I understand the logic for allowing the citizens to vote on an issue and the goverment should allow that to happen. We live in a country with multiple layers of goverment(federal,state,county,city) but the monkeys may not pass laws that are not in accordance with the 800 pound Gorilla’s laws. The Gorrilas say it is illegal to grow, sell and smoke the wacky grass. How I understand this issue, the monkeys would have to go to bat and for surely to strike out when this voter intiative is passed. This wacky grass intiaitive would go up in smoke very quickly at a cost to taxpayers.

Where as the Ten Commandents issue has been open to a variety of interpretations. The gorillas and King Kongs even have them in their huts.

EDITOR NOTE–You are totally correct. That is why the courts–not city clerks or mayors–decide what is legal. It is those “variety of interpretations” that dictate out system of checks and balances. To allow one person or group to prelude others from voting throws off the balance in the scales of justice.

Razzbar:

Dave broke the story. But for the 2-year backstory, google “Liberty Lobby of Idaho” in quotes. Lots of stories in the Idaho Mountain Express (Ketchum paper.)

Ryan

Local government makes interpretations of law all the time in the administration of government. I continue to adhere to my previously expressed point of view that its ridiculous to obligate an expensive taxpayer funded election at the whim of a malcontent with a facially illegal proposal.

However, in this case Mr. Davidson’s point is well taken that the City lacked any procedure from which they could do what they did. That was the City’s fault. But I beleive its a dangerous and expensive precedent to obligate taxpayer funded entities to have a futile election.

Although the petition should have been processed so it could have been put up for a vote, my empathy lies with the non-complying clerk that probably had children that need protection from the likes of Ryan Davidson. Denver in November passed similar legislation, and now the children of Denver have easier access to this seemingly benign but dangerous gateway drug.

Coming from a family genetically predispositioned to drug abuse I have a few questions for Ryan Davidson.

Why do you want my seven and ten-year old boys to have easier access to drugs that have killed their uncles and imprisoned their cousins?

Our country can’t outlaw cigarettes because it is a bloody cash cow for state and federal government, do we need cash so badly that we need to legalize another addictive substance to fatten the coffers of government at the expense of its citizenry?

I have had a front row seat in, decadent, liberal, California to the demise and death of many of my friends. I moved to Idaho so I could raise my children where there were fewer drugs. Ryan Davidson, why do you wish to bring decay and tragedy to Idaho when you could simply move to beautiful but tragic Humboldt California where degenerate lifestyles are already an accepted part of the local culture?

Ryan Davidson, your misguided interpretation of liberty interferes with mine and the culture in which you live. I wish to be free from your sub-culture that values afghani and sativa sinsemilla, a sub culture that metastasizes our culture as a whole. Our culture would be better off free from decadent metaphorical cancers like you.

Are you joking me? do you really thimk weed is so dangerous and addictive that it really needs to be outlawed? You truly live in lala land. One thing is for sure,you don’t know what you are talking about. Alcohol,nicotine,and fatty foods are much more addictve and definitly kill thousands more every year than weed ever hoped to. You are just an idiotic scare monger.

I worked hard on this initiative (yes my name is on it)because the citizens of idaho are on equal footing with the state legislature to create law. The government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is something our elected officials seem to forget as soon as they get to the state house.

Obviously I am right and you are wrong. The supreme court (a very right wing conservative one at that) agrees with me.

EDITOR NOTE–The issue is the right to vote, NOT the merits of pot!

George, you provide the rebuttal to your own argument.

We (the people) VOTED for term limits, but the arrogant legislature ignored us and repealed the law we passed. The people don’t have the cash to pay the politcos as much as big business does.

“Should we make laws by majority vote?” YES! We elect representatives by majority vote and they pass laws by majority vote.

Only We (the people) with the help of the courts got the repeal of Jim Crow laws and equal rights for women. Idaho is the only state in the union to repeal ratification of a constitutional amendment–equal rights for women.

Most elected officials think like you–“We were elected, so do as we say and if you don’t like it we dare you to try and unseat us.”

Thanks to the Guardian and even Ryan Davidson’s pot petition we see the true colors of local government. The court remains our only salavation at present. At least they understand and respect the rule of law.

“Logic cannot deter the committed man.” – Kafka

Unfortunately, we don’t create our laws by majority vote – in as much as I have never (nor I suspect any of you) ever been asked to vote on a law, outside of a referendum process. Unless you were elected into a representative posting.

If there were 100 representatives casting a vote on a bill, my one representative (who may have only won his/her election by a single vote – mine) still is only going to have a one-percent voice on the issue – and even if s/he is in office because of my single vote, there’s no guarantee that s/he will side with me on the bill. The perception that the majority of the electorate always wins within a democratic republic form of government is an illusion. And don’t even get me started on the Electoral Vote – majority-win my patoot!

But this is our system of government, and the referenda process erodes its stability. A stability guaranteed, not by the legislative process but by a balance of power with the judicial and executive branches.

Term limit propositions, which if passed (and which could withstand constitutional scrutiny) sometimes seem like a good idea to me. But I can’t get around the perception that they are put forward by people who wish they could impose their opinion on another jurisdiction – because they dislike that jurisdiction’s choice of representative. There are certainly some Idaho legislators that I think shouldn’t be serving in office, but I don’t live in their district – how much more simple for me if they could just fade away after their limit is up.

But a successful term limit form of government may precipitate an even more aristocratic form of leadership than we have now, in which our (firm-handshaking, white-teeth smiling, baby kissing) elected leaders may always be playing catch-up on complex governmental obligations. As a result we may be forced to ensconce a beaurocratic tier of “managers” who would handle the day-to-day operations of government (a la Britain). Very un-American.

