tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post7756882083938023675..comments2023-09-15T04:27:57.129-04:00Comments on Commentarama: A Tale Of Two Ballot MeasuresAndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-47042312002846649692010-11-07T15:40:46.235-05:002010-11-07T15:40:46.235-05:00The professor was smoking Acapulco Gold and eating...The professor was smoking Acapulco Gold and eating mini-donuts.chas7007https://www.blogger.com/profile/05145277169062240438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-50967212742600545792010-11-07T12:53:28.635-05:002010-11-07T12:53:28.635-05:00Chas7007: I'm just picturing the stoners in t...Chas7007: I'm just picturing the stoners in the grocery lines getting up to the counter. "Uh, gimme a couple a packs a Acapulco Golds. Or was it Maui Wowie 100s? Hey, Dude, which ones have the hookah filters? Oh, yeah, and a big bag a mini-donuts."<br /><br />Oklahoma voters did the right thing even though I can't predict the final outcome. Typical of the left, a University of Oklahoma professor insulted the citizens who pay his overblown salary by saying that the people voted on a solution looking for a problem. If he thinks foreign law, and particularly sharia law, are not a looming problem, he needs to turn in his diplomas. For once, a state acted <i>before</i> the threat became embedded in their laws.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-48290618105731976022010-11-07T12:44:33.805-05:002010-11-07T12:44:33.805-05:00USArtguy: Hilarious. I have it on good authority...USArtguy: Hilarious. I have it on good authority that the election produced a mini-boom in the California economy. Fast-food retailers and convenience stores reported that their shelves were emptied of nachos, twinkies and ho-hos.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-9502420711433054572010-11-07T09:40:47.205-05:002010-11-07T09:40:47.205-05:00I'm with Joel, good article LawHawk. Looks li...I'm with Joel, good article LawHawk. Looks like my brother state Oklahoma did good. On the stoner law, it's been good to really examine this and I decided it's a bad idea to legalize. Both sides have some good arguments. As I remember, everyone in my class growing up that used marijuana went on to use stronger things eventually. As pot didn't give them the effect they were looking for anymore with tolerance, most went on to cocaine, mandrex, some LSD. Some could say "There's no medical evidence showing marijuana is a gateway to other drugs". Well, they should have sat in my class. Also, the drug cartel is a business. Illegal, but they are in it to make money. If one drug stops making money, simply create a new one. When cocaine finished its era, freebase cocaine followed by crack came. Believe me, they will figure out something for us. So the argument it will reduce crime and put them out of business is erroneous. I'm with the farmers on the IRS thing, who wants any growth in government intrusion. Geez, it's scary we are giving them healthcare. I concluded the price California will pay to raise a few more tax dollars is too great. I have trouble thinking of driving down the 101 with a bunch of stoners. I also wonder how employers are going to handle this on hiring. Knowing Cali, this would be another legal challenge of someone who didn't get hired because they had pot in their urine. It takes 30 days to get out. Dodged these issues this time, we will see in the future how it plays out. In addition, I don't think we should shape kids minds with THC while they are developing their future by telling them "Hey, it's okay". And what about the new trend for "preventative health care"! You know obesity will on the rise with pot smokers lining up at McDonalds drive through :).chas7007https://www.blogger.com/profile/05145277169062240438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-59175259170453309802010-11-07T01:29:03.931-05:002010-11-07T01:29:03.931-05:00Ha! The stoners had a chance to give themselves th...Ha! The stoners had a chance to give themselves their golden nirvana but "got stoned and missed it". <br /><br />"Dude, let's go vote to legalize MJ"<br />"Sure, man, but let's take a hit first"<br />"Ok, mmm. Dude I'm hungry, let's get a pizza. We still got time to vote."<br />"That was great, man. I need another doobie. aaahhh"<br />"Hey dude, weren't we supposed to do something today?"USArtguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06062334713741697082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-51652239308200921662010-11-06T16:36:57.021-04:002010-11-06T16:36:57.021-04:00Andrew: As I mentioned in the article, we lawyers...Andrew: As I mentioned in the article, we lawyers are a tricky lot. I thought that they would at least wait to challenge the law until a court in Oklahoma ruled on a case which hinged on foreign law. Silly me. I should have known.