After much thought a response to Mr. Hank's pro-marijuana position

In many ways I agree with Jeffry Hank about legally managing the use of marijuana, but something kept nagging me that is was a bad idea. It finally came to me.

The problem is a scientific issue, not political. This is the issue: We do not have anything in place that designates DUI for marijuana. What is the safe amount to use and still drive safely or for being under the influence in public? Alcohol has limits and standards in place, granted not perfect, but acceptable. We have nothing as of yet for marijuana use. The standards are not in place as of now.
Politically I have no problems about limited marijuana use; if we can find acceptable standards for judging over use, I would then support the City proposal.

So it seems to me, with poor tax use of funds for the road repair tax which I outlined several weeks ago ( that makes it a big no for the road bill. And it seems to be the opinion of most folks that there are too many things attached to the use of the additional tax money.

For the City proposals which asks to reduce to a simple majority vote to sell City property instead of the 60% super majority, if the City can't convince 60% of the voters to sell a property, then it is a bad idea to sell. Also, is this vote legal using a simple majority vote to eliminate a super majority option?

No, for lowering from a super majority for selling City property.

And I explained above about the lack of legal standards for marijuana.

My absentee ballot has three very bad ideas that voters must vote upon.

Remember this when you vote, Three Nos is the winner.

As for Mr. Hank, let's work on the technical side of the marijuana issue and then it would be sound management to allow limited use.

Scott Bame

TO SUBSCRIBE to our newsletter: Subscription Form

Look at PR on Facebook: Facebook

Please Indicate "for publication" and add your name!

"Work submitted and published in Public Response is the sole responsibility of the work's author(s)." "Any editorial statements made by the editor of Public Response do not necessarily reflect those of the subscribers, list members, or sponsors. Likewise, the assertions and opinions set forth by contributors whose works are published are not endorsed by Public Response."
Protocol & Disclaimer