probably remain intact.

Personally, it is the huge amount of resources being applied to the
War on Drugs that bothers me. So, I would rather work on removing
the funding of the War (yes, both wars) by supporting anti-tax
legislators and legislation.

Marcy

Dear Amarcy;

You are correct. Until Congress re-writes the Drug War law AND cuts

the funding which is handed out to local law enforcement for being "
tough on drugs" local initiatives are purely symbolic. The symbolism
would no longer be there if all major cities across the US passed
such laws. Then Congress would have to face the facts on personal
drug use use vs. dealers and growers.

The best thing would be to completely repeal all War on Drug laws.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@h...> wrote:
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
U s government grant Libertarian party U s government student loan

California politics

---------------------------------
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.

---------------------------------

SPONSORED LINKS
U s government grant Libertarian party U s government student loan California politics

Repeal the City Tax, with savings coming from abandoning the
enforcement of "drug laws," curtailing Supervisor's expenses (i.e.
review what perks they get), ending City-sponsored receptions (if
anybody wants to host a visitor or an event, fine; otherwise
nothing). The list is endless.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@y...>
wrote:

Dear Amarcy;

I'll drink to that.

How about starting locally and putting a ballot inititiative on the

San Francisco ballot to Ban All San Francisco City Taxes??? As the
saying goes first you learn to crawl then walk then run.

So a first small baby step would be this SF City Tax Ban...

Okay???

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@h...> wrote:
Dear Ron,

You say that "The symbolism [of local initiatives] would no longer

be

there if all major cities across the US passed such laws. Then
Congress would have to face the facts on personal drug use use vs.
dealers and growers." According to NORML, 11 (out of 50) states
have "decriminalization" laws; however, the description of
decriminalization as no arrest or criminal record for first time
offenders carrying a small amount of marijuana for personal use in
itself seems symbolic to me. Thus no matter how many cities passed
such laws, the War on Drugs would probably remain intact.

Personally, it is the huge amount of resources being applied to the
War on Drugs that bothers me. So, I would rather work on removing
the funding of the War (yes, both wars) by supporting anti-tax
legislators and legislation.

Marcy

> Dear Amarcy;
>
> You are correct. Until Congress re-writes the Drug War law AND

cuts

the funding which is handed out to local law enforcement for

being "

tough on drugs" local initiatives are purely symbolic. The

symbolism

would no longer be there if all major cities across the US passed
such laws. Then Congress would have to face the facts on personal
drug use use vs. dealers and growers.
>
> The best thing would be to completely repeal all War on Drug laws.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@h...> wrote:
> 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
> U s government grant Libertarian party U s government student

loan

California politics
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>

SPONSORED LINKS
U s government grant Libertarian party U s government student loan

California politics

---------------------------------
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.

Dear Amarcy;

Better yet if any City department wants to continue in existence then they have to keep their doors open strictly based on income solely from user fees.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...> wrote:
Repeal the City Tax, with savings coming from abandoning the
enforcement of "drug laws," curtailing Supervisor's expenses (i.e.
review what perks they get), ending City-sponsored receptions (if
anybody wants to host a visitor or an event, fine; otherwise
nothing). The list is endless.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@y...>
wrote:

Dear Amarcy;

I'll drink to that.

How about starting locally and putting a ballot inititiative on the

San Francisco ballot to Ban All San Francisco City Taxes??? As the
saying goes first you learn to crawl then walk then run.

So a first small baby step would be this SF City Tax Ban...

Okay???

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@h...> wrote:
Dear Ron,

You say that "The symbolism [of local initiatives] would no longer

be

there if all major cities across the US passed such laws. Then
Congress would have to face the facts on personal drug use use vs.
dealers and growers." According to NORML, 11 (out of 50) states
have "decriminalization" laws; however, the description of
decriminalization as no arrest or criminal record for first time
offenders carrying a small amount of marijuana for personal use in
itself seems symbolic to me. Thus no matter how many cities passed
such laws, the War on Drugs would probably remain intact.

