I'm not sure how much different this is from other municipal initiatives that WILL be on the ballot this November. For example, Oakland voters will be asked to tax and regulate marijuana this November thanks to the Oakland Civil Rights Alliance (OCLA). Frustrated at failed state and federal laws, the local coalition filed a proposed local ballot measure on February 19 to take cannabis off the streets by putting it into a controlled environment. The Oakland City Council approved a measure for the Nov. 2 ballot on July 21st that would make marijuana use the lowest priority for the city's law enforcement officers. Should Oakland voters pass the measure, the City would tax and regulate sales of cannabis to adults as soon as possible under state law, in order to keep it off the streets, away from children and to fund vital city services. Until that time, the initiative would make private adult cannabis offenses the city�s lowest law enforcement priority, so as to focus on violent crimes.

The proposed charter amendment here in Mpls is not that much different. The city prepares itself for what some would call the inevitable, while putting some pressure on the state legislature to take a form of action on the medical marijuana issue. What does make it different is that this initiative here doesn't direct the city to end arresting those who utilize marijuana for a medicine that works best for them, if there are any (no one really knows), until some state or federal action is taken. What we do know is that according to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Criminal (BCA) Justice Information Systems Uniform Crime Reports for 2002 (the latest available), there were a total of 15,029 marijuana arrests in Minnesota, of which 2,908 came from Hennepin county alone and roughly 1,500 from Minneapolis (up from last year). That�s about 4 people every day in Minneapolis who get arrested for marijuana offenses.

As for Chairman Bernstein's comment that "the city council has the authority - the responsibility I believe as well -to reject proposed amendments that are contrary to law," well said and agreed. But the Charter Commission also has the PRIMARY responsibility to formulate Charter proposals by soliciting ideas from citizens, as well as city staff and elected officials. I think 12,000 + signatures warrants a "solicitation of ideas" from the people. Also, it seems that COHR has a point here, none of the language is actually contrary to state or federal law.

I happen to be one of those pesky democratic idealists who think that the Council should vote what their constituencies believe, and not whatever they're personal/politically motivated views are. That means the Council should have voted up on Friday. I'm a little surprised at CMs Samuels, Goodman, and Johnson voted the way they did. They should know where the people in their districts that they are sworn to REPRESENT are at on this. Didn't they bother to see where all those signatures came from? Oh yeah...and the law suit should be fun. More to be said in, yep you guessed it, a Pulse article.

Aaron Neumann
Holland



REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.


For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________

Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls

Reply via email to