We didn’t expect the proponents of legalizing marijuana would surrender after their defeat at the Oregon ballot box last November.
But we didn’t figure on the Legislature taking up their cause so soon.
The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to discuss, during a public hearing April 1, House Bill 3371. It would allow people 21 and older to keep as many as six mature marijuana plants and up to 24 ounces of marijuana. The Oregon Health Authority would license pot producers, processors, wholesalers and sellers, and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission would collect a tax of $35 per ounce from growers. The state would dole out the tax revenue by this formula: 40 percent to schools, and 20 percent each to the State Police, state general fund and services for mental health, alcoholism and drugs.
The main effect of this bill, were it to become law — besides, of course, giving OLCC the sort of intoxicating power the likes of Al Capone could scarcely have dreamed of — is to disenfranchise the 923,000 Oregonians who voted “no” last November on Ballot Measure 80.
That measure, like House Bill 3371, would have legalized marijuana use for adults.
Measure 80 failed, with 53.2 percent of voters opposed (the margin was much greater in Baker County, with 64.4-percent opposition).
The measure gained a majority of “yes” votes in just four of the state’s 36 counties — Benton, Lane, Lincoln and Multnomah.
Yet less than five months later, lawmakers are thinking about thwarting nearly a million of their constituents.
We don’t understand why this is a priority — nor, it seems, do legislators, as, according to a story in The Oregonian, nobody in Salem is copping to being House Bill 3371’s sponsor.
Separate groups intend to bring the issue back to voters in November 2014 or November 2016. The voters have had their say, and the Legislature should allow them the chance to do so again.
Oregon state Sen. Alan Bates says one of the main reasons he introduced a bill this year that would add sections of more than two dozen rivers to the state’s Scenic Waterways Program, including two in Baker County, is to protect salmon and steelhead from suction dredge mining.
Except the two Baker County streams included in Bates’ Senate Bill 401 — the North Fork of Burnt River and Eagle Creek — harbor neither salmon nor steelhead.
We presume Bates, a Democrat from Ashland, is aware of the absence of those fish in the two waterways.
Yet the two rivers remain in the bill.
Nor is that the only aspect of SB 401 that troubles us.
The reach of Eagle Creek proposed for inclusion in the Scenic Waterways Program is already protected under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Congress did that in 1988, designating 4.5 miles of Eagle Creek as “wild,” 6 miles as “recreational” and 18.4 miles as “recreational.”
But there’s a significant difference between the federal act and the state law for scenic waterways: The state rules affect private property but the federal act, by and large, does not.
Critics of SB 401, and in particular miners, say the bill would greatly restrict the use of private property along streams. They make a good point.
The rules that govern streams in the Scenic Waterways System apply not only to the waterway itself, but also to the land, including private property, within one-quarter mile of either bank.
Placer mining, except for “recreational” mining, is prohibited in that zone. And private property owners must consult with the state before doing any of several things, including logging or constructing new buildings.
These restrictions could cause major problems for property owners, especially along the North Fork of Burnt River, which flows through several miles of privately owned pastures where cattle graze. The river also is the subject of an ongoing legal case about whether mining should be allowed on public land.
Additional protections for some reaches of Oregon rivers might well be appropriate. But neither the North Fork of Burnt River nor Eagle Creek qualifies, and both should be deleted from SB 401.
Do you have the impression that one of the major problems plaguing Oregon elections is that voters are too well-informed about issues on their ballots?
We don’t either.
In fact we feel confident in stating that by far the more common complaint among the electorate is that voters suffer from a shortage of data rather than a surplus.
We’re perplexed, then, by a bill that lawmakers are mulling in Salem.
House Bill 3113 would delete from a current state law the requirement that in elections which include a proposed property tax increase, the envelope that comes with the mail-in ballot must contain this phrase, printed clearly and boldly in red: “Contains vote on proposed tax increase.”
The Oregon Education Association, the state’s teachers union, instigated HB 3113 because the tax notice unfairly singles out proposed property tax hikes.
The solution to this minor problem, though, is not to get rid of the one notice that’s required now, and thus give voters less information.
Instead, the Legislature should give them more information by revising the current law to mandate a notice when any type of tax increase is on the ballot.
Baker City Herald Editorial Board
It’s a sad era for car thieves.
Which makes it a happier, and safer, one for the rest of us.
Were it not for OnStar, a General Motors technology, James Reedy, who’s accused of driving a new, $61,000 Chevrolet Camaro out of the Baker Garage showroom Wednesday morning, might have gotten away it.
OnStar, which is optional equipment on GM vehicles, is a GPS navigation system and more — drivers can also call an OnStar official, from their car, to get information about nearby restaurants, for instance.
One of its lesser-known abilities, though, was demonstrated as Reedy tried to elude police in the Camaro.
OnStar can also foil thieves by retarding the car’s engine. In the case of the Camaro, it wouldn’t exceed 30 mph, which not only prevented a high-speed chase that could have endangered lots of travelers on I-84, but also apparently convinced Reedy to pull over and give up.
Which is precisely how these situations should be resolved.
