Voters Vote Yes, County Says No 645
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.
Link? (Score:4, Interesting)
Follow the money (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
One state at a time... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Democracy (Score:5, Interesting)
A similar thing happened in my town (Score:4, Interesting)
A new more progressive chair and vice-chair were voted in unanimously. You can make a difference, especially by starting at the local level and working your way up.
Re:Happens all the time (Score:5, Interesting)
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:There, proof that democracy doesn't work. (Score:2, Interesting)
Coincidentally... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm a person too, and I say Nay. (Score:5, Interesting)
Beer and (another addictive, carcinogenic plant:) tobacco are not safer. They should be restricted More, and that's gradually happening to smokers, worldwide.
Just what are you suggesting we do about the problem with drug abuse and addiction?
People should be allowed to do harm to themselves. People should be allowed to smoke in public. The government should not interfere. Now if a corporation wants to not hire people that smoke or drink, that is perfectly ok. If the government want to outlaw drunk driving, that is ok because you are causing great immediate harm. You don't have to go to the bar, and walking past someone smoking a cigarette will not cause significant harm. (Attempted) suicide should not be a crime for people over the age of 18
I currently don't have health insurance because I quite my corporate job to be a contractor for a few months. If I got injured, and die due to lack of medical care, I deserve to die. I never finished college. If no one will hire me as a result, I deserve to literally starve to death. I would accept private charity, but would chose death over welfare. I drink and occasionally smoke cigars. I will not blame anyone for liver cancer.
The government needs to not deal with these problems. Private charities should. If charities can not raise enough money to help you, you do not deserve help. I am being callous here, but it is necessary to keep the government small.
Re:Try this, then. (Score:5, Interesting)
We can argue over whether the system functioned properly or not; in fact, that's what this sort of thread is all about...hence my argument that it was in fact appropriate for /.
As for whether the system in fact acted as intended...I'd say no. While it is true that the government in question is in the republican form, even representative governments (like this one) contain methods of polling constitutents directly and investing the people with some limited legislative powers, like a referendum. Absent actual powers, non-binding ballot questions are intended to ask the people's inclination on issues of policy. In this case, a lawyer working for the county had 'a gut feeling' that people who voted for the question intended to vote against it, despite there being no evidence supproting that conclusion. Since deliberative bodies are supposed to deliberate on facts, and there were no facts in evidence except for the simple fact of the actual vote result, two out of three commissioners erred very, very badly. That was the system breaking down.
It isn't to say that the commissioners broke any laws. Quite the contrary, they probably acted within their authority. Nonetheless, we know that a system can act harmfully without having any structural defect. For example, it is within the power of the federal government to raise the marginal tax rate in all categories to 100%. It wouldn't be illegal, but I think we would all call it a massive systemic breakdown nonetheless.
P.S. The republican form was an innovation whose intention was never to prevent the tyranny of the majority. The element in the equation that provides that protection is a Constitution, a document prescribing and proscribing the bounds of legitimate authority for the governing body and placing certain human rights out-of-bounds of legislation or regulation.
P.P.S. I also think that most republics don't follow the wills of their constituents, and for the most part this is a good thing, as the people at large are neither privy to the requisite information nor the time to analyze that information to make decently informed decisions about most issues. However, that system seems to fail when that natural obfucatory nature of legislation provides a convenient shield for monied interests to ply favorable regulation.
Re:Link? (Score:1, Interesting)
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redundant [reference.com]
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:5, Interesting)
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?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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Missoula (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Link? (Score:1, Interesting)
Thank you for your revisionist interpretation of the Constitution.
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:3, Interesting)
I would guess that IP issues have killed more people in poorer areas then any war on drugs could have. The difference is also that death from the war on drugs seems to be related to an action already known not to be proper while death due to the lack of affordable medical treatments or medicine seem to be directly related to the greed of the IP owner and the person trying to make a living or going about normal life.
In most countries, Motive for murder increases the punishment. In this situation it doesn't count.
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:1, Interesting)
Remember when crack (which is only slightly more addictive than cocaine, and far less than tobacco -- and most of its "ill effects" come from the nasty shit it's sometimes cut with) suddenly became the devil? The Crips were expanding, and it got the Mob and the South Americans worried, so pretty soon -- horror stories and "get tough" talk from politicians. (It also helps if the drug is popular with a minority. This is why they had to rename cannabis to the more scary-foreign-sounding "MARIHUANA")
The Wikipedia discussion of how marijuana became criminalized mentions Randolph Hearst's paper mills (which would have become worthless thanks to the invention of mechanized hemp harvesting - hemp paper is superior and acid-free, so it lasts longer.) but leaves out the fact that Harry Anslinger was appointed to his job as head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics by his uncle-in-law, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Mellon was the primary stockholder in Mellon Bank, and one of their largest accounts was the DuPont corporation, which sold a chemical for production of paper from wood pulp to.... The Heart corporation. (They also were big in petroleum-based textiles such as nylon, for which hemp was a competitor) Big old circle-jerk there. When cannabis (and coincidentally, all varieties of hemp, even the ones with very little THC content) became illegal, DuPont and Hearst were the beneficiaries.