Personally, it is the huge amount of resources being applied to the
War on Drugs that bothers me. So, I would rather work on removing
the funding of the War (yes, both wars) by supporting anti-tax
legislators and legislation.

Marcy

> Dear Amarcy;
>
> You are correct. Until Congress re-writes the Drug War law AND

cuts

the funding which is handed out to local law enforcement for

being "

tough on drugs" local initiatives are purely symbolic. The

symbolism

would no longer be there if all major cities across the US passed
such laws. Then Congress would have to face the facts on personal
drug use use vs. dealers and growers.
>
> The best thing would be to completely repeal all War on Drug laws.
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
> "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@h...> wrote:
> 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
> U s government grant Libertarian party U s government student

loan

California politics
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>

SPONSORED LINKS
U s government grant Libertarian party U s government student loan

California politics

---------------------------------
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.

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>

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

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.

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

>
> 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>

Dear Starchild;

Tax measures to increase taxes with left-leaning San Francisco don't always work either. Last Nov.2004 Prop J To Increase Sales Taxes and Prop K To Increase Businesses Taxes were voted down by Left-leaning San Francisco by 60 - 40 margins. Also Prop L Use Of Hotel TAx to Preserve Old Theaters was roundly defeated 75 - 25..

In addition, Porp A Affordable Housing Bond and Historical Preservation Bond did not get the 2/3's majority.

The Symbolic Prop N USA Out Of Iraq initiative Passed 60 - 40. If San Francisco is so left leaning why wasn't this measure passsed 70 - 30 or 80 - 20 or 90- 10?

See you tomorrow at lunch where we can pick up the topic again and whether or not a tax relief measure to help small businesses hire more people will benefit SF and employment.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> 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,

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

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.

Dear Marcy;

Alright Marcy!! Go For It - "El Tigre" - Go For It!!! See yah tomorrow for lunch!
              
          ( as long as you promise not to have us for lunch)

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...> wrote:
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

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.

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

>
> 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@...m

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

I did also briefly want to note in response to a couple things you said that, yes, I did try to frame my ballot arguments on economic liberty issues in a way that would appeal to the left. But persuading a leftist to support such causes is very difficult even with the best of arguments, just as it is very difficult to persuade a conservative on civil liberties issues even if you make your case in solid god-family-country-tradition terms. Surely you do not believe that left-leaning voters who read my ballot arguments were more favorably impressed than were the conservative-leaning voters who read them??

  Concerning taxpayers' money being wasted on paper, ink, and attorney fees -- as I pointed out, an actual statutory change is (all else being equal) going to be less likely to pass, and more likely to be subject to legal challenges than is a resolution. So *if* one takes the position that we should be concerned about the cost to taxpayers of exercising our equal rights under the democratic process by submitting initiatives -- which frankly I think is such a small expense in the overall scheme of government that allowing it to dictate our actions is being penny-wise and pound-foolish -- shouldn't one be *more* concerned about the pointless expense of an initiative which is *less* likely to pass once it does get on the ballot, and *more* likely to end up in court?

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

On Monday, November 14, 2005, at 03:43 PM, Amarcy D. Berry wrote (in part):

Ron,

  The short answer to why the sales and business tax increases failed in 2004 as it pertains to our proposed initiatives is that it's easier to stop a new tax than to repeal an existing one. And while Propositions J and K were thankfully defeated (actually by 58-42% and 55-45% respectively), other tax increases have continued to pass, such as the BART bond on the same ballot, which won by an overwhelming 76-24%. I think the failure of the sales and business tax measures was generally seen as somewhat surprising and a bit of an anomaly. Hopefully it *wasn't* an anomaly and will prove the beginning of a revolt against at least certain types of taxes, but I don't think we can count on that.

  The theater-preservation measure Proposition L was not rejected for anti-tax reasons. It wasn't proposing to increase taxes, but rather to claim a good chunk of the existing loot. Predictably, the many organizations currently getting hotel tax money weren't keen on that, and actively opposed it (as we can expect them to do even more vigorously in the case of any measure we might sponsor that attempted to repeal the tax outright).

