Talk:Washington Initiative 1068

Early start

I am creating this page a bit early, as this content is for a Washington state vote proposal that has not yet collected enough signatures to be on the next ballot. However, it seems to me that this is a topic that is likely to attract attention and I feel that a Wikipedia article is merited now. The mere filing of the proposal received a lot of attention, but I cited only the major local newspaper's report. Blue Rasberry 17:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

I set up three redirects to lead to this article.

• I-1068
• Initiative 1068
• Marijuana Reform Act

I am sure this is not the only marijuana reform act worth having a Wikipedia article, but since the page name was not taken I suppose someone else can make it into a disambiguation page later. Blue Rasberry 17:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Stance on initiative

Is there any formal opposition to this initiative to list yet? I primarily wanted to create a link to the Lester Grinspoon article now so haven't searched very hard for formal opponents of the initiative yet.

Should there be a third category for groups or notable people which don't fit either category but have a public stance of some sort? For example, I found The 34th Legislative District Democrats tabled a resolution of support at most recent meeting which doesn't strike me as very notable but there is a public controversy concerning the ACLU-WA's (or perhaps ACLU-WA drug policy director Alison Holcomb's) non-support of I-1068. This controversy seems rather muddled to me but not mentioning it raises an NPOV question in my mind. Moss&Fern (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing a link describing the "tabling." It is fairly common for public entities not to comment on controversial issues, but if there is even one notable group which makes a statement of neutrality I would support a third category.

I have not been able to find any statement by any group naming this particular initiative as something which they oppose. Blue Rasberry 01:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My memory was wrong about "most recent" meeting. It was April meeting (http://34dems.org/index.htm). Resolution is at http://34dems.org/Docs-2010/Resolution-supporting-I-1068-Marijuana-04-14-10.pdf. Statement about reason for tabling this is at http://34dems.org/Docs-2010/Newsletter-May-2010.pdf.

The resolution in Support of I-1068 which would remove

state civil and criminal penalties for persons eighteen year or older who cultivate possess, transport, sell or use marijuana was brought to a vote, but there was a question about how it would affect the medical marijuana law. Chris Porter moved to table the resolution until we had more information. The motion to table passed 38 to 22. The other two resolutions that were printed in the April newsletter: to Support Establishing a Bank of Washington State, and Concerning Port Trucking Operations were both

passed overwhelmingly.

I had link problems getting to most of this with IE8 but not with Firefox, yet preview indicates IE8 is going to work with the links here. Don't know if this has to do with the browsers themselves or some security setting or add-on in IE8 which is what I originally used when I found the information. 34th Legislative District Democrats aren't neutral according to May newsletter above. Drug Policy Alliance Network has taken no position but that seems to be because it hasn't been paying attention to Washington state since 2004 (last update on Washington state's State by State page). ACLU-WA hasn't taken a formal position of support, neutrality or opposition as far as I can tell. I've seen criticism or question about whether the ballot summary fairly describes the initiative's lack of effect on public safety laws but no assertion this is intentionally taking a position. Moss&Fern (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the links and quote. I do not have an opinion about whether this is work that needs to be done now. I was thinking about what you said, and started thinking that probably groups will be more direct in making statements if this initiative gets on the ballot. I think I will slack on work in this area until I see whether that happens. Blue Rasberry 00:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Would a section on news media coverage be appropriate? Section on internet usage as campaign tactic?

Would a section on news media coverage be appropriate? I think it is significant because the nature of the news coverage and the nature of non-coverage seems to very influential concerning the ability of an all volunteer group with very little money to gather signatures and the ability of people to sign the petition or help gather signatures. This seems primarily relevant to members of the general public deciding whether to sign the initiative, the general chilling effect for all potential Washington initiative signers of news coverage of litigation about a previous initiative and attempts to obtain the names and addresses of the people who signed that initiative under a public disclosure law and difficulty of decided people finding where they can sign I-1068, obtain a copy directly or even use a PDF to have valid petitions printed by photocopy shops; the campaign is relying heavily on use of the internet for inexpensive flow of information. I do see a potential for POV issues and some might feel having such a section is inherently POV for this article so I'd like to give time for a little input from other editors before I decide whether to create such a section and thoughts on what is appropriate as well as notable if such a section is created.