Yet even when I write this I know that our federal Senate has a lower turn-over than the British House of Lords (and only a Lord’s death removes him from office!).

Yes the children. We must protect them. God knows that since marijuana is now illegal they can no longer get it.

This is simply ostrich thinking.(yes your head is buried in the sand) I’m glad you at least recognize the fact that citizens have the right to create laws through the initiative process.
That your recourse against those POTENTIAL laws is to vote against them. That’s better than what you would ever be offered by any sitting governmental body.

As for the war on drugs,surely you haven’t beleived the load of crap the government tried to sell all of us. My advice would be to do a study of illegal drugs and why and how they got that way. It is actually a very interesting study. You will discover that the reasons they were outlawed have very little to do with protecting anyone as much as they were used to discrimnate against minority groups and the ignorant. Yes drug abuse can hurt you. So can overeating or a sendentary lifestyle. In fact these two things kill more than drugs. But hey who is counting. Remember :”your drug is worse than mine and therefore should be outlawed”.

John, Robert and Ryan

In Humboldt County the illegality was overlooked on a local level because it brought so much money into an economy that had been decimated by anti logging forces. The simple back to the earthers that showed up in the 70’s by accident found their excess pot had value in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York etc., by default they were in business because locally it was nearly legal which triggered an over abundance. Then the capitalists showed up, they had little tolerance for the peace and love types, they just wanted to make big money.

Newcomers that lacked the money for their own land grew guerilla gardens in the national forest and bobby trapped them with rat traps that would trigger shotgun shells at intruders, it was no longer safe to take a hike in the public woods.

John, Robert and Ryan, if marijuana became legal in Idaho you and your children who have been raised by poor role models will be selling your excess bounty to misguided folks in Wyoming, Nevada, Montana and Oregon, an identical dynamic that brought decadence to Humboldt. Worse yet, Idaho would become a destination resort for dopers.

Your neighbor just up the Wood River that wants to make a million dollars will be guarding his crop with mini fourteens, uzis and shotgun booby traps and your 14 year old is going to be the one that can’t resist the temptation to rip a bud after he runs out of his own.

One must always be ready for The Law of Unintended Consequences, nirvana often looks better in a dream than it does after it unfolds into reality.

The right to the initiative process — as well as the closely related petition for redress of grievances — form the very philosophical foundation of our constitutional republic. If the citizens’ are denied free and open access to either right, the constitution is utterly meaningless, as elected officials and bureaucrats can, over time and circumstance, do anything they want to and interpret the law anyway they wish. There is virtually no recourse left the citizenry except through the electoral process, which has also been pretty much rigged and restricted by politicians and lawyers.

The constitution of Idaho states that the citizens are of “equal stature” with the legislature when it comes to proposing and enacting public law. Just as any legislator is free to propose any law he wishes (no matter how ill conceived – and there is plenty of this each session), so any citizen is also free to use the initiative process to propose law. The citizenry form a sort of “fourth branch” of government in Idaho (as in other states with similar constitutions), and form a check and balance on institutional power developed by vested interests gaining control over the police power of government over time.

Had the supreme court voted against Davidson and his right to propose any law he wished (yes, even one that was currently illegal or ill-conceived), then our constitutional liberties here would have been reduced to a mere pretext only.

While any of you may not agree with smoking dope, it is simply not your decision, but the people’s as a whole as voiced through the legislature or through the initiative process, which work together to form an effective check on the abuse of either process.

As a life long “Mormon,” I don’t believe in smoking dope. It is an extremely stupid and irresponsible thing to do. What I value much more than my opinion on dope, however, is the liberty granted by my Creator … liberties which men continually conspire to steal from all of us.

I much prefer to trust the voice of the people as a whole over the voice of an elite few when push comes to shove. That’s why I heartily supported Davidson’s case and applaud the supreme court for their integrity.

The right to the initiative process — as well as the closely related petition for redress of grievances — form the very philosophical foundation of our constitutional republic. If the citizens’ are denied free and open access to either right, the constitution is utterly meaningless, as elected officials and bureaucrats can, over time and circumstance, do anything they want to and interpret the law anyway they wish. There is virtually no recourse left the citizenry except through the electoral process, which has also been pretty much rigged and restricted by politicians and lawyers.

The constitution of Idaho states that the citizens are of “equal stature” with the legislature when it comes to proposing and enacting public law. Just as any legislator is free to propose any law he wishes (no matter how ill conceived – and there is plenty of this each session), so any citizen is also free to use the initiative process to propose law. The citizenry form a sort of “fourth branch” of government in Idaho (as in other states with similar constitutions), and form a check and balance on institutional power developed by vested interests gaining control over the police power of government over time.

Had the supreme court voted against Davidson and his right to propose any law he wished (yes, even one that was currently illegal or ill-conceived), then our constitutional liberties here would have been reduced to a mere pretext only.

While any of you may not agree with smoking dope, it is simply not your decision, but the people’s as a whole as voiced through the legislature or through the initiative process, which work together to form an effective check on the abuse of either process.

As a life long “Mormon,” I don’t believe in smoking dope. It is an extremely stupid and irresponsible thing to do. What I value much more than my opinion on dope, however, is the liberty granted by my Creator … liberties which men continually conspire to steal from all of us.

I much prefer to trust the voice of the people as a whole over the voice of an elite few when push comes to shove. That’s why I heartily supported Davidson’s case and applaud the supreme court for their integrity.

What all this “marijuana” advocacy misses is the real point behind hemp prohibition. It is all a big distraction. For the real story go here: http://www.jackherer.com/ It was outlawed because of cellulose and the petrochemical lobby, not drugs.