Published Wednesday,
October 27, 2004 Cyanide, no. Tobacco tax, yes Tuesday's election ballot will be awash in initiatives. Here's our take on the more important ones: I-147 No. Montanans passed an initiative in 1998 that banned new cyanide-leach open-pit mines, and nothing has changed since then, including the grim track record of leaks and other problems with the cyanide-leach process. Montanans already have voted to allow only responsible mining in their state, and they should stick to their guns. I-148 Yes. This measure would allow the limited use of marijuana, under medical supervision, by patients with debilitating medical conditions to alleviate their pain and other symptoms. Why on earth not? Opponents say the initiative, similar to laws passed in nine other states so far, would make pot more available to young people. But that hasn't happened in those other states, probably because the purveyors of recreational pot are quite capable of supplying their customers in any event. Arguments that marijuana hasn't been proved to relieve ill persons' suffering fall flat in the face of the opposite conclusion reached by the likes of the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians and other credible groups. It is apparent that for some people, marijuana is the treatment of choice to reduce their agony. In those cases, of course they should have it. I-149 Yes. The idea of raising tobacco taxes is not so much to raise revenue, but to reduce the number of young people who start smoking. Proponents and opponents can argue about how much a higher tax will increase smuggling, but common sense tells us that higher prices will indeed cut into the number of kids who start the habit. Other factors are secondary to this basic goal. The initiative wisely earmarks most of the revenue for enhancing important health programs. But, given the medical costs associated with smoking, nobody will complain the day tobacco tax revenue dries up. CI-96 No. Regardless of how one feels about gay marriage, the fact remains that the constitution is not the place in which to ban it. Prohibitions of citizens' actions belong in the statutes, not in the constitution, which is all about guaranteeing rights and freedoms. Montana's constitution states that "The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws." That statement and CI-96 do not belong in the same document. C-42 Yes. This amendment would extend term limits for state legislators from eight to 12 years. Backers of term limits firmly believe that limiting terms, and thus ensuring turnover among legislators, improves democracy. Opponents of term limits contend the limits merely ensure that more legislators will be inexperienced, thus giving lobbyists and bureaucrats more power over them. Be that as it may, what we've seen is that term limits drive competent, experienced lawmakers out of office, leaving new members without enough mentors to guide them. The result: a lot of time-wasting floundering around. Extending term limits can only lessen this problem. |