Relying heavily on use of the internet for inexpensive flow of information as a campaign strategy seems notable now that I think of it. This is a rather new and apparently growing trend in US politics. And the use of the internet plus new technology to allow people to create petitions is almost certainly going to be a significant factor in politics where initiatives, referenda and such are part of the official political process. Should check whether this is significand in many other states and nations. Just added that to section title. That seems important and has little potential for POV issues so I expect I will create such a section soon. If significant enough it may deserve a section in some more general articles. Indeed, later I'll check if there is an existing Wikipedia article on politics and technology or something quite similar. There ought to be. The printing press leaps to mind as an extremely important development in this area, the photocamera (something Mark Twain pointed out over a century ago), also radio and television, sattelite transmission and much more. Moss&Fern (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I like what you are saying, but I would not know how to find reliable sources. If someone issues a report in an interesting way, then we can source the content of the report but not talk about the interesting media by means of which the report was transmitted.. To have a section as you propose, we would need a reliable source that examines the nature of sources themselves. With sources, I support what you are saying; without sources, it sounds like original research. So... sources? Blue Rasberry 23:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Petition distribution and circulation section

I created a Petition distribution and circulation section focused on two methods notable for untraditional nature and/or reliance on technological changes in approximately the last 15-20 years. The section could probably be fleshed out. After saving change I realized the all volunteer nature of this initiative effort had not already been stated in article. Citation for that needs to be added. I'll do that citation in several hours if no one else has done so by the time I'm able to get back to editing. Moss&Fern (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Obstacles

If reliable sources are available I think being a very low budget and all volunteer effort would be appropriate to add as obstacles. The possibility of an initiative qualifying as an all volunteer effort is an aspect of this I find fascinating in a state which is far from friendly to initiaves or initiative signature gathering.

Washington law on initiative signature gathering and factors creating difficulty gathering signatures where people are on foot in significant numbers also seem approptiate if reliable sources can be located to document these obstacles.

The controversial recent and current court cases, recent US Supreme Court decision on application of Washington Public Disclosure law (decided one aspect, sent the case back to lower courts to decide on specific application regarding R-71 signers and danger of harrassment) certainly seem to belong here if reliable sources are used to verify chilling effect on signing of I-1068 and/or initiatives in general in the state of Washington.

If Reliable Sources are available for benign neglect (or malign neglect which may be found later if it exists) by the news media I think that should be added. I searched the online version of a major Washington newspaper for "I-1068", "marijuana" and "bikini baristas". Bikini baristas had far more coverage this year and had links to other sources despite weather conditions that have kept bikini baristas from being a recent topic this year and bikini baristas being much more of a TV news topic than a newspaper topic. Don't know if searches of general news media for mention, content of mention or comparison of coverage of I-1068 vs. trivial topics to verify lack of coverage would be considered Original Research or simply inadequate verification. Might even be argued as lack of notability by some editors though I think that arguement couldn't be applied even-handedly for Washington news in the last few years without arguing many major topics, even Washington state's budget crisis aren't notable. Moss&Fern (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So far as I know, every available WP:RS is being represented in this article and there is no major work to do. If someone has written about obstacles then this probably has a place in the article, but I know of no source that talks about this.

I know of WP:RS that address most or all these subjects and can add when time permits. Moss&Fern (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you mean about media searches, but if you are talking about counting instances of news articles, there is a great discussion of how that works here.

