Pubdate: Tue, 31 Oct 2000
Source: Glenwood Post (CO)
Copyright: 2000 Western Slope Publishing Group
Contact:  http://www.searchcolorado.com/glenwood/
Bookmark: MAP's link to Colorado articles is: http://www.mapinc.org/states/co

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.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry F