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.

Short answer:

[Durrok (912509)]

No and that is why voting among American citizens is extremely low.

Follow the money

[pyite69 (463042)]

The government taxes and spends a LOT of money to prosecute the war on drugs. Virtually every department gets a cut.

It is only logical that a county attorney would want to continue prosecuting these cases, otherwise he might have to cut staff and save the taxpayers a few bucks.

Some articles

[j1m+5n0w (749199)]

There was no link in the story, so here's some that seem to be relevant.

An article [newwest.net]

relevant Google news search [google.com]

Democracy

[xman6 (897911)]

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.

Link

[FlyByPC (841016)]

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/03/24/news /local/news04.txt [missoulian.com]

Man -- and I thought *I* was lazy. But too lazy to Google it? Wow.

One state at a time...

[NotQuiteReal (608241)]

People can change things... especially if you start one state at a time.

Each state has 2% of the Senate vote.

Montana seems to have 2 Democrat senators... maybe they should start a groundswell by voting in some libertarians [lp.org] who wouldn't put up for that stuff.

I was there

[steampoweredlawngnom (996400)]

That meeting just reinforced my opinion that voting is pointless. There were 30 or so people who implored the commitee and commissioners not to amend the initiative, and 5 people ask them to amend it, 3 of which were law enforcement, one man was very, very elderly, and one man who actually claimed that "it was much harder for me to get off pot than marijuana."

The county prosecutor opened the meeting by telling us that we did not understand the initiative, to which many of us, myself included, assured him that we read the initiative in its entirety, and did understand it. When everybody was done speaking, he came back up and told us that he disagreed with us, and that we still did not understand the initiative. In addition, he showed us a map showing how the votes were distributed, and told us that since most of the votes were centered around the "metropolitan" area of Missoula, and not so much in the surrounding areas of the county, that it was not fair to voters to have this initiative.

I really enjoy living in Missoula for a number of reasons, but the local government is not one of them.

For the record, I did vote, and will continue to, regardless of my opinion that voting is purely symbolic.

Missoula

[Gary W. Longsine (124661)]

I live in Missoula and discussed this initiative with quite a few people, none of whom are consumers of unregulated or illegal substances. They all voted for this, and they all understood it clearly. "The police should be investigating real crimes" was the most commonly cited reason. There are unsolved robberies every week in this town that receive, as far as anyone can tell, scant police attention. Police can build careers and the county can confiscate property (and generate revenue) "busting people for drugs" but investigating robberies is hard work and not glamorous in any way. The people of Missoula county understand this clearly. The people who overturned this will very likely be voted out of office next chance.

Re:I was there

[steampoweredlawngnom (996400)]

Because I'm a 22 year old agnostic pothead without the type of connections to cover up the latter two reasons.

reason enough?

Same behavior new state

[bhalter80 (916317)]

This is the same behavior exhibited by the Massachusetts legislature in 2000 when the tax payers voted on a binding referendum to lower the state income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0%. This time period was during a $1B annual surplus but the legislators stated that it was not finacially wise for the state to lower the tax rate and that the resulting decrease would not significantly benefit the tax payers in terms of cold hard cash. As it was a binding referendum the legislators simply passed a bill the next day to raise the tax rate back to 5.3%

Why I dont vote

[Quzak (1047922)]

This only confirms the reason why I and many others simply do not vote. Votes are simply subverted, and ignorance is usually cited by those in power.

The voters probably did not understand the wording of the ballot.
The voters probably did not understand what they are voting on.
The voters are too stupid to vote so just project the illusion that their votes matter.

I for one am sick and tired of the government and those in power who think they are above the voters. Government and those who work for the Government exist to serve the public, not the other way around.

Re:Why I dont vote

[garett_spencley (193892)]

None of those are reasons not to vote. They're just excuses for being lazy.

Even if you believe that your vote doesn't matter what do you lose from voting besides time ?

On the other hand, if you're wrong, and your vote does make a difference then you've had some say in the politics that affect your every day life. If that doesn't matter to you then, by all means, stay home and jerk off while others who actually care go out and try to change things for the better.

Even if they're just wasting their time at least they're actually doing something.