I'm referring to searches within general interest news sources such as individual newspapers, magazines, TV stations, etc. and their web sites for amount of coverage of a subject, particularly omission or excess, relative to its importance/newsworthiness (admittedly a subjective matter) and of coverage relative to some other relatively trivial subject that receives relatively substantial coverage for other reasons. In Washington bikini baristas seem to be a topic that receives coverage far out of proportion to importance/newsworthiness, particularly on TV which is a visual medium, which is why I chose that for a comparative search term. Search the web sites of a dozen Washington news sources for "bikini baristas", "I-1068", "David Barstow", "covert propaganda" and a few other topics of your choice and I think my meaning will be clearer. Of course, the content and any patterns of bias of articles and news stories may be more significant than their commonness. Wikipedia:Search engine test doesn't address my intended point that well as it is about internet searches in general rather than internet searches of more traditional primarily noninternet mass media news sources as reflected in their secondary internet sites. The commonness, importance and other aspects of such sites which didn't exist 20-30 years ago probably deserves a Wikipedia article if there isn't one already. Moss&Fern (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The things you already put in the article are sourced only to the campaign website and probably are not permissible under WP:SPS. Blue Rasberry 22:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll clarify when I've more time. Right now I don't even have time to read the discussion you've provided a link to. Moss&Fern (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll add other sources from elsewhere also to address this concern about sourcing only directly to the campaign website. There's no great difficulty about doing that and I could have already done that if I'd just saved links or other information to newspaper articles and such when reading them for adding to this article. I don't know why no one else has done so other than the low number of article editors. "Eat/Fly" is one endorsement I haven't included because I couldn't locate a source outside the campaign website which may be because I haven't hit on a search term that even lets me find out what it is. I don't see a WP:SPS problem for what's in the article but will review it again. A difficulty with WP:SPS is that it's dishonest (at least as applied) about what constitutes self publishing and what entities the policy is applied to. E.g., US government agencies' reports and materials aren't treated as self published even though the Government Printing Office and US government websites are functionally the same as vanity presses for the most part. Not to imply this isn't also true of other governments, the UN, individual states, Human Rights Watch, other organizations and more. Will respond more to your reply later, I'm having limited computer use availability now. Moss&Fern (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this first US state marijuana legalization initiative to be endorsed by a major political party?

Is this the first US state marijuana legalization initiative to be endorsed by a major political party? Moss&Fern (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It had support from local democratic organizations doing state-level legislative lobbying, but neither of the two major political parties. Otherwise, provide source. Blue Rasberry 13:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It was officially endorsed by the Washington State Democratic Party, which is already sourced to a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article. Perhaps my question implied endorsement at the national level, which I hadn't considered, and should be rephrased to clarify I was referring to the state level party. I was also assuming endorsement by the state party in the same state as the initiative, as I hadn't considered a state's political party might endorse or oppose an initiative of another state. Or that a major political party of another nation might take a position on something of this sort, for that matter.

The questions below are better phrased unless there is an objection about whether Washington law recognizes any political parties as major or recognizes political parties at all now. Regardless of legal status (including even prohibition of their existence) political parties do exist and in Washington state the Democrat Party is a major political party by virtually any realistic standard. Are there currently no US states with major political parties other the two US political parties I presume you are referring to?

Is this the first US state marijuana legalization initiative to be endorsed by a major political party of that state?

Is this the first US state marijuana legalization initiative to be endorsed by the state-level organization of a major US national political party?

I think those questions address the on topic matters of significant interest. Moss&Fern (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

lack of signiture gathering firm is the real reason

I noticed the page listed numerous reasons for them coming up 150,000 short on the signatures.. they blamed the rain.. they blamed some action where a couple peoples names were captured in a raid of some sort... The fact is they could not afford a signiture gathering firm and 90% of all initiatives that do not use a paid gathering firm never make it to ballot. thats the reason. All the rest are just excuses.. I mean.. it rained out alot.. are you serious? I removed the dubious ones that had no reputable third party sourcing, left the fraud allegations (which again.. would not add up to 150,000 signatures. most stoners would likely sign it again twice anyway if given the opportunity), and left up the third party source where the initiative campaign group basically admits paid signiture gathers are a must. Why didn't the people call the MPP if they needed money so bad? -Tracer9999 (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Washington Initiative 1029 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The result of the move request was: 'not moved. There appears to be no consensus for the proposed moves'. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Washington Initiative 1068. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100312094332/http://sensiblewashington.org:80/read-i-1068/ to http://sensiblewashington.org/read-i-1068/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100626062506/http://sensiblewashington.org:80/uncategorized/80000-copies-of-i-1068-will-be-in-the-stranger-on-june-23/ to http://sensiblewashington.org/uncategorized/80000-copies-of-i-1068-will-be-in-the-stranger-on-june-23/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100630181101/http://sensiblewashington.org:80/endorsements/ to http://sensiblewashington.org/endorsements

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)