November 5, 2008
Updates on drug policy and crime-related state initiatives
California voters yesterday soundly defeated closely-watched Proposition 5 and another drug-related initiative, while Massachusetts and Michigan passed marijuana-related measures by wide margins. Voters in Maine, Oregon, and North Dakota also weighed on in statewide ballot issues related to alcohol, tobacco and other drugs.
In other initiative news, this AP reportindicates that voters in San Francisco rejected Proposition K, which would have barred local authorities from investigating, arresting or prosecuting anyone for prostitution.
Also, at C&C, Kent provides this opinionated update on Califorina-specific crime-related initiatives:
With 95% of precincts reporting, it appears that Proposition 9, the crime victims' rights initiative, has passed by a 6% margin. On the same ballot, the Soros-backed Proposition 5 was rejected by a whopping 20% margin.... Proposition 6 was also defeated by a large margin, probably reflecting a distaste for ballot-box budgeting at a time of fiscal crisis.... Confirming that San Francisco is not entirely devoid of common sense, the hooker proposition lost by 16 points.
November 5, 2008 at 12:14 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Updates on drug policy and crime-related state initiatives:
Much of the reason why these propositions are being challenged is because instead of making sure there are a certain measure of control BEFORE we request the decriminalization and/or legalization of so-called victimless crimes, we discard that and focus ONLY on how can “I” obtain more rights and extend my right to privacy instead of first considering how to extend right to privacy while at the same time preserving social order and not causing MORE harm to society.
We are about 20 years behind the area of pragmatism where we focus on policies that extend our freedoms while at the same time provide protection and security where it is most needed.
We can preserve our right to bear arms while still making sure the arms do not get in the hands of those who are most likely to use it for the wrong reasons.
We can preserve our right to privacy and extend equal protection under the law by allowing gays and lesbians to partake in civil unions and get the same benefits married couples get and not NEED to call it a marriage.
We can preserve our right to privacy and allow those who smoke cannabis smoke a joint in their homes and not have an officer feel the need to intrude or investigate the matter because the officer smelled the nasty smell, while at the same time severely prosecute those who think they can set shop, grow their own and get a whole town high from their grow.
I do not particularly care for “recreational” drugs, yet feel there should be some meeting of the minds on how to best handle our current drug problem, the amount of resources spent on the war on drugs, and the amount of money spent on prosecuting, housing, and treating drug offenders. I don’t think that a person that smokes Marijuana 3-4 times a month, maximum, has a job, contributes positively to society (How DO we qualify that? By making sure he doesn't have criminal history involving violent crimes or substantial drug related offenses) should be required to attend an A&D treatment program at tax payers’ expense.
But to some people these ideas are too progressive or simply too “radical.”
Posted by: Ange | Nov 6, 2008 3:37:15 PM