Ravenwood - 11/05/02 08:29 AM
The only early poll results I can give you are my own. I voted this morning about 7:30 AM. It was a punch card ballot, and it worked flawlessly. I checked the back for hanging and dimpled chads, and there were none. Apparently I have the strength to operate it correctly. (ie: punch a pin through paper.)
There were no libertarians on the ballot, so I mostly voted Republican. I also voted for the two State Supreme Court judges that were endorsed by Ohioans for Concealed Carry. (ofcc)
There were a few interesting ballot measures. The first was Issue 1 that proposed offering treatment instead of incarceration for first and second time non-violent drug offenders. As a libertarian, I am all for that. Even though it will cost some money to set up the treatment program, in the long run it should save money in incarceration costs. Surprisingly, the police organizations were against it. I don't think it matters, the issue will probably fail.
Another ballot issue was Issue 5, which asked for a property tax increase to fund some 'mental health' program. I voted against that one, but it will probably pass. I've seen all sorts of posters supporting Issue 5, and no one willing to stand up and say it is a futile waste of taxpayer money. I still feel that care for the mentally ill that cannot afford it, is best left up to private charities. I guess that makes me an evil right winger who wants to push old ladies down the stairs in their wheel chairs.
By far the most interesting ballot issue, was a referendum on whether or not our new local 'Drug Mart' store should be allowed to sell wine on Sundays. (Beer is already permitted, I think) Most other stores in the area sell wine on Sundays, so I don't see what the big deal is here. I am surprised it has to go to a ballot referendum. They did well to open right before the election. The only ones I could think of who would oppose such a thing would be employees at competing stores. Even the devoutly religious shouldn't mind, since you can easily go to the store across the street and purchase wine.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention that one of our candidates, a democrat, has signs up that say "Honest Harrington" (or whatever his last name is) To me he sounds too much like a used car salesman. Either that or he's like one of those fat people named 'slim', or bald people named 'curly'. Either way, if you have to proclaim your honesty like that, you probably aren't all that honest.
Drug treatment programs typically don't work and are ultimately more expensive than incarceration alone. Look at Portugal -- all drugs have been decriminalized in favor of state-funded treatment, and the national budget is being strained while drug use has, by most accounts, remained stagant or risen.
You can defend your vote on the grounds that it is unjust to incarcerate drug users but just to force them into treatment programs, but don't think for a moment that it will save the government a penny.
Posted by: Owen Courrèges at November 5, 2002 3:57 PMTrue.. even if it did save them some money, it's not like they'd ever give any of our tax money back to us.
Posted by: Ravenwood at November 5, 2002 5:24 PMI voted against the drug treatment issue for one reason... it allows the drug offender issue allows a convicted offender to have his record expunged as if the conviction never occurred.
This would allow them to get a job as a school bus driver, transporting our children. I don't think so.
You mean your kids. Speak for yourself.
Posted by: Ravenwood at November 5, 2002 7:41 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014