<br /><br />This is not going to be a simple matter, and the litigation will probably go on for years, most likely ending up at the US Supreme Court.<br /><br />And I have the perfect hypothetical case. The US Supreme Court finds that marriage is guided by federal privileges and immunities, and equal protection findings, and holds gay marriage to be constitutionally protected. Two gay Muslims in Oklahoma decide they want to get married, but the local imam sues claiming it violates sharia law, and the law of every Muslim nation. DISCUSS.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-71757609118389443302010-11-06T16:07:52.144-04:002010-11-06T16:07:52.144-04:00Pittsburgh Enigma: The right to a ballot measure ...Pittsburgh Enigma: The right to a ballot measure is a mixed blessing. Your "senior member" was on the right track about why it isn't favored in certain states. Initially, there was no such thing in any of the states. The earliest state constitutional provision for "people's" ballot measures came in California when the Progressives were at their height (the originals, not the modern copycats). It spread like wildfire. It is semi-direct democracy. The measure first has to somehow qualify legally for the ballot, and in the case of initiatives (as opposed to referenda), must gather a certain number of signatures before it can appear on the ballot. The process is generally lengthy and expensive, and discourages pure mob rule and the will of temporary majorities.<br /><br />But it does act as a counterweight to back-room deals and arrogant legislators. It also serves another useful purpose. In the case of an impasse on a major issue in the legislature, the legislators can put the issue in the form of a referendum and leave it to the people to decide.<br /><br />Finally, in many states (California included), the people's vote can overrule a state court decision which was based on current prevailing law. Prop 8 in California was a perfect example. Prior to Prop 8, the court found that banning gay marriage violated California's constitution. Prop 8 filled in the state constitutional holes on the issue, and the high court upheld the validity of the ban based on the new additions to the California constitution.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-28440987230032497102010-11-06T15:51:50.529-04:002010-11-06T15:51:50.529-04:00Lawhawk, I'll see what I can do about getting ...Lawhawk, I'll see what I can do about getting you off the fence one way or the other. Like you, on a personal level, I don't see pot as a big deal (though I do see other drugs as a big deal), but once you get to the societal level, I think there are serious arguments for not legalizing it -- which arguments apply many times over when it comes to the harder drugs.<br /><br />I'd heard they already filed against Oklahoma. I don't know how this one will come down. On the one hand, we have the power to say what courts can and can't consider, and there is no doubt we could say "you can't considered Soviet law". But is it religious discrimination to say that law based on religion cannot be considered? I'm not sure.... BUT if they want to make THAT argument, then they have to explain why considering such law would not violate the establishment clause?AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-57991835337153918262010-11-06T15:35:43.628-04:002010-11-06T15:35:43.628-04:00Well, that didn't take long. CAIR has already...Well, that didn't take long. CAIR has already filed a federal lawsuit to block Oklahoma's 70% approved anti-foreign law measure. In support of the lawsuit, University of Oklahoma law professor Joseph Thai said "There is no plausible danger of international law or Sharia law overtaking the legal system." Perhaps he should read the judge's decision in the wife-battering case.<br /><br />Muneer Awad (does that last name sound familiar?) said: "We have certain unalienable rights, and those rights cannot be taken away from me by a political campaign."<br /><br />My best guess is the federal court, either at the trial level or the appellate level will find that the issue is not "ripe" (a legal expression for "you're suing too soon, and you can't prove irreparable harm until the statute goes into effect"). But, who knows?<br /><br />The Islamofascists and the One-Worlders are going to go after this statute tooth and nail.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-14384043917566931402010-11-06T15:34:51.852-04:002010-11-06T15:34:51.852-04:00...are NOT compatible, is what I meant to say. Ug......are NOT compatible, is what I meant to say. Ugh!Pittsburgh Enigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06452716444698202766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-19172517511042296262010-11-06T15:32:01.688-04:002010-11-06T15:32:01.688-04:00I have to laugh at the growers being concerned abo...I have to laugh at the growers being concerned about over-regulation from the FDA, IRS, etc. but yet they keep voting for liberals on a state and national level who are wholly responsible for giving them all these regulations they are so afraid of. I guess we've proven once again that liberals can't apply logic to their own lives.