No on 71 to 75; maybe on 70 and 76
Here are the numbers that have been assigned to this fall's Oregon ballot measures.
| Posted at 11:16 AM | Permalink |
|
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on August 2, 2010 11:16 AM.
The previous post in this blog was What's the poop (besides toxic)?.
The next post in this blog is Birds all sing as if they knew.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (10)
A bunch of stinkers. I'll have to see how 70 actually works, or if it is another expensive trick of some kinds.
76 sounds goods because "it's for the parks" but it's just one more measure that ties our hands by mandating that money go here or there. There are a gazillion good causes in the world. Government can't supply all of them.
Posted by Snards | August 2, 2010 11:55 AM
Jack, what do you think about 73?
Posted by Six_of_One | August 2, 2010 2:31 PM
I think I trust judges to sentence properly. But I'm not too excited one way or the other.
Posted by Jack Bog | August 2, 2010 5:01 PM
Here's an easy rule of thumb: If legislators say a measure is "just a housekeeping" measure, it's not. Pat your back pocket and check for your wallet.
Posted by Garage Wine | August 2, 2010 5:12 PM
No on 74? Jack, you old fuddyduddy. Wait until something goes wrong with you that conventional drugs won't fix.
Posted by Gil Johnson | August 2, 2010 9:05 PM
If you want pot, there's never been any trouble finding it. I don't see much benefit in turning it over to the tobacco devils, and getting government hooked on the revenue from it. And without even looking, I'll bet that the initiative is clumsily drafted and has numerous problems.
Posted by Jack Bog | August 2, 2010 9:10 PM
But people ARE having trouble finding pot. Not everyone has a grower or can grow their own. I urge you to read the measure and perhaps a few of the stories of people advocating for this and then pass judgement. Thanks.
Posted by Bartender | August 3, 2010 1:24 AM
Oregon desperately needs a competent, professionalized, annual legislature, not one currently far too heavily populated with part time amateurs, retirees, rich business people, and others who happen to be able to take a few months off every two years and play around with a 48 billion dollar enterprise.
But hey, if you like empowering permanent staff, the bureaucracy, and the (full time) executive, then definitely vote no on 71, and Oregon can continue on it's merry way.
Posted by paul gronke | August 3, 2010 2:53 AM
A full time legislature is going to require full time pay.
Posted by John | August 3, 2010 9:02 AM
Maybe the Leg really did run better when the banks and lawyers ran it? Surely it wasn't as much fun to watch.
Posted by niceoldguy | August 4, 2010 12:31 AM