The coming of the spring brings, besides the buttercups and the north wind, the debate over privately owned livestock grazing on public lands.
This dispute is revived annually when the federal government announces the year’s grazing fee.
For 2013, as in the previous six years, that charge is $1.35 per AUM — animal unit month, the amount of forage a cow and her calf will eat in a month.
Critics pounced on this announcement, pointing out that $1.35 is the lowest fee the feds can legally charge.
“It represents another huge form of subsidy to public lands ranchers who are already massively subsidized by us all,” Katie Fite, of the Western Watersheds Project in Idaho, told The Associated Press.
Maligning the welfare rancher is, of course, a popular refrain among groups that don’t care for livestock grazing regardless of how much the government charges. That minimum fee is merely a convenient focus for their disdain.
But notwithstanding the exaggeration of the slur, the repetition of that “massively subsidized” line prompted us to consider what the citizens of the U.S., who own the land where cattle graze, are getting out of the deal.
Quite a lot, actually.
Beef cattle is a $50-million-a-year business in Baker County alone. And a majority of the county’s cattle spend part of the year on public land grazing allotments.
Those public lands, then, are integral to producing products — beef, of course, but a variety of other bovine byproducts — that America consumers want.
Grazing foes lament the negative effects livestock have, including dirtying streams and spreading noxious weeds.
Fite describes this as the “exploitation” of public lands, a word with a nasty connotation that would be valid only if land once grazed was unsuitable for any purpose. This clearly is not the case, as grazing allotments support not only livestock but an array of flora and fauna, and recreation ranging from hunting to bird-watching.
Although grazing can have more noticeable effects on the land than, say, hiking, it also produces a much greater economic benefit. That’s not exploitation — it’s wise use of a resource that belongs to all of us.
The aspect of the sequester debate that annoys us most is that the dollar amounts involved are so much smaller than the level of anxiety implies.
Non-defense domestic agencies have to get by with 5 percent less.
Plenty of American businesses and households have had much larger chunks plucked from their income over the past five years yet they managed to continue operating without drastic effects.
Millions of Americans had their paychecks shrink by 2 percent since the start of the year when the payroll tax “vacation” ended.
Yet there’s no evidence of economic Armageddon.
But the government’s different, right?
Not really, no. For most affected agencies, just as with most businesses, the biggest bill is paying the people who do the work.
We find it difficult to believe that the federal government can’t maintain its current level of service if each worker has to miss an extra day per month, or if agencies have to close a half-hour earlier than they do now, either of which would achieve the 5-percent goal.
That’s no crisis. It shouldn’t be, anyway.
We’re not so naive to believe that the sequester won’t have economic consequences, but for every minor effect — fewer air show performances by military stunt pilots, for instance — there are woeful tales of kids being sent home from Head Start, or babies deprived of formula.
That the sequester plan includes at least as many of the latter as the former suggests to us that these cuts were poorly planned from the start. Rather than deal with its budget issues in a sober, responsible way, as most Americans have done, their government relies on hyperbole and fear-mongering.
We’re no more impressed today by Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber’s change of heart regarding capital punishment than we were when he announced it in November 2011.
But we do agree with the governor on one point: Let the state’s voters decide whether executions should continue to be a possible punishment.
The Legislature is considering a bill — House Joint Resolution 1 — that would take that question to voters in the November 2014 election.
Even supporters concede, though, that the legislation faces long odds.
Voters reinstated the death penalty in Oregon in 1984 by a margin of 55 percent to 45 percent. That was three years after the state Supreme Court had ruled capital punishment unconstitutional.
Thirty years is a goodly stretch of time, and with a matter as important as the death penalty we think society, through elections, should reconsider its beliefs occasionally.
We hope, and expect, that Oregonians would reaffirm the death penalty as the proper punishment in a small number of murder convictions.
Although Kitzhaber’s criticisms of the state’s death penalty system would no doubt influence some voters, we’re confident a majority would recognize the flimsiness of his case.
In a recent letter supporting House Joint Resolution 1, Kitzhaber reiterated the charge he leveled in 2011 — that the death penalty in Oregon “is neither fair nor just; neither swift nor certain.” The governor also writes that capital punishment “is not applied equally to all.”
Yet one of the governor’s main complaints — that the only two murderers who have been executed since voters reinstated the death penalty are men, whom he calls “volunteers,” who waived appeals — seems to us a poor reason to oppose capital punishment.
After all, most people would interpret Kitzhaber’s accusation that the death penalty is “neither fair nor just” as meaning minorities are executed at a disproportionate rate, or that there exists some other demonstrable inequity in how executions are carried out in this state.
But it’s hard to see how it’s either unfair or unjust that two out of the 39 inmates on Oregon’s death row — both of them were white men — chose not to continue their appeals (beyond those that are legally required), while all the other inmates accept the full measure of legal protections afforded them.
The evidence in fact shows that Oregon is more circumspect in how it enforces capital punishment than states such as Texas and Florida, where in some years more than a dozen inmates have been executed.
