![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Another election
Another election, another marijuana initiative. I usually find them comic, since even if they pass there's no way for them to go into effect. But the weirdness* around medical marijuana — which has been de facto legal in Colorado for the last several years now; about a year back, whenever I was on the southbound Broadway bus, I'd count the medical marijuana dispensaries between Bayaud and Evans, usually'd get a number around 18; think it's higher now — makes me believe some of these initiatives may accomplish something. But then, I don't know what they'll actually accomplish, or which way I'm about to vote. I get distracted by my dislike of the ads (come on, the issue is not that Colorado is overlooking a great source of tax revenue). Maybe a cumulative impact of such initiatives will be to push the U.S. towards a sane drug policy. But then, I don't know what a sane drug policy would be. In the meantime, if we actually legalize it, that might normalize it, increase its use** and, in some people, abuse. But then, I'm not in favor of banning alcohol and cigarettes, so...
Colorado initiatives have been a disappointment this year, in comparison to years past when, e.g., the purity of alcohol and the historical nature of the Colorado constitution were tied at the waist. (See Koganbot (2008): "Historical character of Colorado Constitution at risk.") The best we do this year is an initiative instructing our representatives in congress to support a constitutional amendment that would reverse the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. (That's not exactly what it says; it would make campaign finance limits constitutional.) This bugs me 'cause it requires something that the voters don't have the authority to do: instruct congress people how to vote on a particular issue. Our only actual authority is to vote them in and out of office. I don't like initiatives that contain instructions that can't go into effect or are unconstitutional themselves, and it would have been easy enough to write the initiative to be strictly advisory. But I'll vote for it.
In the meantime, for your reading pleasure, Brad DeLong has helpfully linked and excerpted a bunch of right-wing pundits predicting a Romney win:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/11/it-is-amazing-how-many-people-murdoch-managed-to-completely-detach-from-reality-with-so-little-money.html
Peggy Noonan is a national treasure: "All the vibrations are right.... One of the Romney campaign's surrogates, who appeared at a rally with him the other night, spoke of the intensity and joy of the crowd 'I worked the rope line, people wouldn't let go of my hand.' It startled him."
(Nate Silver gives Obama a 91.1% chance of winning, Sam Wang gives him a 99% chance. Silver's relative uncertainty is based only on his model taking into account the possibility that the opinion polls overall could be statistically biased against Romney, through most of them making similarly incorrect assumptions that have an impact on their numbers. Not that there's yet any evidence of this; but fewer people are participating in opinion polls than in the run-up to previous elections, hence the uncertainty.)
*Medical marijuana is still against federal law, but the feds aren't enforcing it, though I don't know the legal rationale for this. But the feds won't give us a pass on recreational marijuana.
**But my believing that this might be a consequence doesn't meant that it will be, and I've not bothered to read any studies on this, if there are any anywhere.
Colorado initiatives have been a disappointment this year, in comparison to years past when, e.g., the purity of alcohol and the historical nature of the Colorado constitution were tied at the waist. (See Koganbot (2008): "Historical character of Colorado Constitution at risk.") The best we do this year is an initiative instructing our representatives in congress to support a constitutional amendment that would reverse the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. (That's not exactly what it says; it would make campaign finance limits constitutional.) This bugs me 'cause it requires something that the voters don't have the authority to do: instruct congress people how to vote on a particular issue. Our only actual authority is to vote them in and out of office. I don't like initiatives that contain instructions that can't go into effect or are unconstitutional themselves, and it would have been easy enough to write the initiative to be strictly advisory. But I'll vote for it.
In the meantime, for your reading pleasure, Brad DeLong has helpfully linked and excerpted a bunch of right-wing pundits predicting a Romney win:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/11/it-is-amazing-how-many-people-murdoch-managed-to-completely-detach-from-reality-with-so-little-money.html
Peggy Noonan is a national treasure: "All the vibrations are right.... One of the Romney campaign's surrogates, who appeared at a rally with him the other night, spoke of the intensity and joy of the crowd 'I worked the rope line, people wouldn't let go of my hand.' It startled him."
(Nate Silver gives Obama a 91.1% chance of winning, Sam Wang gives him a 99% chance. Silver's relative uncertainty is based only on his model taking into account the possibility that the opinion polls overall could be statistically biased against Romney, through most of them making similarly incorrect assumptions that have an impact on their numbers. Not that there's yet any evidence of this; but fewer people are participating in opinion polls than in the run-up to previous elections, hence the uncertainty.)
*Medical marijuana is still against federal law, but the feds aren't enforcing it, though I don't know the legal rationale for this. But the feds won't give us a pass on recreational marijuana.
**But my believing that this might be a consequence doesn't meant that it will be, and I've not bothered to read any studies on this, if there are any anywhere.
no subject
*With my vote.
**Says the Denver Post.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject