Voters Vote Yes, County Says No

Khyber writes in with a story from Montana, where residents of Missoula County voted in a referendum intended to advise county law-enforcement types to treat marijuana offenses as low-profile. The referendum would not have changed any laws, but was advisory only. After voters approved it, county commissioners overturned it by a 2-to-1 vote. They were swayed by the argument of the county attorney, who had a "gut feeling" that Missoula's electorate had misinterpreted the ballot language. The move has resulted in a flood of disaffection among voters, especially young voters. "Is there even a point to voting any more if the will of the people can so easily be subverted by two people?" one voter posted on a comment blog.

Comments

Democracy

[xman6]

It's been said by Jean-Jacque Rousseau in the Social Contract that Democracy stops being Democracy (Democracy in the sense of Voting for Opinion vs the difference between Democracy and Republicanism) when the Government stops being a representative for the people. Once that happens it becomes an oppressive tyranical force something akin to a Dictatorship which is the ultimate end of Democractic rule, hence why its been said that every Democractic society needs to continuously reinvent itself and suffer a civil upheavel or it will become a Dictatorship in rule but a Democracy in name, this is the worst type of Dictatorship since it abuses not only the people it controls but also lies to the truth of its own existance. I would rather live under a Dictatorship which acknowledged it was rather than one who said it wasn't. Hence why I'm glad I live in Canada, although we still face many problems along the same lines but not as bad yet.

Re:Happens all the time

[scoove]

Here in Oklahoma, we brought the lottery to a vote three times and it passed all three times, but we never got the lottery until about a year after the third time.

In Nebraska, we've voted in term limits for our state legislators three times. Because Nebraska has the nation's only unicameral (meaning only one congressional body, rather than two like a house and senate), the people's vote via referendum is considered the check and balance of "the other house."

In all three cases, the legislators threw the term limits out (which limit them to only a few terms). They refuse to leave, and have deemed the overwhelming majority vote of the people to be either caused by confusion reading ballets or just plain wrong.

Because the people kept on sending out petitions to get it back on the ballot and voted on, the legislature decided to fix that. They made all sorts of new rules on the petition process, cutting the time to circulate petitions in half, doubling the required amount of votes, using nefarious methods to reject signatures, etc.

Once you let someone be a full-time politician, the power goes to their head. The influence of lobbyists and the nice gifts they bring matters much more than any pathetic constituent. Show me someone who's a life-long politician and I'll show you a crook - party need not matter.

Re:Here goes my karma, I guess

[rossifer]

my primary concern are the victims of drug abusers.

We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana?

By your logic (which I'm sympathetic to), the number of victims of users and addicts should roughly correlate with the number of users and addicts. So the goal of our public policy, including our laws, should be to reduce the number of users and addicts. Right? So, the first question that we should be able to answer is: has the presence of laws prohibiting marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, MDMA, etc. reduced the usage or addiction rate of any of those substances in the time since they were passed? You won't take my word for it, so I'll ask you to look it up for youself. The answer will probably suprise you.

What about heroin? Would bystander deaths double? Triple?

Or would they decline? The legalization of these drugs would reduce the price dramatically. After devastating the profitability of the black market, users can use cocaine and heroin in ways that are much less likely to cause addiction (taken orally instead of injected or heated and inhaled, for instance).

Last time I checked, not very many people grow tobacco in their backyards and make cigarettes in their basements. Why does anyone think dealers give the government a cut of their lucrative business?

There are at least two important differences between marijuana and tobacco. The profits on tobacco are much, much lower than the profits on marijuana. Also, marijuana grows like a weed in just about any medium and fixes nitrogen into it's roots (makes the soil richer), while tobacco is picky about soil conditions, and very damaging to the soil where it grows.

Society already has to pay for addicts, how many would we be paying for if these substances become easily and legally available?

And here's the core issue. I believe that just like making alcohol illegal increased drinking (and drunks), the current laws are largely responsible for the increased rates of users and addicts; and just like ending prohibition returned the number of drinkers and drunks down to pre-prohibition levels, legalizing drugs will reduce both users and addicts from their current numbers.

You seem to believe that alcohol usage rates around US alcohol prohibition, the changes in hard drug usage rates as hard drug prohibitions have gotten more and more severe, and the reduction in users and addicts in the Netherlands as they eliminate more and more prohibitions are the exceptions, and that all we need is more of what hasn't worked to finally fix the problem.

You and I both want fewer drug users and fewer drug addicts. The difference is that I'm willing to acknowledge that drug laws don't help and probably make that goal even more difficult. So I ask you, have we seen a substantial benefit or has the War on (Some) Drugs made the drug problem in this country worse?

Logic has no place in pro-drug arguments, because there is nothing logical about (ab)using these drugs in the first place.

There's a sneaky argument in there that you're not voicing. I'm not a user of any illegal drugs. Aside from the occasional glass of port, cup of tea, or Advil now and then, I don't use any drugs at all. I think that using addictive drugs is one of the stupidest possible things a person could do. And yet I firmly believe that legalization is the only chance we have to (1) reduce the number of drug users and addicts; (2) reduce the number of secondary crimes related to drug dealing and drug buying; (3) reduce the funding for gangs and other black-market organizations; and (4) begin the process of restoring some of our long-lost freedoms. We've paid for the War on (Some) Drugs with the fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth amendments to the Constitution.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Here goes my karma, I guess

[Max Littlemore]

We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana?

People already operate these machines under the influence of all manner of illicit drugs. People who use these drugs don't tend to care much about the legality or otherwise, so I don't think there is a valid case to make that ending prohibition will increase their numbers. If your argument is valid, will you also argue that cell phones should be banned? The reactions of people driving while talking on the phone is similar to driving drunk, so cell phones should be banned everywhere to prevent idiots from using them in cars. Is that your point?

The war on drugs is failing in the same way as a war on the common cold would fail. Declaring war on a health problem is great for propaganda but that's all. You cannot mend a broken bone by declaring war on it.

If the govermnet regulated the manufacture of synthetic drugs and allowed the taxed supply of all illicit drugs, it wouldn't matter what drug dealers thought. They would be out of business, their entire revenue stream would disappear and with it their power. The smart ones would go legitimate, much like the end of alcohol prohibition.

Your argument about taxes needing to be high to pay for addicts is flawed too. The government currently makes no revenue from the drug trade and, ignoring the cost to society of addiction, is idiotically throwing money at this war on drugs. If they stopped throwing that money away and started taxing drugs, they would eliminate an expense and turn it into a revenue stream.

If we now bring the cost of drug addiction back into the equation, in the case of physically addictive drugs like heroin and crack, one of the biggest costs to society is through associated crime. If the price of these drugs go down, the cost of maintaining an addiction goes down and associated crime levels drop. Also, by removing a huge disincentive to admit to drug problems people with are more likely to accept and even actively seek treatment. The war on drugs makes that more difficult.

As for cannabis, and the concept that it is a stepping stone to harder drugs, that has more to do with its illicit nature rather than the drug itself. Remove the "forbidden fruit" quality to it, and it stops being a stepping stone to anything.

All of these arguments are well established and have been proven true in countries around the world with the guts to stand up to the corruption that maintains US style drug laws. Remember, when advocating a tough stance on drugs, you are on the same side as organized criminals who stand nothing to lose from prohibition and everything to gain.

If you really want to stop the drug problem, the only sensible solution is to end prohibition. But then logic has no place in anti-drug rhetoric, or in "War on " propaganda.