Re:Link? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Link? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why I dont vote (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, by voting you indicate you submit (and subject) your will to the democratic process, meaning you'll abide by whatever result the democratic process achieves. In case you've lost faith in that said process, or generally in the government you are supposed to be selecting, by voting you lose your dignity and/or moral high-ground by submitting it to a form of government you no longer can trust. Voting means you really think you have a choice, and that one choice is better than the other.
What I mean to say is - if you no longer think you're in a democracy, voting is not just a waste of time, but a lie and a crime against your own morals and principles.
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Here goes my karma, I guess (Score:3, Interesting)
A few uses. [purdue.edu]
You say you have a chemical engineering degree? Then you should know better. Generally speaking paper is brown without chemical treatment regardless of the fiber source. Anyone remember the "natural paper" fad? Treatment also has a great deal to do with clothing, imagine wearing fresh untanned leather. Fragile? The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution were both written on it are still on display in good condition. Paper from hemp actually has an advantage over paper from timber, it is acid free.
Plastics, paint, oil, biodiesel, ethanol, etc, see above linked article and feel free to search for more. My use of the term "replacing" was as in "substituting for" not as in "elimination of".
Never called Missoula a small town. Read the parent to my post then reread my comment and you will see I was responding to their post.
I agree, especially when it was outlawed under such bogus circumstances. Wonder drug? No, but the American Medical Association was strongly opposed to the Marihuana Act cause it greatly reduced their arsenal. I don't smoke the stuff, nor do I advocate for others to do so or not do so, however I hate bogus scientific research being used to pad corporate and political wallets while stifling competition. We should make a honest effort to explore hemp's usefulness and make extensive use of it where it is superior.
Offtopic side note to the parent: Read that article I linked and you will see that if hemp does make a return in the US that many things will need to be relearned and re-engineered. An area that might prove of interest to one who desires a career in chemical engineering. Also, when Henry Ford spoke of using ethanol for fuel, he spoke of potatos which might be more of interest to you in Idaho. Don't recall much about potatos, maybe when I am not so tired maybe I will search to see if anyone ever did for potatos what George Washington Carver did for peanuts.
If you ever consider going to work for Monsanto, research them heavily first and you may change your mind.
Mod parent up (Score:3, Interesting)
Somebody mod parent up, he's absolutely spot on. How useful is the 2nd amendment anymore, when even a few hippie war protesters are so dangerous, they have to be confined in 'free-speech zones'? Maybe a 'test case' is in order....
Re:Missoula (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, you pretty much lost me there. I don't know anyone who has ever interacted with the police who hasn't been sorely disappointed by their complete lack of interest in pursuing most crime. You can bring a property crime to their doorstep, bring them evidence, tell them exactly who the perpetrator is and they will fill out a form and never even bother to interview the person who committed the crime because they don't have the resources and it isn't a high enough priority.
I've known several people who have been assaulted where numerous witnesses saw it, the person who did it was known to the victim (and too stupid to even deny it if a cop asked), videotape was available and the police never did anything more than fill out the form in their station -- forget going to all the effort of actually getting the security tape and driving all the way to the criminal's house, whose name and address were provided at the time of complaint!
No doubt you remember the slashdot story from last year where the guy in NYC had his $600 smartphone stolen and went to the police and they did nothing but basically try to intimidate him and his friends into shutting up about it until he got too much press coverage. Of course the phone company knew exactly where the phone was down to a few meters, could easily tell any investigator, and the victim provided photographs and text messages sent from it in which the people with the phone identified themselves.
We're not talking about Sherlock Holmes whodunnits here, where you need to call in an FBI profiler and a forensics team to swab for DNA samples. Every time I've known of a property crime, the cops have basically told the victim "there's no chance anyone will investigate this since your insurance will pay for it".
Of course they can. The police are not required to investigate 100% of crimes reported, much less those committed. We'd have to deputize every person in the county and they'd still be backlogged if that were the case. If the County Attorney has never heard of police or prosecutorial discretion, he must be a very busy man trying to fully prosecute every single misdemeanor that comes across his desk. Discretion is one way that every human being in the legal system is supposed to step in and keep the system from generating ridiculous results, so long as it isn't abused in a discriminatory way.
Re:Why I dont vote (Score:2, Interesting)
Are you sure? Does the democratic process insure you that your voice, opinion or demand are heard and attended to? How do you know? I don't believe it does. You may disagree.
Abide, yeah that's what I meant. If I vote I feel morally compelled to abide by the results of the election. That is not to say that you must abide by them, only that I would feel like a lier not to. Again, it's ok for anybody to feel otherwise, just expressing my feelings.
I did lose faith in the process, but I don't call it a 'victim' mentality. I think it's more victim-like to keep voting hoping time after time that something will change - this time I will make a difference, I'll show those... - than admitting this might not be the most productive path to follow, and find an alternative that might bring results (which path that might be is a whole other topic).
Right. When I no longer can identify with the 'system', when I see it hurting and destroying innocent people and values I hold dearly, how can I support it?
What? How? Explain please. It is possible to be living outside the 'system', or at least with a minimum of interaction with it. Depends on how you define the 'system', of course.
That's a bit overboard, isn't it? You tell me anyone who isn't in support of oppressive regimes aught to kill himself? Got a little carried away there I'm afraid.
Cheers! Why the hell not?