cannabisnews.com: Taft Opposition To Drug Proposal Challenged





Taft Opposition To Drug Proposal Challenged
Posted by FoM on December 20, 2001 at 15:29:11 PT
By Alan Johnson, Dispatch Statehouse Reporter
Source: Columbus Dispatch 
Supporters of a proposed constitutional amendment on drug treatment want an investigation of the Taft administration's alleged misuse of public employees and resources to oppose the campaign. Edward J. Orlett, a lobbyist, former lawmaker and manager of the Ohio Campaign for New Drug Policies, yesterday asked state Auditor Jim Petro to conduct a special audit. 
The use of "public employees and resources in an attempt to prevent a citizen initiative from reaching the ballot and/or to campaign to defeat the issue is unlawful'' under state law, the Ohio and U.S. Constitution, Orlett wrote to Petro. Petro spokeswoman Kim Norris said the request will be reviewed by an internal committee that includes Petro, his chief legal counsel and other top staff members. The committee will meet Jan. 2, she said. Gov. Bob Taft's spokeswoman, Mary Anne Sharkey, defended the administration's behind- the-scenes activities. She acknowledged the administration has been planning opposition to the proposed November 2002 ballot issue asking voters to amend the constitution to sentence nonviolent, first- and second-time drug-use offenders to treatment instead of jail. "We feel it's perfectly proper for the governor, the governor's staff, and the first lady to discuss and plan strategy to combat something that they feel is contrary to the policies of this administration.'' Sharkey said if the issue reaches the ballot, Taft and his wife, Hope, will help form a committee, raise money and campaign against it. Orlett said that is improper. "Ohio voters have the right to engage to change the constitution and to enact laws. What they are doing by trying to stop us is trying to deny us our constitutional rights.'' Orlett said paid circulators will begin gathering names on petitions "shortly after the first of the year.'' The committee must gather 335,422 valid signatures of registered voters from at least 44 of the 88 counties to be certified to appear on the ballot. Note: Those seeking a ballot initiative say public resources have been improperly used to fight it.Source: Columbus Dispatch (OH)Author: Alan Johnson, Dispatch Statehouse ReporterPublished: Thursday, December 20, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Columbus DispatchContact: letters dispatch.comWebsite: http://www.dispatch.com/Related Articles & Web Site:The Soros Foundation Networkhttp://www.soros.org/Taft Against Ballot Issue on Drug Treatment http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11608.shtmlBattle Begins Over Proposal To Change Drug Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11572.shtmlProposed Constitution Change Would Treat Userhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11481.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by krutch on December 21, 2001 at 10:52:27 PT:
Now I'm Pissed
Ms. Sharkey and Mr. Taft do not deserve to be in taxpayer funded jobs. This Comment from Sharkey kills me:"We feel it's perfectly proper for the governor, the governor's staff, and the first lady to discuss and plan strategy to combat something that they feel is contrary to the policies of this administration."The job of the governor, or any elected official for that matter is to enforce the will of the voters. The "the policies of this administration" is a euphemism for the governer's personal agenda. This agenda should not usurp the will of the voter. Any elected official who attempts to sabatoge a referendum is a totalitarian a-hole, and as such should be tossed out of office on his ear.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on December 20, 2001 at 18:28:34 PT
CongressmanSuet 
Bush and Chaney are big oil men. That's why campaign finance reform should have been done a long time ago. When we bought our land the oil rights didn't go with the land. An oil company bought the rights up many years ago from the original farm owner before the land was broken down into 5 acre tracts and sold. I wonder if because some precious gems are financing the Taliban will buying certain gems soon be against the law? I don't think so because diamonds are for the rich folks more then us commoners. Oh but the opium that finances the war you know! One way or the other we're gonna getcha. Duh! They're driving me crazy! There goes my song again.There come to take me away ha ha ho ho to the funny farm! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on December 20, 2001 at 18:05:05 PT
mayan
Thanks for looking. I'm taking a little time while the news is slow and doing some house cleaning. I could be looking for the info myself but I am into doing my Mary Hartman thing. If you are young you probably don't know who Mary Hartman was. It was a late night comedy tv show years ago. She didn't like yellow waxy build up on her kitchen floor. I think I must have inhaled too much furniture polish! Oh no. I'm really only kidding but I am cleaning. See us activist's are quite normal folks! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by CongressmanSuet on December 20, 2001 at 18:01:34 PT
 I know this is off topic...
   but I really wanted to put this little tidbit in front of all of you to get your opinions. I live in a midatlantic, poor, very impovershed state[many will remember, I know you do Fom]. I own the oil and gas rights on 200 acres of property here. Normally, this would be worth almost nothing[I was considering letting it go for taxes last year, but decided against it at the last minute]. Well, well, all of a sudden I get a visit from an elderley gentleman asking me if I would be interested in selling my rights. At first I am offered 1,500 for them. Now remember, this land has been considered useless, especially considering an oil outfit drilled on it 30 years ago and came up with nothing. So I hem and haw, and tell him I will get back to him. 2 days later I get a call telling me he has been authorised to offer me 4000. Now im really suspicious. I tell him again, I have to think about it. Another day passes and Im offered 6000! Now Im told this is the last offer and I have 30 days to accept. By now, I insist on knowing all about "his" company. Well, I get a letter from the owner of the oil company telling me that they will drill on another piece of property I own, and which Iknow is barren and promise me free gas for my soon to be former farm. False promises to get me to sell the other rights[where am I going? its coming!] Now to the fun part....guess who owns the oil company? None other than one of my state senators! He owns the rights on an adjoining property, and hit gas there[ of course I found this tidbit out on my own]. He actually called me an tried to use his office to convince me to sell! I think he thought I would be overwhelmed speaking to such a distinguishd person as himself...WRONG How can a senator own an oil company? When I asked him this question he told me it was because he owned it before he was elected! I went along with him[ only 1 comment about conflicts of interest, I behaved] and now that the 30 days I had to accept the offer has come and gone, the offer has been extended another 30 days! My question...How can a US senator OWN an oil company??? Anybody? This whole thing makes me SICK!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by mayan on December 20, 2001 at 17:54:48 PT
FoM
Good question FoM. I would think the current fine for marijuana possession would remain the same(& not require treatment) but I am not sure. I've been searching for some info regarding the specifics of this initiative but it is hard to come by. I'll let you know if I find out anything. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on December 20, 2001 at 17:30:31 PT
mayan
I wouldn't mind contacting Taft's office but I want to know what this Initiative will do to the current tolerable marijuana possession laws in Ohio. I haven't heard how it will treat under 100 grams since it currently is around a $100 fine and possible suspension of driving for 6 months but I think they allow a person to go to and from work. How will they treat marijuana offenders? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by mayan on December 20, 2001 at 16:38:22 PT
Taft Knows It Will Pass
The Taft administration is using taxpayer resources to keep the taxpayers from having a say. This is complete bullsh*t & anyone from Ohio should contact the Governors office & protest this immediately. Taft doesn't want this to get on the ballot because he knows it will pass. In other words, he is against the will of Ohio voters. If he was smart he would let the people decide because his tactics are bound to backfire in his face.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment