Find out which in today’s Time Standard.
Recent Comments
 | Ed Voice on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | Eric Kirk on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | Unk John on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | Ed Voice on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | Anonymous on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
| Anonymous on Priorities |
 | Forest Queen on Priorities |
 | suzy blah blah on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
 | MIss Criyant on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Unk John on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
| suzy blah blah on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
| Unk John on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Unk John on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
| suzy blah blah on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 2, 2010 at 3:05 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Credit where credit is due: Only Hagen was completely, clearly in favor of this fall’s legalization initiative. Though I am voting for Gallegos, I think Hagen took the right position here and his stand is clearer than Gallegos’ stand on this issue. I should note that if Gallegos were to come in third in the June election, I would certainly support Hagen over Jackson.
However, lest your headline should suggest to some that Gallegos actually favors continuing prohibition, here’s what the TS says Gallegos had to say on the issue:
“After saying he’d rather see the Legislature address the issue, Gallegos said the legalization ballot measure would regulate and control marijuana sales, help keep the drug out of children’s’ hands and use some tax revenue for education and outreach efforts. Generally, he said, it sounds like a rational, reasonable approach. ”
So, you’re headline might be a bit misleading in that it seems to imply that neither of the other two candidates favors legalization. In fact, Gallegos has long supported legalization, he’s just saying that he would prefer to see it go through the legislature, rather than as a ballot initiative, and even still, he is quoted as saying that the intiative is a
rational, reasonable approach. So it’s not like he’s favoring continued prohibition, or even saying he actually opposes the ballot measure.
A more clear headline for this post would be “One of the three D.A. candidates publicly supports *this fall’s* marijuana legalization *ballot initiative.*”
June 2, 2010 at 3:17 pm
the reasonable anonymous
By the way, Eric, given our recent discussion on the desirability and practicality (or lack thereof) of a referendum on the General Plan Update, it seems likely to me that you would agree with Gallegos that the legislature is better equipped to do this legalization thing, and that it should be done that way rather than through the initiative process.
For my own part, I think a legalization initiative would be better than just a law passed by the legislature, as the success of such an initiative would more clearly demonstrate where the majority of the voting public stands on the issue (basically the same way I feel about the desirability of a referendum on the GPU).
Also, in the case of a statewide legalization intiative, if it passes, the legislature will not be able to remove it or place their own limits on it (as the state found out when they tried to enact the SB 420 limits to rights established by the voters in Prop 215). Of course the inability of the legislature to make changes to that area of law without going to the voters could be seen as a plus or a minus, depending on your point of view.
So, what is your own opinion, is Hagen taking the better position, or is Gallegos? If you would support the initiative process in this case, then what is your reasoning for supporting the voters getting a say in the case of this fall’s Legalization initiative (or for that matter Prop 215 when that passed), but oppose the voters getting a say when it comes to passing a General Plan Update? I’m not trying to play “gotcha” I’m genuinely interested in your thinking on this, and I recognize that a reasonable case can be made on either side.
June 2, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Eric Kirk
Ideally, I think the initiative process should be limited to laws which can be written in three or four paragraphs. Straight up or down – it’s legal or not. Let the legislature set the tax and regulation framework.
But I wouldn’t vote against a good idea because it’s too long.
Is he on the record for legalization? In either case, I’ll change the headline.
June 2, 2010 at 4:01 pm
the reasonable anonymous
O.K., Eric, thanks for changing the headline. It may be a small point, but I do think your new headline is more precise.
One thing you didn’t answer is whether you agree more with Hagen’s position, in which he comes out clearly for this fall’s initiative, or Gallegos’ position, where he states that he’d rather see it done through the legislature (but has positive things to say about the initiative and doesn’t state that he’s opposed to it). Which would you say is closer to your own thinking on the matter?
June 2, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Eric Kirk
I would have preferred that the initiative simply stated that marijuana is legal for recreational use and left the rest of the details to the legislature. But I still support the initiative.
June 2, 2010 at 4:12 pm
the reasonable anonymous
By the way, I like your idea with respect to the initiative being a simple yes or no on legalization, with the legislature empowered to do the specifics of taxation and regulation. Of course the catch is that some folks may support or oppose legalization based, in part, on what those regulations are like. So it might be kind of difficult to ask them to legalize it if they don’t know quite what the parameters will be around that.
However, with this fall’s initiative, it seems like we’ll be doing that to some extent, because if I recall correctly, the initiative on the ballot this fall will set some boundaries, then leave it up to local jurisdictions to define those boundaries further. It’s an interesting approach; I’m honestly not sure whether it’s a particularly good way to go about it or not.
Nonetheless, unless I hear some really good arguments against the initiative, I’ll be voting for it this fall, simply because it will keep a lot of people out of prison who are not a danger to society and therefore have no reason to be there. Even if this particular initiative is less than perfect, my sense is that it’s a lot better than the status quo.
June 2, 2010 at 4:16 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Oh, thanks for your 4:03 response. By the way, I admire your brevity and conciseness. I know I could use some work on that myself (to say the least!)