Sensible Washington is having its kickoff meeting for Olympia area volunteers tonight. Also, Philip Dawdy responds to the ACLU of Washington’s decision not to endorse I-1068:
Sensible Washington is disappointed that the ACLU of Washington is refusing to support I-1068. We believe that in so doing the group is ignoring the wishes of many of its members and contradicts its years of support for marijuana drug reform. We find it especially ironic that the organization which initially promoted legalization and reform in Washington State should retreat from its last 10 years of work on that front.
We are especially disturbed by the characterization of I-1068 as irresponsible based upon lack of regulation when the ACLU of Washington is well aware that the initiative could not include a regulatory scheme. Federal preemption issues make a comprehensive tax and regulate scheme impossible and the single issue rule for initiatives in Washington State does not help either. Those restrictions limit the scope of any initiative to removing criminal penalties for adults. If I-1068 is passed this November it will fall to the State Legislature to provide a legal framework for adult marijuana use, possession and cultivation. The ACLU of Washington has been involved in developing such frameworks, making its current position on I-1068 even more curious.
We are confused that the ACLU of Washington doesn’t seem to get that it is wrong for the State of Washington to continue to waste about $105 million a year in taxpayer funds to arrest, prosecute and imprison over 12,000 otherwise responsible citizens a year for marijuana-related offenses. We are confused that the ACLU of Washington would be willing to accept a state medical marijuana law which offers little legal protection to sick and dying patients. And we are utterly baffled that the ACLU of Washington does not get that the repeated failure of the Legislature to reform this state’s marijuana laws indicates that an initiative to the people is the only responsible method to achieve the kind of reform that the citizens of Washington State clearly desire.
I think the main stumbling block for the ACLU here is that they’ve become so enamored with having good relationships with certain powerful folks in the state that they’ve been willing to completely compromise on making any progress in order to keep that seat at the table. During the push to modify the medical marijuana law in 2007-2008, they ended up compromising so much that patients ended up more likely to be arrested (see update 2) with the new law than they were before. The ACLU was prominent in those discussions. The I-1068 initiative is a recognition that trying to negotiate with the legislature is no longer a good strategy. This initiative is a way to force the legislature’s hand to deal with this problem head on and stop dicking around. And my own hunch (and it’s just a hunch) is that this made the ACLU uncomfortable. Otherwise, as Philip explains quite well in that post, their opposition to the initiative simply doesn’t make sense logically.
UPDATE: One additional aspect of this that’s worth noting is that the ACLU of Washington was the main driver behind the recent decriminalization bills in the legislature (which didn’t pass either the House or the Senate, despite merely trying to make our marijuana laws more similar to states like Ohio and Mississippi). Some of the folks who put together I-1068 had been very vocal in their criticisms of Alison Holcomb and the ACLU of Washington over not pushing for full legalization. Again, I have no idea exactly what drove Holcomb to come out against I-1068 (which has been endorsed by a broad range of folks already), but considering the ACLU of Washington’s track record in drug law reform, it’s probably a good thing they’re not involved.
UPDATE 2: After being challenged on the assertion noted above, I’m going to remove it from the post. This has been my perception from following a number of cases, but I don’t have any data to prove it, so I’m striking it from my original post. I do feel confident in saying that the revision of the law did nothing to prevent patients from being arrested, since the recent State vs. Fry court decision affirmed that the law does nothing to prevent patients from being arrested. My larger point that the attempts to work with the legislature were a complete failure still stands.
Lee-
So the ACLU is now just another “right-wing” organization out to get you pot-smokin’ hippies?
Isn’t paranoia one of the side effects of excessive pot-smoking??
If the ACLU is against this Lee, you might have your group of advocates get clean & sober for a few days and really think about this.
Any chnace of getting nthe QACLU to exapand on their reasoning?
@1
So the ACLU is now just another “right-wing” organization out to get you pot-smokin’ hippies?
It’s not a left-wing issue, it’s a libertarian issue, dummy. That’s why Republican Toby Nixon has already endorsed it.
Not to mention that the ACLU of Washington’s stated reason for endorsing it is because it doesn’t have enough regulation written into it. Does that sound left-wing or right-wing to you?
Moron.
@2
I’m looking forward to that considering that some of what they’ve said so far contradicts what Alison has said in private emails. I’m debating whether to make some of that public. I guess we’ll see where this goes.
Just to clarify, Sensible Washington’s statement was posted by me on our website, but was a collaborative effort of the group.
Lee
I think clarifying the ACLU stand would be important. Are they against tor merely unwilling to put out resources int the effort?
In my experience, the ACLU makes decisions based on priorities that reflect the current board and contributors. In my own world I have been very disappointed with the ACLU’s unwillingness to work on issues of academic freedom while taking on high profile issues like free speech in high school or War Churchill.
As one example, few are awarwe but all public communication at UW, inlcuding by the Senate, is vetted by the Provost! We also do nto have a statement of Miranda rights even though the cmaous is rife with folks who have some sort of police powers.
My guess is that the ACLU sees decriminalization as a relatively minor issue relevant to its current portfolio. That would be concostent with a lot they do nto do. OTOH, it seems to me they should be willing to endorse thge intiative if it is well written.
UI wonder if there are others .. prominent attorneys, former judges, whyo might serve this purpose?
Am enjoying reading Horsesass posts about trivial matters. Are you prog-toads too disheartened about national events like the failure of the Obamanuts?
John CCCCXXV
Lets see ..
Things under Obama ..
Afghanistan and Iraq? … hmmm looks like progress.
The olympics .. OF course we take credit
Bush’s Depression … averted by the guy with funny ears
Dont Ask Don’t Tell … on its way OUT.
Bush’s voyage to Mars .. If Bush wants to go his Daddy can biy him a ticket.
What is so bad .. Gitmo .. claning up toxic waste is hard, healthcarfe .. lets wait for the fat lady to sing.
What is scary … Bush’s legacy .. a four letter word spelled BECK.
Beck and Palin are jokes. They have VERY VERY strong and loud supporters, but it’s like 20% or less of the public. Sorry, but you can’t win a national election with 20% support. Palin or Beck could make a nice little Ross Perot like 3rd party half assed attempt, but they don’t have NEAR the support needed to run nationally. They’re confusing TV/radio ratings with national voting. You might be the #1 rated shouting voice on radio or TV, but that’s STILL just a tiny fraction of the country. They’re crazy and stupid and have no real support other than other crazy stupid people (which is about 20% of the population).
I’m SO SO SO glad Ron Paul won the little CPAC straw poll. This TOTALLY screws the Republican “main stream” candidates like Huckabee and Romney. This is going to split the Republicans like it did in the NY 23rd. Yes, a Republican won gov of Virginia (not shocking) and then threw the Tea Party under the bus saying they had NOTHING to do with his victory. Sarah Palin gets paid $100k to speak at the Tea Party convention, then throws them under the bus campaigning AGAINST their candidate in AZ and telling them they have to grow up and pick a “real party” and support the D’s or R’s. This is gonna be a nasty in party fight.
“12,000 otherwise responsible citizens”
Sheesh! The cops I’ve discussed this with tell me they get virtually all their marijuana arrests secondary to something else. The “responsible citizens” get busted for dope after they’ve been arrested for theft, assault, or really bad driving.
Hardy-har-har. What a defeat. Better have an extra bong-toke….
@9
Wish I was a confidant as you are.
20% is a lot.
I am not worried that Beck will run and be elected but I see 20% as a credible platform for someone on the fascist side to rise to power .. that is what happened in Germany.
Moreover, 20% is already a majority of the Reprican party. In our system, the minority arty has a lot of power and 20% controlling 36% is a large majority of the Reps.
@10
Records from prosecutors offices tell a different story.
It might be “something else” that gets the police’s attention, but it’s the pot that gets prosecuted. If someone has committed theft prosecute the theft. If they’re driving under the influence prosecute the driving charge.
ACLU’s position doesn’t surprise me. Their mission is defending the individual liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (which is why the right hates the ACLU), and smoking pot isn’t a free speech or free exercise of religion isn’t. It’s a distraction that could pull resources away from ACLU’s real work and confuse the public about what ACLU’s real mission is.
@3 Lee, c’mon, you should know that the self-labed “Libertarians” are merely fascists in another disguise.
No real libertarian would ever vote Republican. The GOPers would murder nuns before they’d defend civil liberties. In fact, they already have.
@14
no their mission is to protect civil liberties, not just those granted in the bill of rights. They do support cannabis legalization, they do put work into it, if you had read the whole thing you would have seen that they worked to get 2 of the 3 bills that died earlier this year in the house and senate.
I would disagree though, there are some religions that do consider cannabis a major part of their religion. so it is also part of religious freedom. Mostly though, it is an issue of personal freedom. Deciding what to put in my body and how to spend my Saturday night is a civil liberty. Thats what the ACLU is supposed to be protecting.
Roger what are you talking about? The ACLU has very clearly put effort into marijuana reform so I’m not sure how you can say it will pull from their resources. They’ve just failed so far at making a difference, and then they refuse to support an initiative by the people because it doesn’t have “enough regulation” even though with our state’s initiative system it wouldn’t of allowed us to anyway. Seems like the ACLU needs to learn a little more about how things get done. They still feel they can get our politicians to legalize it, and that isn’t going to happen.
But in the end the ACLU’s endorsement or lack thereof really isn’t that big of a deal, obviously their influence in prior cannabis issues has done nothing at all and many people are against them anyway. We’ve already started to gain support from across the isles and we JUST started the whole process.
@7 I see Dick Cheney is getting kicked in the nuts by the two most prominent and respected generals alive in America today.
Gulf War hero Colin Powell and War Against Terror commander David Petraeus both blasted Cheney’s criticism of President Obama for not continuing Cheney’s own illegal and immoral torture policies.
“But to suggest that somehow we have become much less safer because of the actions of the [Obama] administration, I don’t think that’s borne out by the facts,” Powell said.
“Whenever we have taken expedient measures, they have turned around and bitten us in the backside,” Petraeus added.
And Cheney’s daughter Liz got a well-deserved comeuppance from journalist Spencer Ackerman when she criticized Obama’s refusal to continue using her dad’s illegal and immoral torture policies:
“You’re a former deputy assistant secretary of state! You obviously know better than the man who implemented the surge in Iraq,” he wrote. “Why don’t you enlighten Gen. Petraeus about all the glories of torture?”
http://www.aolnews.com/the-poi.....a/19368003
Meanwhile, as a further part of Rightwing Daughter’s Day, Samantha Bell called her father a “hero” for flying his gasoline-laden airplane into an IRS building last week.
Appearing on “Good Morning America,” Bell said, “If nobody comes out and speaks up on behalf of injustice then nothing will ever be accomplished,” Bell said. “Now maybe people will listen.”
Yeah right, Sammie darling — to you, blowing up buildings and killing innocent people is the same thing as “speaking up” about “injustice.” Even taking filial loyalty into account, you’re one sick twisted puppy, darling.
She didn’t have a word of condolence for the family of Vernon Hunter, the IRS employee and Vietnam veteran who was murdered by her father.
Bell also said she believes her father “burned his house down because property taxes represented the government for him, and she shares his disillusionment.”
But here’s the money quote:
“She moved to Norway after losing her job in the middle of a pregnancy, claiming Medicaid would not take care of her.”
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/.....o/19368029
So let me get this straight. This idiotic woman thinks her dad was justified in setting his house on fire — with his family in it — to protest property taxes, and was justified in flying his plane into an IRS building — and killing as many IRS workers as he could — to protest income taxes … and is pissed off because she thought the government wouldn’t give her Medicaid.
Don’t expect any logic from these people. Samantha Bell is a socialist who wants government handouts. She just doesn’t want to pay taxes for them; she wants you and me to pay for them. Norway is the wrong country for her; she’d feel more at home in North Korea or Zimbabwe. But an even better place for her is a padded cell.
That news report also says:
“Stack’s suicide mission has given rise to a number of supporters online, including Facebook groups like ‘The Philosophy of Joe Stack’ which has nearly 2,000 fans; tributes on personal Web sites; and even a video game in which players have to burn down a house and fly a plane into a building. Experts are concerned his act could inspire copycats.”
Roger Rabbit Commentary: I say absolutely no compromise with these people. We should not negotiate with them; we should not accomodate their political beliefs or give an inch to their political demands; we should arm, we should take their violent rhetoric seriously, and we inform them in no uncertain terms that if they resort to violence against us we’re going to defend ourselves.
@7 (continued) Is that non-trivial enough for ya, Jackass425?
