LEGISLATURE PASSED ON OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS MARIJUANA QUESTION

To the editor:

Unlike the editors of The Salem News, I do not see the vote on
Question 2 as "puzzling considering recent history."

I expected the margin of victory to be at least 65 percent given the
similar magnitude of support votes on non-binding public-policy
questions around the state obtained beginning with the general
election of 2000.

It was that year that the first petitions for marijuana law reform
using public-policy questions appeared and won on the ballot in one
Senate and two state representative districts. In 2002, voters in 19
districts petitioned their representatives. In 2004, voters in Sens.
Fred Berry and Tom McGee's districts and four House districts
petitioned, and it was "dACopyright jA vu all over again" in the
election of 2006 as two more representative districts petitioned
their representatives. These petitions passed each time with an
average margin of 60 percent.

The Legislature had time and opportunity to enact reform legislation.
Its final opportunity came after more than 105,000 voters petitioned
to place the bill, now known as Question 2, before the Legislature in
January 2008.

In March, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary held the
constitutionally required hearing on the proposed law. The committee
was well acquainted with the magnitude of public support for reform
and of ways other than that presented in Question 2 to accomplish it,
having held three hearings on the concept of marijuana
decriminalization since 2001. The Legislature chose not to exercise
this opportunity.

Looking in the rear-view mirror, what is puzzling is that the elected
district attorneys didn't see the tidal wave approaching and work
with advocates and the Legislature in passing reform sooner; thus
saving thousands from criminal charges we now know the people do not
want to impose upon the marijuana users among us.

Steven S. Epstein