...But they did anyhow. We've got a Democrat Mayor in Indy and my district has a Democrat councilman, too. The party has a one-seat majority on the City-County Council.
I would have greatly preferred a divided government. It keeps 'em busy in less-harmful ways. On the other hand, my disappointment is probably minor compared to that of Ohio's would-be pot-growing barons, who found their marijuana-legalization/constitutional monopoly scheme received a resounding No from voters, while the measure barring that state from ever granting any kind of monopoly via the state constitution squeaked to a narrow win -- and yes, it was inspired by the attempt to get a chokehold on commercial production of legal pot. (I figure legal herb is an inevitability -- but maybe not real soon, at least in the Midwest. I could be wrong, one way or the other.) I'm not a fan of the stuff -- but remind me, was there more (and less-moderate) drinking during Prohibition, or after Repeal?
Still, for now Ohio's still saying, "Lips that touch ganja shall never touch mine," and there it stands until next time -- and Indy's given a big ol' open-mouthed kiss to the Democrats. We'll see how King Stork works out. Just keep the streets plowed, Joe Hogsett, and don't let 'em jack up my property tax any higher.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
9 comments:
Ohio is a bit strange, in that amendment to the constitution is fairly easy, but also the only statewide referendum that's allowed. So it has become a means by which well-enough funded industries can get their desires enshrined in law. I hope this result is an indication that the public is beginning to catch on, and pay more attention to the "issue" questions at the head of the ballot.
Drinking declined during Prohibition, and remained at lower levels after passage of the 21st Amendment. It was harder to get a drink after Repeal than during Prohibition, since no one has yet figured out a way to regulate scofflawry (scofflawry might not be an actual word). Last Call: The Rise And Fall Of Prohibition by Daniel Okrent has a very entertaining account of that experiment.
If anyone is interested in learning the argument against legalization, try hanging around with a pothead for a day.
Here in ol' AZ, with a (certain) doctor's exam (and paying a fee) one may get a medical marijuana ID card, (for another fee) allowing purchase of a specified amount, monthly.
To my knowledge, no insurance companies cover prescription of physician costs.
Surveillance of the green pharmacies is interesting - the clientèle seems to consist largely of hippies and old people!
And all have 'can't have a gun in here! signage...
Friends who have the card say mj works for many medical conditions - it may, but I don't believe it to be the godsend they claim it to be.
And possession w/o the card is still illegal.
We live in interesting times!
gfa
You know the property taxes are going up... sigh
When reps from NORML were dissing the legalization ballot issue (due to the monopoly issue)....
It'll be interesting to see if they wise up when they take a run at it again in the next year or so and limit it to medicinal to get their foot in the door.
I really think the monopoly provisions hurt it more than the recreational legalization.
I think the stuff makes people fools -- but so does alcohol. It seems to me it is a class of crime we don't need to have. Let employers regulate the use of it -- mine already does: zero tolerance, random drug tests. Don't like it? Abstain while you seek other work.
The Monopoly provisions DEFINITELY hurt it. The Issue was run/sponsored completely separate from the normal pro legalization groups, and several actually came out against it. Apparently atleast one of the exit polls by the regular groups was showing 60% support for legalization, and the measure only made 36%.
There's both a medical bill under consideration in the statehouse and a good ballot measure that the regular groups(not the monopoly guys) will be collecting signatures for next year.
Monty James - "If anyone is interested in learning the argument against legalization, try hanging around with a pothead for a day."
I'm surprised anyone who isn't a pothead could think that's an argument against legalization rather than an argument against usage. 'Cause one would think a person of unimpeded intellect would notice it's easy to hang around with a pothead where pot's illegal. That it's bad for you is not a sufficient condition for whether it should be illegal.
Monty: so, did pot-smoking increase or decrease after the Feds outlawed it? (Yeah, trick question). My point was that we are *in* "prohibition" now, and we have the same kinds of problems the Volstead Act caused: widespread flouting of the law, distribition via organized crime, and so on.
Most potheads I have known (not many) were spacey, largely-harmless types. Some held down decent jobs. I think of them as I think of functional alcoholics: dangerous in certain circumstances, which are in and of themselves illegal. Legal booze didn't take DUI laws off the books.
Post a Comment