<br /><br />And with respect to ballot measures in general, I'd be curious to hear the opinion of the great legal minds here on a question that was raised on our local Tea Party group. One of the members asked why Pennsylvania never does ballot measures or "props". One of the more "senior" members responded by saying that "props" are compatible with representative republics because they encourage mob rule and are therefore a bad thing. I never thought of it in that way before, but I still like the idea of "props" anyway.Pittsburgh Enigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06452716444698202766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-58262460382699540692010-11-06T12:56:09.304-04:002010-11-06T12:56:09.304-04:00Tennessee: See my comment to Andrew (above). I l...Tennessee: See my comment to Andrew (above). I leaned your direction right up until it came down to marking the X on the ballot that said "legalize." For the time being, I just couldn't do it. So like you, I'm still not fully convinced either way. I'm sure Andrew will come up with some things I hadn't given consideration to previously. I hate being wishy-washy on an issue.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-36314453088782959832010-11-06T12:50:03.252-04:002010-11-06T12:50:03.252-04:00Andrew: I didn't even try to figure out in ad...Andrew: I didn't even try to figure out in advance whether the measure was going to pass. It started out looking like it was a shoo-in, then lost ground consistently after its introduction. The fact that I changed my mind at least three times about it indicates the uncertainty surrounding legalization of pot.<br /><br />I have no hesitation about voting against the vast sea of illegal substances that are ubiquitous nationally. Meth, heroin, ecstasy, and the whole line of "designer drugs." I have no doubts whatsoever that they have no positive value as recreational drugs, and are dangerous to the taker and society. <br /><br />I'm still torn on marijuana. I haven't had a drink since Christmas, 1986, and know better than to start now. But I have no objection to others drinking, and I certainly know the history of Prohibition. I see marijuana as being in a similar class. Both have some medicinal value, both can stimulate conversation and conviviality, and if taken in moderation, both have a relaxing effect. Both have big minuses if overdone. Alcohol is commonly used to excess, and we all know the toll of drunk drivers. Marijuana is smoked, and just like cigarettes, that's going to have a very bad effect on the lungs. <br /><br />I look forward to your article. Maybe you will finally get me off the fence and firmly in one camp or the other. The libertarian in me says "let them have the damned weed," the conservative in me says "why are we encouraging people to practice bad behavior?" The Republican in me says: "Now there's one tax on products I can get fully behind."LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-24197618980471399862010-11-06T12:36:18.428-04:002010-11-06T12:36:18.428-04:00Joel: I don't have any facts to support this,...Joel: I don't have any facts to support this, but my grapevine says there are at least five other states presently considering a similar ballot measure.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-31967050671823052732010-11-06T11:54:20.957-04:002010-11-06T11:54:20.957-04:00good article, Hawk. Kudos to Oklahoma. Although th...good article, Hawk. Kudos to Oklahoma. Although there are pro and cons, I tend to come down on legalize so will be interested in Andrew's arguments in his future post.Tennessee Jedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10604275115906776992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-44902163068379833002010-11-06T11:28:18.935-04:002010-11-06T11:28:18.935-04:00I was very pleasantly surprised they shot down the...I was very pleasantly surprised they shot down the marijuana initiative. If anyone was going to pass this, I figured it would be California. This will probably set them back a decade in their effort to legalize drugs, which is a good thing -- I'm actually preparing an article on why drug legalization would be a bad thing.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-38714768267794295742010-11-06T09:12:37.474-04:002010-11-06T09:12:37.474-04:00Good article LawHawk.
I hope other states embrace...Good article LawHawk.<br /><br />I hope other states embrace the Oklahoma law and make it their own.Joel Farnhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15856960977033430002noreply@blogger.com