The way I see it you have three options:

1) You vote and try to change things through the system (writing angry letters, protesting etc.)
2) You don't vote and instead gather a group of supporters and draw arms and try to overthrow your government by force.
3) You do nothing and justify it by saying how futile doing something would be.

that's called learned helplessness

[circletimessquare (444983)]

it's classic psychology: they have trained dogs to learn that they cannot control their surroundings. they teach them that if they get an electric shock from jumping over a barrier, then the dogs just lay down and take the shocks

it's sad, and it works just as well on humans

the point is to effect control on your government, that's the beauty of a democracy. but if a democracy is populated by those who think helpessly, like slaves, like, you, then democracy does not work

when you withhold your vote, you only help those who you complain about. those who you hate are HAPPY that you do not vote. if their actions lead you to not vote, all the more reason to do the actions they do, according to them

your psychology is that of a slave in a fascist state. and if enough people who think like you populate this country, then that is exactly what it will become. BECAUSE of people like you, not in spite of people like you

look: there will ALWAYS be assholes who try to manipulate the system. always. but simply because they exist, you will withhold your voice from your government. incredible. you must always fight the assholes who would subvert democracy. but if you simply stop fighting them, and give up your vote, then guess what? they win

if this country is not democratic in anyway, it is more because of people like you, then the assholes who would subvert it. because evil assholes can be fought. apathy on the other hand, is an obstinate unmoveable useless obstacle

people who think like you are the biggest reason democracy fails: "i'm helpless, so i will not vote"

no, you're not helpless, your vote counts. you only think that way because you have been trained like a dog in a cage. you've learned helpelessness, you have no heart, you've ceased caring

It's Cannabis, not marijuana

[essence (812715)]

The correct name is Cannabis. Marijuana refers to cannabis sativa strains originating in Mexico. There is also cannabis indica, which is lower in THC (the 'high') and higher in CBD (which is more beneficial in some medical cases, such as cataplexy).

There are also two other main strains, Industrial Hemp being one of them, but also another which i cannot remember the name of.

Re:Link?

[by Anonymous Coward]

tis a problem with heavy pot smokers, they tend to forget things ;-)

Re:Link?

[tomhudson (43916)]

tis a problem with heavy pot smokers, they tend to forget things ;-)

Are you referring to the poster, or the slashdot editors?

http://www.kcfw.com/montana_news.php?id=01723a93ff e12ca09070c26c8713da13 [kcfw.com]

The big problem many people said they have with last night's decision is that it undermines what the voters said they wanted last November.

During last night's hearing, a number of people protested the amendment saying commissioners don't have the power or the right to change the initiative but they did anyway. County Commissioner Bill Carey was the one dissenter in last night's vote. He said the commissioners do have the power to amend the initiative but he doesn't think they should have. He said it should have been given a chance. "I believe we should have implemented the initiative the voters approved. I suggested we should have given the initiative the voters approved a chance and if after a year or so, there really were problems, we should make amendments then," he said.

Carey said he hopes voters aren't too discouraged by last night's vote and he urges them not to give up on the democratic process.

I hear that everyone else was going "like .... bummer, dude!"

Here's a link

[GuyMannDude (574364)]

I found this story [newwest.net] doing a Google search. From TFA:

The tone of the hearing shifted when Van Valkenburg said that he had proposed the amendments because of a "gut feeling" that Missoula voters were not "detail-oriented" enough to understand the complete scope of the initiative.

I think the only ones who failed the "detail-oriented" test are the slashdot editors who posted a story that references an article and a blog but failed to provide any links.

GMD

No, just optimizing for typical /. readers :-)

[Eternal Vigilance (573501)]

That node was flagged by the new /. content analyzer as unreachable and optimized out.

Fascinating technology, really. Here's a link to how they do it:

Re:Happens all the time

[scoove (71173)]

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:Take back the government. It was yours all alon

[Original Replica (908688)]

With your telling your friend how to vote as opposed to letting him make a decision on his own, one wonders.

Yes, only those with the finances to have their opinions televised should be allowed to express opinions or influence people. We little people shouldn't think too hard or speak too loudly, it might cause us to forget our place.

Re:Here goes my karma, I guess

[zappepcs (820751)]

Let me give you a hint: All voting irregularities are 'stuff that matters' and it's stuff that matters to geeks as well as everyone else. The war on drugs has been as absurd as the DMCA and the **AA's war in copyrights/fair use.

You might argue that this isn't a voting irregularity, but the vote result was 'irregularly' thrown out on bogus grounds. That is to say that our government is not listening to us, and THAT is something that matters! ... unless of course, you are only 12 and reading /. from your mom's basement?

Re:Here goes my karma, I guess

[istartedi (132515)]

Well, you see it's like... oh hold on, I have to step away from the computer, I'm laughing so hard... OK, it's like don't worry about your karma because you see... hold on... I need to get some more of these cookies. These cookies are awesome and all of the sudden I just can't seem to get enough of... hold on, I think I'm going to have another laughing fit... umm... you see, oh, something about some "news for nerds" question. Dude, just chill out. Haven't you ever looked up at the stars and thought, that light is touching my face and it was touching a start? So thats why it's news for nerds.

Re:Here goes my karma, I guess

[value_added (719364)]

One could argue that voting issues certainly fall under 'Stuff that matters'.

I'd suggest that the only thing that "matters" for anyone keen on the subject is good music and lots of brownies. ;-) That said, there was a recent program on The History Channel on the subject that I found interesting. From a Wiki article on the Legal Issues of Cannabis [wikipedia.org]:

Until 1937, consumption and sale of cannabis was legal in most U.S. states. In some areas it could be openly purchased in bulk from grocers or in cigarette form at newsstands, though an increasing number of states had begun to outlaw it. In that year, federal law made possession or transfer of cannabis without the purchase of a by-then-incriminating tax stamp illegal throughout the United States by passing the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act. This was contrary to the advice of the American Medical Association at the time.[2] Legal opinions of the time held that the federal government could not outlaw it entirely. The tax was $100 per pound of hemp, even for clothes or rope. The expense, extremely high for the time, was such that people stopped openly buying and making it. The decision of the United States Congress was based in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint.

The key to criminalisation was the way in which Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 [wikipedia.org] was written and passed.

The act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of cannabis, but levied a tax equalling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in marijuana. It did, however, include penalty provisions. Violations of proper procedure could result in a fine of up to $2000 and five years' imprisonment. The net effect was to make it too risky for anyone to deal in the substance.

The bill was passed on the grounds that cannabis caused "murder, insanity and death". Today, it is generally accepted that these reasons were fictitious; in 1951, Anslinger himself claimed that he had no evidence to support such a thesis. However, new reasons had emerged by then, which pushed through a bill that superseded the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

In 1969 in Leary v. United States, this act was found to be unconstitutional since it violated the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself.

To rephrase the above, if you wanted to deal in the stuff, you needed a tax stamp. Which required possession of the stuff. Which was ... wait for it ... illegal.

It's hardly surprising that in the decades since, the laws concerning cannabis are just as tortured and contradictory, especially when considered against the background of yet another new study that suggest alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous [guardian.co.uk]

Re:Here goes my karma, I guess

[dreamchaser (49529)]

I think that it certainly matters more to many of us here than whether or not some dinosaurs dug burrows.

Re:Here goes my karma, I guess

[by Anonymous Coward]

Politics anywhere can affect us all. The original laws in this country that established the legal grounds for criminalizing marijuana possession and usage were funded by the lumber/paper industry and the cotton industry. They made donations to elected officials as well as paid for prejudiced research on marijuana. This process should sound familiar to you.

It wasn't marijuana they wanted to get rid of though but hemp, by focusing on marijuana propaganda they got hemp production in the US stopped as well as imports of hemp. Similar tactics have been repeated many times. Hemp had many uses at the time, including the production of paper and cloth, in fact the Declaration of Independance and the US Constitution are printed on paper made from hemp. Hemp would potentially be a great resource atm for replacing many hydrocarbon products currently used, so you can bet that the oil companies might join in any attempts to legalize hemp production. Hemp has a wide range of very good uses if you bother to research for them. Far too many to discuss here.

Marijuana prior to the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act had many medical uses and the American Medical Association opposed the passing of this act. This was mentioned by at least one other poster here but they didn't go in depth on it and neither will I for the purposes of this post other then to suggest everyone research a bit.

As I and others have stated here before, the only way we can change the current path of our government is to retake it from the current power structure from the local government on up. To do so requires the education of our fellow citizens and ourselves on what is really going on, on how it really should be and how to get it there. Therefore the events in some small town where the citizens have tried to reclaim their government (or some large city, or some other state) are of interest to us all, particularly when it involves governmental roadblocks to such repossession.

Will you ignore it when they come for those in Misoula, because your not from Misoula? (reference to the oft repeated quote) Btw, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were hemp farmers and Jefferson was a big advocate of its uses.