  As for the "out-of-Iraq" resolution passing 60-40% (actually 63-37%), that's still a healthy majority by election standards. I'm sure it would pass by a larger majority if it had been on this year's ballot. The anti-college recruiting Measure I passed 59-41% despite the threatened loss of federal school funding.

  But all these details aside, are you seriously disputing the almost universally-acknowledged fact that the majority in San Francisco leans to the left? I'm frankly amazed by some of the arguments I'm hearing.

  On a similar note, I am certainly *not* questioning the beneficial effects that a tax relief measure to help small businesses would have. Without a doubt it would benefit employment and the city as a whole. That's never been the issue here, and I can't think of anything I've ever said that would give you the impression that I dispute the positive impact that *any* tax cut would have.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

Dear Starchild;

Tax measures to increase taxes with left-leaning San Francisco don't always work either. Last Nov.2004 Prop J To Increase Sales Taxes and Prop K To Increase Businesses Taxes were voted down by Left-leaning San Francisco by 60 - 40 margins. Also Prop L Use Of Hotel TAx to Preserve Old Theaters was roundly defeated 75 - 25..

In addition, Porp A Affordable Housing Bond and Historical Preservation Bond did not get the 2/3's majority.

The Symbolic Prop N USA Out Of Iraq initiative Passed 60 - 40. If San Francisco is so left leaning why wasn't this measure passsed 70 - 30 or 80 - 20 or 90- 10?

See you tomorrow at lunch where we can pick up the topic again and whether or not a tax relief measure to help small businesses hire more people will benefit SF and employment.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> 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
>
>
>
> >
> > 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"
> > > 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
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
>

>
> 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.
>

>

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>

Dear Ron,

I promise to focus only on my peanut butter sandwich for my lunch
tomorrow. Thank you for arranging the work party.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@y...>
wrote:

Dear Marcy;

Alright Marcy!! Go For It - "El Tigre" - Go For It!!! See yah

tomorrow for lunch!

              
          ( as long as you promise not to have us for lunch)

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@h...> wrote:
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>
> >
>

---------------------------------
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.

Dear Starchild;

My god it cahn't be true - say it isn't so - San Francisco leeeeeeans to the left??? Oh how horrible!!! I'm shocked I'm shocked - there's gambling going on in the backroom!!!

Well hold on thar jist a gol' dang minute pardner. As they used to say at my highschool football games: lean to the left - lean to the right - stand up sit down fight fight fight!!!

Don't you just love non-sequitors?

Of course I believe you believe in tax cuts no matter what - after all you're one of them gol durn sex - drugs - rock and roll Libertarians.

So let's chat tomorrow at lunch along with the other sub-committee members and any other interested parties who make it to the South Of Market meeting about hacking and whacking and cracking them City taxes. And getting them morons on the Board of Supervisors off the taxpayers fed gravy train. Cut Payroll Taxes - Cut Minimum Wages - Cut Hotel Taxes - Cut any tax we can get our hands on!!!!!!!!!

Darn rooty tootin'.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Ron,

The short answer to why the sales and business tax increases failed in
2004 as it pertains to our proposed initiatives is that it's easier to
stop a new tax than to repeal an existing one. And while Propositions J
and K were thankfully defeated (actually by 58-42% and 55-45%
respectively), other tax increases have continued to pass, such as the
BART bond on the same ballot, which won by an overwhelming 76-24%. I
think the failure of the sales and business tax measures was generally
seen as somewhat surprising and a bit of an anomaly. Hopefully it
*wasn't* an anomaly and will prove the beginning of a revolt against at
least certain types of taxes, but I don't think we can count on that.

The theater-preservation measure Proposition L was not rejected for
anti-tax reasons. It wasn't proposing to increase taxes, but rather to
claim a good chunk of the existing loot. Predictably, the many
organizations currently getting hotel tax money weren't keen on that,
and actively opposed it (as we can expect them to do even more
vigorously in the case of any measure we might sponsor that attempted
to repeal the tax outright).

