[420 Girl]

I do not see the vote on Question 2 as "puzzling considering recent history." I expected the margin of victory to be at least 65 percent, given the similar magnitude of support votes on nonbinding public policy questions around the state obtained beginning with the general election of 2000.

It was that year that the first petitions for marijuana law reform using public policy questions appeared and won on the ballot in one state Senate and two state representative districts. In 2002, voters in 19 districts petitioned their representatives, including Barbara L'Italien, whom it outpolled by 1,120 votes. In 2004, voters in state Sen. Fred Berry's and state Sen. Thomas McGee's districts and four state House districts petitioned and it was "deja vu all over again" at the election in 2006 as two more districts petitioned their representatives. These petitions passed each time with an average majority of 60 percent.

The Legislature had time and opportunity to enact reform legislation. Its final opportunity came after over 105,000 voters petitioned to place the bill, now known as Question 2, before the Legislature in January 2008. In March, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary held the constitutionally required hearing on the proposed law. The committee was well acquainted with the magnitude of public support for reform and of ways other than that presented in Question 2 to accomplish it, having held three hearings on the concept of marijuana decriminalization since 2001. The Legislature chose not to exercise this opportunity.

Looking in the rear-view mirror, what is puzzling is that the elected district attorneys didn't see the tidal wave approaching and work with advocates and the Legislature in passing reform sooner; saving thousands from criminal charges that we now know the people do not want to impose upon the marijuana users among us.


http://www.420magazine.com/forums/in...confusing.html