Ultimately, we hope we can trust Kitzhaber to keep his word regarding the voters’ intentions. In his recent letter he wrote that he respects voters’ will; yet in 2011 he thwarted them by blocking the execution of double-murderer Gary Haugen, who wanted to waive his voluntary appeals.
If the issue goes back to voters in 2014, and they reaffirm the death penalty, the exercise will be a futile one if Kitzhaber, or any of his successors, decides the governor’s opinion supersedes his constituents.’
The effort to prevent mass shootings in the U.S. is about as serious as a matter of public policy can get.
We’re disappointed, then, by some of the recent maneuvers at the state Capitol, where the Legislature has been in session for almost a month and, ostensibly, also takes the issue seriously.
Although we don’t question the sincerity of any lawmakers we do wonder, in some cases, about their judgment and whether they’re efficiently representing their constituents.
Consider House Bill 3200, which was introduced on Feb. 22.
This legislation, promoted by Ceasefire Oregon, is, and we’re being charitable, constitutionally suspect.
The bill, besides prohibiting Oregonians from owning more than one so-called “assault weapon” and more than three magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, would require owners of such guns and magazines to “allow an inspector from the (State Police) to inspect the storage” of the guns and magazines.
The word “warrant” is conspicuously absent.
We’re pretty sure there are plenty of civil rights lawyers who would eagerly take on as a client someone aggrieved by that clause in HB 3200.
The truly insipid aspect of the legislation, though, is that even its chief sponsor, Rep. Mitch Greenlick, a Democrat from Portland, disavows portions of it, including that outlandish requirement for involuntary inspections of private property.
“In its current form, it’s a pretty flawed bill,” Greenlick told The Oregonian.
Yet that current form is the same form that Greenlick put his name on, along with seven other representatives and seven state senators who are listed as sponsors.
Greenlick further confuses the situation by going on to say, regarding HB 3200: “It’s not where they (most legislators) want to go and it’s not where I think we’re going to go. But it’s where we should be going.”
In other words, Greenlick likes the bill, except for that pesky “pretty flawed” part.
Introducing a bill such as HB 3200 accomplishes nothing except to inflame people who fear that even potentially reasonable legislation, such as mandatory background checks, is merely the first step toward government confiscation of all guns.
We welcome a robust debate about guns, both in Oregon and nationwide. Greenlick said that’s what he wants, too, and we take him at his word.
But we, and he, will likely continue to be frustrated if the public discourse is distracted by patently hopeless legislation such as HB 3200.
We applaud the Baker City Airport Commission for making a difficult decision.
And, more importantly, the right decision.
Last week commissioners withdrew their recent request to the City Council to rename the city-owned airport from Heilner Field to Mabry J. Anders Field, to honor the 21-year-old Baker City soldier who was killed last August in Afghanistan.
The commission changed course after several local residents, including some city councilors, suggested that renaming the airport for Anders would either diminish the legacy of the late Joseph Heilner, for whom the airport was named, or would leave out the many other residents who, like Anders, sacrificed everything in the service of his country.
We’re certain the commissioners never intended to do either.
And indeed we believe that it’s possible to commemorate Anders without demeaning anyone else who is equally deserving.
But we also recognize that the commission’s proposal was certain to provoke emotional responses.
The airport has borne Heilner’s name for many decades, for one thing.
And for another, the issue of honoring members of the military killed in action is an intensely personal matter, so the likelihood is high that feelings will be hurt when a single soldier is slated for a particular honor, even when, as in Anders’ case, no such slight was intended.
The airport commission’s proposal to rename the airport for Anders was reasonable.
But of course that isn’t the only way to pay tribute to the man. We wholeheartedly support the new plan, which is to build a memorial to Anders at the airport through donations.
We urge the City Council to work with the commission and other supporters of the project to find a suitable place on the property for the memorial.
Ultimately, we hope this situation, rather than sowing a single seed of resentment, instead reminds us that we should never forget Anders and all those who died while trying to protect us.
So who’s the bigger road hazard, the driver who just guzzled a six-pack of beer, or the driver who’s high on legal, synthetic “bath salts?”
The answer, of course, is neither.
Or, rather, both.
Oregon’s goal should be to keep all intoxicated people from driving; the substance that causes the intoxication isn’t relevant.
Except it is, under current state law.
Oregon is one of five states that limits the substances that can be considered in a case when a driver is suspected of driving while intoxicated.
House Bill 2115, which the Legislature is considering this session, would broaden the current definitions, which include alcohol, controlled substances and inhalants, to include any drug, including prescriptions, “that adversely affects a person’s physical or mental faculties to a noticeable or perceptible degree.”
We urge lawmakers to pass the bill, and to join the 45 states which recognize that a variety of substances can render a person unfit to drive a motor vehicle.
Critics contend the bill is too broadly written.
But the legislation does allow drivers accused of being intoxicated to claim, as a defense, that they properly used a medication and that it caused a reaction that “could not reasonably be contemplated.”
The bottom line for us is that when an impaired driver veers across the dotted line and collides with another car, it’s of no consequence whether the driver at fault was drunk, or groggy from cold medicine.
The purpose of the law should be to discourage people in either condition from getting behind the wheel.