No on Everything: CA Props on November 2022 Ballot (sale, schools)

[wac_432]

Proposition 1 - No. Unnecessary political grandstanding. If you don't know where CA stands on abortion, then let me be the first Terran to welcome you to Earth. Also, let me explain something to you about Earthlings; we like to separate ourselves into arbitrary tribes and then fight each other. Thus we come up with dumb crap like Prop 1, in response to even dumber crap the OTHER tribes are pulling elsewhere in crappier parts of the country. When it doesn't do anything and proponents strongest argument is "[there's] no reason to not vote in favor of it." that's reason enough not to vote in favor of it.

Also, just imagine how badly bible-thumping Arizonans will be secretly freaking out when they start to fear that they might not be able to just drive their pregnant daughters out of Gilead to CA to get an abortion that they banned in their own state.

Proposition 26 - Nope. Don't let tribes pretend to fund whatever the good stuff du jour with a pittance of the gambling money they rake in.

Proposition 27 - Nope. Same deal but replace "tribes" with "rich corporations."

Proposition 28 - Hell no. We're not doing anyone a favor by encouraging more Arts & Music education in schools already failing miserably to teach to basic Math and English standards.

I forget: do we have a both chronic and acute shortage of artists and musicians, or of nurses and engineers?

Proposition 29 - Nope, we STILL don't need to make dialysis more expensive.

Proposition 30 - Nah. While pretty much anything that has "wildfire", "homeless", and "environmental" in the wording should be a knee-jerk "no" to knee-jerk legislation, this one has the added bonus of screwing Lyft's hail-mary business model of screwing CA millionaires into paying for it's electrons.

Proposition 31 - Nope. Enough bans. Nobody is under the impression that cigarettes are healthy because they taste like the chemical analogue of cotton candy. At least you aren't more likely to accidentally drive over a pedestrian if you're vaping nicotine instead of THC.

[JGC97]

Voting "NO" will certainly make it easier for me and speed up the time it takes me to check the box. Propositions have become increasingly deceptive over the years. What someone thinks they're voting for doesn't exactly turn out that way. No more fooling me. Everybody gets a big fat "NO!"

[Igor Blevin]

You know these will all pass, don't you?

[NORTY FLATZ]

Just be sure of the wording.

Sometimes, "No" means "Yes."

They do this to purposely mislead.

Bastards, all of 'em.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by Igor Blevin

You know these will all pass, don't you?

I'm beginning to feel like a wager is in order. Care to bet?

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by wac_432

Proposition 1 - No. Unnecessary political grandstanding. If you don't know where CA stands on abortion, then let me be the first Terran to welcome you to Earth.

Most of us are well aware of where CA stands on abortion.

"There is already a right to privacy guaranteed in the California Constitution, but it is not explicitly defined. Historically, the language has been understood to preserve reproductive rights, including through a decision by the California Supreme Court. Abortion and contraceptive access were later expressly protected in state law.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in June overturning Roe v. Wade, however, has raised fears that a change in legal interpretation or partisan control of the now-overwhelmingly Democratic state Legislature could undermine those protections for Californians in the future."

https://calmatters.org/california-vo...ortion-rights/

Originally Posted by wac_432

Proposition 31 - Nope. Enough bans. Nobody is under the impression that cigarettes are healthy because they taste like the chemical analogue of cotton candy. At least you aren't more likely to accidentally drive over a pedestrian if you're vaping nicotine instead of THC.

This is to uphold the ban on flavored tobacco products, including vape pens. It has nothing to do with changing views on the toxicity of tobacco products. Have you ever worked with teenagers? If you have, you'd know how seductive this stuff is to kids that age.

https://truthinitiative.org/research...d-young-adults

"The (current 2020 ) law was intended to keep flavored tobacco away from kids and teens, who report in high numbers that they often started smoking with a flavored product."

The referendum will decide whether to overturn a 2020 law that prohibits the sale of some flavored tobacco products. A “yes” vote upholds the current law; a "no" vote would strike down the law and allow the sale of flavored tobacco products.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by NORTY FLATZ

Just be sure of the wording.

Sometimes, "No" means "Yes."

Yes; be careful as you read.