Initiative 2: Debate rages online

The contingent opposed to amending the marijuana de-prioritization initiative lost the battle, but they’re not surrendering quietly.

Since the Missoula Board of County Commissioners voted to exclude felony marijuana offenses from the initiative on March 21, opponents of that decision have been vocal in their disappointment. Hundreds of posts on popular political blogs, including Slashdot, Instapundit and Grupthink, decry what the bloggers consider a blow to justice.

In the real world, they have been no more restrained. Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg, who proposed the amendment, said he has heard more protests over the amendment than any other issue in his career, and much of it has been vitriolic.

“I kind of just quit looking to even see what they had to say,” he said. “Some of it was so nasty; it just sort of lacks credibility when people engage in that kind of rhetoric.”

Prior to their vote, county commissioners held a public hearing on the issue. At the beginning of the hearing, Van Valkenburg said one reason he felt an amendment was necessary was that he had a “gut feeling” that voters didn’t understand the scope of the initiative. Both during that meeting and on blogs since, amendment opponents lambasted Van Valkenburg for the subjective reasoning.

Van Valkenburg said he has no regrets about using that phrase, though. Opponents have focused on those words to the exclusion of other arguments, and are using it as a sound bite, he said.

“I think it’s a rallying cry and little more,” he said.

Jean Curtiss, one of two commissioners who voted to accept the amendment, said she has also received a number of e-mails that have a venomous tone.

“They’re some of the nastiest I’ve gotten,” she said.

Curtiss said she has also heard from several people who support the amendment.

“The majority of people I’ve talked to have said, ‘I don’t really care if somebody has a baggie of marijuana and smokes a joint once in a while to relax,’” she said. “What most people say to me is that they see a big difference between a baggie and a suitcase.”

Personal attacks on public officials are not the right way to voice displeasure, said Angela Goodhope, a member of Citizens for Responsible Crime Policy – the group that pushed for Initiative 2 and opposed the amendment.

“I always try to keep things respectful because I think civility is what gets things done,” she said.

Chad Mullman, a member of the UM chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, said that group doesn’t condone “nasty” comments, either.

“I think it’s completely the wrong way to go about it,” he said. “I think people need to hold their emotions in check. The thing is, this really goes against the heart of democracy, and people hold that very dear.”

Although many of the blog posts suggest lawsuits or petitions to recall the public officials who supported the amendment, both Goodhope and Mullman said their groups had no immediate plans to pursue either course.