YES ON GUN INITIATIVE, NO ON MARIJUANA, ABORTION, SCHOOL ISSUES

Guns, marijuana, abortions and education. There are four hot-button
political issues for you. But in this state, perhaps only two others could
eclipse them: taxes and growth.

And they have, as the tax and growth limit initiatives, amendments 21 and
24, respectively, have dominated the election-season debate this fall.

Those other issues are the subject of citizen-initiated amendments this
fall, as well. Following are the Post's positions on them:

* Amendment 20 would allow for the medical use of marijuana. Or so it says.
Unfortunately, it has a glaring legal discrepancy in that it makes no
provision for how patients would obtain the marijuana. State and federal
laws prohibit its sale and purchase.

This measure also takes the disconcerting step of letting the public
regulate use of a medicine, which sidesteps the usual process of a decision
being made based on scientific research and decisionmaking.

The THC in marijuana appears to have some value in reducing suffering
associated with certain illnesses. Perhaps it is more beneficial than other
medicines and should be legalized, but this decision shouldn't be made at
the ballot box, and it must take into consideration the question of how the
drug can be legally accessed.

Undoubtedly, the real goal of this initiative is to take a first step
toward legalizing marijuana use in general. That's an idea that's worth
debating, but on its own merits. In the meantime, a NO vote on 20 is advised.

* Amendment 22 seeks to close a gun sale background check loophole
exploited by the killers in the Columbine shootings, by requiring
background checks on buyers if any part of a gun purchase takes place at a
gun show. It also requires record-keeping of purchases, in case they are
needed by prosecutors and police.

The goal is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally
unstable and minors. It won't stop gun-related violence altogether, or even
guarantee there will never be another Columbine, but it could stop some
deadly crimes, and for those whose lives are saved that makes all the
difference in the world.

Perhaps the most legitimate opposition to the measure surrounds its
definition of a gun show, which would include three people exhibiting,
selling or exchanging guns. If this proves too onerous, however, it would
be easy enough to change by the legislature, because the gun show amendment
would change state law rather than being written into the Constitution.

Foes also say the measure infringes on the privacy of law-abiding gun
buyers, and is a step toward gun registration. It hardly seems so
threatening. It merely seeks to close one small loophole that was still big
enough to contribute to the nation's worst school shooting ever. That's
worth a YES vote in our book.

* We have to agree with state Treasurer Mike Coffman that Amendment 23, the
K-12 school funding measure, is so complicated it's hard for the public to
know what exactly it would do. Given that this measure would be written
right into the state Constitution, where it could be changed only by
another vote of the people, we urge a NO vote on a seemingly risky
constitutional change.

The goal of boosting education funding is certainly appealing. And if the
measure simply accomplished that by reducing the state rebate of surplus
revenues to taxpayers, it would be worth approval. But it goes further,
setting mandatory funding increases in per-pupil funding and state aid
under the school finance act.

With state revenues continuing to boom, this seems innocuous enough. But
it's unclear just how those quotas would continue to be met, should a
recession occur. It would appear that spending on prisons, road
construction, even higher education could suffer as a result of these
arbitrary targets. State lawmakers would have little leeway to make the
wisest budget decisions with the resources at hand.

It doesn't seem out of the question that even local property tax hikes
might be required to meet the obligation.

Colorado's school spending continues to lag behind many other states, which
is a travesty at a time of such surpluses. But it's easy to lose sight of
the fact that TABOR has kept the state from cashing in on that windfall, by
requiring rebates of excess surpluses.

Misconceptions about the state's current fiscal situation could lead to
voter approval for a measure whose contents and consequences might be
misunderstood themselves. As much as we'd love to see school finance
improved, Amendment 23 isn't the way to do it.

* Amendment 25 would require that women seeking an abortion be provided
with certain information first, that her written consent be obtained and
that at least 24 hours then pass before the procedure is performed.

The goal seems worthy enough: ensuring that no woman makes the irreversible
decision to abort their unborn child without being fully informed about the
procedures and dangers involved, and the alternatives that exist. How
terrible it would be if they made the decision unprepared, and regretted
ever-afterward their action and the loss of an unborn life.

While angst no doubt is common after an abortion, we doubt that women very
often go into an abortion clinic blind, and without having considered all
of their options. Doctors certainly explain the procedure and its risks
thoroughly; their liability insurance companies would have it no other way,
and they also are governed by professional standards.

Abortion decisions aren't taken lightly or rushed, by women or others
involved in the matter. Counselors from groups such as Planned Parenthood
make a point to make women aware of all their alternatives, and provide
them with information aimed at reducing the chances of another unwanted
pregnancy occurring.

No one likes to see abortions occur. But women have a right to choose them,
based on a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. They are an alternative women
can turn to in certain situations where continuing with a pregnancy appears
to be an even worse option than making the painful decision to end it.

Whatever its stated purpose, Amendment 25 looks to be geared toward
obstructing that option as much as possible, by ensuring that women seeking
an abortion are bombarded with information, including photos of fetuses in
the womb, all aimed primarily at persuading them otherwise rather than
merely informing them of the choices at hand. Some doctors also might quit
doing abortions due to the threat of criminal and civil penalties.

There's even a provision that would permit a woman to sue doctors using
only her initials or a pseudonym, and let courts close proceedings to
protect her privacy. In a society that's already lawsuit-happy,
particularly in the area of medical malpractice, this could encourage abuse
because a patient wouldn't be as accountable regarding the accusations she
brings.

Amendment 25 appears to intrude more than assist in an already difficult
area, and warrants a NO vote.