Samantha Bell is a known associate of a known terrorist. I think she should be detained and interrogated to find out how much she knows. Our security requires this.
@19
…flying his plane into an IRS building — and killing as many IRS workers as he could — to protest income taxes…
Even worse, his problem was with not paying CA state income taxes, something the IRS has nothing to do with.
@8 “Bush’s voyage to Mars .. If Bush wants to go his Daddy can biy him a ticket.”
Exactly! Bush was willing to spend $150 billion to put a couple guys on Mars so the money can’t be spent helping our own citizens. There is no “America” in these people’s minds; there’s only “us and them.”
There’s now talk in D.C. of reaching across the aisle to work with Republicans. We need to remind our Democratic electeds that surrender isn’t bipartisanship, it’s surrender.
They need to understand that when you’re dealing with people who don’t negotiate or compromise, you have only two choices, winning or losing, and giving them what they want is, by definition, defeat.
And we need to remind them that we didn’t elect them to wave the white flag of surrender without even putting up a fight.
@9 “I’m SO SO SO glad Ron Paul won the little CPAC straw poll.”
It’s hilarious to see the rubes supporting a guy who supports a 30% national sales tax!
If the so-called “Fair Tax” were really fair, there would be no exemptions. That means to buy a house, fix it up, and resell it, our friend “Lost” would have to pay a 30% tax on the purchase price, pay a 30% tax on the materials used to repair it, and then find a buyer willing to pay a 30% tax on top of the price “Lost” hopes to sell it for. It might work like this:
Buy fixer-upper for $300,000 + $90,000 tax
Buy $40,000 of materials and fixtures + $12,000 tax
Aiming for a 20% profit, the asking price for the house would be $530,400 + 30% tax = $689,520
Good luck trying to stay in business, dude. But do I believe “Lost” is stupid enough to vote for something like this anyway, just so millionaires don’t have to pay income taxes? Yes, I do.
Of course, I already know what “Lost” will say. He’ll want an exemption when he buys the house. He’ll want another exemption when he buys materials to repair it. He’ll also want an exemption for the guy who buys it from him. Otherwise, he’ll argue, the “Fair Tax” will kill business in this country.
@11 As long as you’re willing to spend millions of tax dollars to enforce the marijuana prohibition you have no right to complain about high taxes, deficits, or government spending priorities.
@17 “I would disagree though, there are some religions that do consider cannabis a major part of their religion. so it is also part of religious freedom.”
This isn’t the same thing as a general repeal. Yes, I would expect the ACLU to take an interest in a religious-use case, if one came to them. But how many people, outside of Native American culture, smoke pot as a religious practice? The number is miniscule. What we’re talking about here is broad public policy, not fighting for a legal exception for a religious minority, such as the Amish have for selective service.
@18 “many people are against them anyway”
Yes. Funny, isn’t it, that an organization that exists to protect free speech and free exercise of religion from governmental intrusion provokes fury among people who profess to be for “liberty.” Doesn’t that suggest we shouldn’t believe their rhetoric, especially when all of their other actions indicate the precise opposite? The ACLU’s opponents don’t want freedom, they want to impose their own brand of tyranny on the rest of us; and, as such, they are freedom’s greatest enemy within our country.
@19 Don’t expect anything remotely approaching rationality from people who can’t draw a straight line between two dots.
If he didn’t want to pay California income taxes, all he had to do was move out of California.
@29
Well the rastafari for one. Im sure there are others too. Regardless, my point was it is one of their issues that they fight for since it is an issue of civil liberties, whether its for religious, medical or recreational use. i was just making the point that it can be a religious issue too.
For those of you who wanted the ACLU’s reasoning, which was delivered to Douglas Hiatt last Friday, and to which the Sensible Washington post was responding:
Alison Holcomb, Drug Policy Director
ACLU of Washington
@30: Roger, I’d be more supportive of the ACLU (as in, write them a check every now and then) if they were a little less selective in the parts of the Bill of Rights they support. For example, they seem more concerned about the establishment clause than about the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment; more concerned about the “can’t be compelled to be a witness against himself” than about the “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation” part of the 5th Amendment; and seem to want to pretend that the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments just don’t exist at all. They’re great allies on some things, but inconsistent. But, as has been pointed out by other commenters, it’s hard to be active on everything at once, which is why we have more specialized orgs.
But, all that said, it’s great to work with Alison Holcomb on drug policy issues, Doug Klunder on privacy issues, Scott Johnson on open government issues, etc!
@35 If defending free speech was the only thing the ACLU, that alone would justify their existence, because the need for such an organization is clear.
I was a government lawyer for nearly 30 years. The most salient thing I learned was that laws aren’t self-executing. That’s why I had a job.
The Constitution isn’t self-executing, either. Without constant vigilance and activism, it’s nothing more than a bunch of ideals printed on paper.
One thing, however, is clear: It is Republicans, not Democrats, who secretly wiretap American citizens in violation of federal laws and their constitutional rights; who use government agents to burglarize the homes and offices of political opponents; who make arbitrary arrests of ordinary citizens at public political gatherings for simply holding different opinions; who support policies that violate basic human rights, such as torture, and detention without trial.
Whether you support organizations like ACLU with donations, volunteer work, or by other means, makes a different; but how you vote makes an even bigger difference.
I really dont care if weed is made legal or not…the more people that use it, the more losers there will be – which makes my worth to society that much better.
BUT, I will call BULLSHIT on the “freedom of religion” argument for legalizing the stink weed. There are MANY things in this nation that are illegal, but that are also integral to some religions. In that case, I say too fucking bad. One example that easily comes to mind is polygamy. Some religious sects condone the marriage of children as young as 8 to adults – illegal too. How about human sacrifice? should we make that legal too so we can appease some Aztec throwbacks?
@26..the market would adjust, and the values of homes would drop big time….
fail.
what the heck are you talking about Lebowski ? how do any of those things apply??? wait I know they don’t….dude,have another what ever it is you do. Thinking before acting is priceless.
@40..
See post #17….”….religious freedom…”
if you cant see the connection, have a swig of your bong water….
LMAO!!!!
It would take some MIGHTY STRONG WEED intoxicating the entire population of this nation to enhance a bigoted, homophobic, know-nothing cowardly Dori Monson fan’s worth to society.
Wow that’s one for the ages.
Mikro @ 40
lebowski is an admitted Dori Monson fan. He’s barely had a sentient thought in his miserable life.
@42 and 43…at least I have a fucking job.
Seeing as how you dont contribute to society(including your own family), who the hell are you to even chim in on things?
Pay your own way, THEN you have earned the right to give us an opinion.
fucking mooch has cash to buy weed, but not groceries for his kids….loser.
44 – Heh. a fucking job being a fucking bigoted idiot.. Amazing what people will pay others for..
Only in America…
yep..only in america can someone sit on their ass day after day playing video games and smoking weed, and yet they still get fed and have roof over their head – right YLB?
dont complain – just say a polite “thank you” to peeps like me who pay YOUR way through society.
46 – I don’t thank ugly hateful bigots for ANYTHING..
I admonish them to change their ways. Rarely does it work but I do it anyway.
Change your ways fool lest you become a fiend.
@38 “which makes my worth to society that much better”
No matter what value you multiply zero by, the product is still zero. Ask any mathematician.
@38 “BUT, I will call BULLSHIT on the “freedom of religion” argument for legalizing the stink weed. There are MANY things in this nation that are illegal, but that are also integral to some religions. In that case, I say too fucking bad. One example that easily comes to mind is polygamy. Some religious sects condone the marriage of children as young as 8 to adults – illegal too. How about human sacrifice? should we make that legal too so we can appease some Aztec throwbacks?”
I’d call bullshit on it, too, if the “religion” was invented in a frat house yesterday morning. If its use was an established ritual in a legitimate religion with genuine traditions and cultural roots, then as a lawyer, I would argue that a practicing member of that religious group acting within the religion’s established practices was engaging in constitutionally protected activity.
http://www.thc-ministry.net/ma.....igion.html
The argument for government prohibiting polygamous religious practices, notwithstanding the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment, is qualitatively different because the polygamy has social impacts beyond the religious practitioner. This is shown, for example, by the wholesale expulsions of young males from America’s practicing polygamous communities in order to bring the male-female population into a balance that will support plural marriage. The governmental interest in preventing the harm to individuals and communities caused by polygamous practices arguably outweigh the individual interest in religious freedom to engage in these practices. The same argument would apply, for example, to religious practices that include human sacrifice.
Nearly all constitutional issues that reach the Supreme Court involve difficult weighing of societal versus individual interests.
As your comments on this blog have repeatedly demonstrated, your intellectual functioning doesn’t even come close to coping with this level of analytical difficulty, so you should leave these sorts of judgments to those who are qualified to make them. You clearly are not.
@39 “the values of homes would drop big time”
No, they wouldn’t, for many reasons. First, given human nature, most people hate selling anything at a loss so much they just won’t do it. They’ll just stay in their homes instead. This is what usually happens in a falling real estate market; the supply of homes on the market dries up until prices rise again. Secondly, people who found themselves underwater on their mortgages because of falling prices also would stay put rather than sell at a loss and be on the hook for a deficiency judgment against them by the lender, as long as they could keep making the payments.
@44 “at least I have a fucking job”
That’s either your stupidity, or your bad luck. I have everything I need, and I don’t depend on a job that may not exist tomorrow for it.
@46 “yep..only in america can someone sit on their ass day after day playing video games and smoking weed, and yet they still get fed and have roof over their head – right YLB?”
What’s wrong with people living off their savings, pensions, inheritances, social security, and/or investments? Why do you think a wage is the only valid source of income?
If YLB buys a lottery ticket for $1, wins enough money to support him for the rest of his life, and chooses to spend his time playing video games and smoking weed instead of holding down a job, who are you to pass judgment on that?
Working is something people do because they have to. It has no value to the worker beyond the paycheck. If you don’t need the paycheck, why do it just to increase the boss’ stock options or the shareholders’ dividends?
@44: I want to thank Lebowski for collecting my trash…because that is the only job that ignorant fool is, in any way, qualified for.
Great point moron….now pick up the trash.
Frickin’ idiot rightwingnutters who can’t make an argument to save their immortal souls…..
@15,
Lee was talking about the un-capitalized word “libertarian.” Not the political party.
Libertarians and libertarians support legalization of marijuana. It’s about damn time, but if the ACLU chooses to NOT endorse I-1068, that’s too bad for them. I beleive I-1068 will be on the ballot in November. I will certainly be voting for it!
Roger
You are one of my best creations!
@53.;…yep, thats why I engineer and construct the buildings you work in…..
nice try, but another epic fail.
do progressives actually do anything but software and “the arts”? I mean really, what have you built? nadda……
@53….I also notice how you would talk down to people who collect your trash…so much for the progressives being about the little man. You talk about supporting the poor on one side, and on the other side, you talk shit about them.
You fucks always talk about the middle class, yet you spit on them any chance you get.
go fuck yourself, and I will put my earnings against yours any day…bitch. bring it.
@52…so what say you about lazy fucks living off of their wives and unemployment?
that is ylb in a nutshell
@51..thats because your 70 years old and a lazy fuck who stole off the taxpayers. And who was “dismissed” from your job.
just shoot yourself, please.
This position that the ACLU is taking speaks to their distrust of government to continue to improve and has huge implication of why civility might be suffering. Here is is the Logic. A civil liberties organization asks for people’s voices to be protected, choices to be looked after, and general rights to be upheld. Regarding I-1068 Their position is to no back the Initiative due it inability to regulation the rights it puts into effect. Correct me if I am wrong, but Civil Liberties are meant to enforce choice and provide freedom. We are in a society that has a freedom that has had removed from it, a basic right to partake of what the earth provides them. IE smoke Marijuana. I would think A civil Liberties organization such as the ACLU would recognize the Moral position of the proposed law, which is intended strictly for adult use and opens the door to new laws that can be more effective at stopping intoxicated drivers and help breakdown the injustice which is the current Washington State Law regarding Marijuana. The ACLU has instead taken an unmoral position of endorsing the continued confiscation of our land, therefore chosen to promote thievery.
PS all you that are using this space to talk smack are lessing the chance for real dialog to occur. Do us all a favor and don’t post anything unless it pertains to the issue being presented.
Arland
Arguing with teh ACLU over this is unproductive.
It sounds to me as if the proponents have effed up the politics by not getting the ACLU to endorse the action.
Sounds as if the oroponents need to meet with the ACLU asap and see if some compromise can be reached at this late date.
SJ,
Your correct some sort of dialog has to be created in order to salvage anything that might still be positive in regards to this issue.