As for the "out-of-Iraq" resolution passing 60-40% (actually 63-37%),
that's still a healthy majority by election standards. I'm sure it
would pass by a larger majority if it had been on this year's ballot.
The anti-college recruiting Measure I passed 59-41% despite the
threatened loss of federal school funding.

But all these details aside, are you seriously disputing the almost
universally-acknowledged fact that the majority in San Francisco leans
to the left? I'm frankly amazed by some of the arguments I'm hearing.

On a similar note, I am certainly *not* questioning the beneficial
effects that a tax relief measure to help small businesses would have.
Without a doubt it would benefit employment and the city as a whole.
That's never been the issue here, and I can't think of anything I've
ever said that would give you the impression that I dispute the
positive impact that *any* tax cut would have.

Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>

My e-mail has been down all week, and is still a little squirrely, so
I'm just now catching up. Starchild's proposed empirical solution to
this dispute is surely the best, but there's a theoretical point to
be made toward resolution, too. Marcy is quite right that many
people perceive the LP as the party of sex and drugs. They're called
conservatives. When they look at the platform, they see nothing
remarkable about our stands on economic issues or self-defense;
they're just common sense. Our stands on sex and drugs, however, are
glaringly outrageous. Starchild is also right that many people
perceive us as the party of gold and guns. They're called liberals
(though they now call themselves progressives). When they look at
our platform, the sex and drug planks are unremarkable, just common
sense; what is glaringly outrageous are the stands on welfare and
taxes and guns. Most of us also associate mostly with people who
largely share our views, so it's not surprising that to Marcy it
looks as though most people perceive us as the party of sex and
drugs. But with respect to San Francisco, I think Starchild is
unquestionably right that the population is overwhelmingly liberal.
And for that reason I agree with him that local efforts should be
targeting the sex and drugs issues as much as possible. I would go
further: Because the Party leadership has always been overwhelmingly
from the right, that is the dominant perception, not just in San
Francisco, but nationally. Think of how often you hear Libertarians
mistakenly described as conservative or right-wing, and how often you
hear them mistakenly described as liberal or left-wing. That
undoubtedly has something to do also with the fact that mainstream
_media_ people are overwhelmingly liberal; but they are also still
the principal source of information for most people. Quite apart
from the media role: Look at the proportion of pamphlets available
from the national office which address gold-and-guns issues vs. sex-
and-drugs. It hovers around 100%. There's one drug pamphlet which
goes in and out of print; there hasn't been a pamphlet on sexual
issues since Ralph Raico's magnificent gay rights brochure in 1975.
And it's not as though they haven't been asked for one, repeatedly.

I should perhaps note that it's a separate question whether the
economic or civil liberties issues are more important for the future
of our society. I'm inclined to think the issue of overriding
importance is foreign policy, and peace is a "left" position; but
it's also not a local issue, except for resolutions, which is where
this thread started. Given that San Francisco is already better than
most places on the left issues, it would be easy to argue that the
money issues are more important. But strategically, there's the
issue of achieving credibility. I don't think we (at the local or
national level) have done nearly as much as we might to demonstrate
the "real" implications of leftist values for economic issues, though
I think Mary Ruwart, among others, is showing the way. We'd have a
hard time finding a better Presidential candidate, in fact.

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

One version of the anti-tax measure that was mentioned was a small
business exemption zone, or something like that. While the hard left is
very loud in SF, they are not the majority; the majority, I believe, is
soft middle-left; small business is a core value of that constituency.
Small business is distinct from Big Business, which is of course evil. A
small business becomes Big Business when it opens its twelfth location,
apparently; the San Francisco Soup Company crossed this line in the last
few years.

So I think that a small business initiative would actually go over quite
well. Our biggest public profile — whether you regard it as positive or
negative — is as *extremists*, rather than *left* or *right* extremists
per se. A small business initiative would plant us rather nicely in the
mainstream middle, and make it difficult to fight. Our biggest risk would
be being co-opted by another group and not getting credit for the move.

IMO,
Chris