Marijuana.com

newgrowerNY

Initiative 2 backers say voters' will being ignored
03.25.07|Missoulian Com

When county officials voted Wednesday to dilute a citizens' initiative urging local law enforcement to ignore marijuana offenses, pot advocates predictably hung their heads and lamented the defeat.

But following the Missoula County commissioners' 2-1 vote to amend the measure, which in its altered form excludes felony marijuana crimes from the realm of low-priority offenses, the loudest chatter was being churned by online bloggers and civic cheerleaders who think the outcome will discourage a new generation of voters.

And while the committee charged with overseeing the measure, called Initiative 2, convened on a cordial note Friday morning, some members expressed their own doubts about the message officials have sent to young adults.

“There are many people out there who are wondering, ‘What is my vote even worth?' ” said Steve Zellmer, the oversight committee's harm reduction advocate. “They believe we should be trying to implement this initiative in the way it was intended to be implemented by voters.”

Zellmer's concerns, he said, were precipitated by a torrent of complaints from young people who wonder why they have to defend or justify their vote. Even worse, some people wonder why they bothered to vote at all.

On the Web site Grupthink.com, an online symposium founded by John Masterson, who is also chairman of the oversight committee, a post exclaims “I have lost all faith in Missoula County government.”

“Is there even a point to voting any more if the will of the people can so easily be subverted by two people?” the post inquires.

Much of the criticism, online and off, has alluded to County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg's position that a “gut feeling” led him to conclude Missoula's electorate misinterpreted the ballot language. The tone of Wednesday's public hearing, which was teeming with 20-something adults, went from inquisitive to indignant when Van Valkenburg used the phrase “gut feeling,” which many called insulting.

“Your ‘gut feeling' does not supersede the democratic process,” according to one post.

“We might not all be pro-marijuana, but we are all pro-democracy,” said Chad Mullman, who attended the hearing on Wednesday. “Let the people's decision stand.”

But when Van Valkenburg spoke before the oversight committee Friday, he expanded on his position, explaining that it's his duty to represent all of Missoula County, lest he succumb to “the tyranny of the majority.”

“Just because you have a majority doesn't mean you walk all over the minority,” he said. “Too often there's more emphasis put on dividing people than on uniting them.”

At Wednesday's meeting, Van Valkenburg used a map to show the geographical distribution of votes cast in support of - and in opposition to - the measure. The map shows that while support for the measure inside Missoula's city limits was strong, it was somewhat lacking in the county's rural outskirts.

According to Van Valkenburg's figures, the measure passed 58 percent to 42 percent inside Missoula's urban, and arguably more liberal core. However, cross the border into county jurisdiction, and the same measure fails 44 percent to 55 percent. Van Valkenburg said the adopted amendments are especially warranted because Initiative 2 applies only to county law enforcement.

Van Valkenburg continues to emphasize that Initiative 2 is a mere suggestion to county law enforcement, and doesn't change any laws governing marijuana use. He said the amendments will help him implement the initiative in a reasonable fashion.

But despite the heavy presence of Missoula residents opposed to the amendments on Wednesday, Friday's meeting drew public comment from just one individual, Louise Stasso, who said she lives on the Flathead Indian Reservation and witnesses the scourge of drugs and alcohol in her community every day.

Stasso said she's opposed Initiative 2 from the outset because it takes an underhanded approach to the problems of drug use.

Missoula County Commissioner Bill Carey, who on Wednesday cast the lone vote against the adopted amendments, also spoke at Friday's meeting and urged committee members to put their resentments aside and move on with their duties.

“The county attorney and the sheriff are just doing what they think is in the public's best interest,” Carey said. He also emphasized the difficulty of voting out of step with his fellow commissioners, the county attorney and the sheriff.

“I think the worst thing we can do is make enemies,” said county resident Charles Tiernan, who also sits on the nine-member oversight committee.

Angela Goodhope, a committee member who helped gather support for and introduce Initiative 2, said she was discouraged by this week's outcome, but looks forward to the continued cooperation from county officials.

“Two steps forward and one step back is still one step forward,” Goodhope said.

“Your participation is appreciated,” she added, turning to Van Valkenburg.

“That's the nicest thing you've said to me since this began,” Van Valkenburg replied.

__________________
Posting Guidelines




Disclaimer: I love to grow

 

16204ever

I'd like to give this guy a "gut feeling". With a large polo mallet.

__________________
Pot Can Cure Cancer, and the Government knew it in 1974.

http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v01/n572/a11.html?