Marijuana laws to change in 8 US states?

Just noticed that there are seven states altogether pursuing  referendums about the legalization of marijuana during the upcoming November election. They are all proposing somewhat different details towards the same, general idea. The other states, besides Colorado, are: - Michigan, Missouri, Montana, California, Nebraska, Oregon and Washington.   Will Direct Democracy create changes in some significant legal areas, or will the people vote it down. Tune in in November!

Pot legalization on a ballot!

Colorado is among the many US states to permit referendums upon issues. This November there will be an opportunity there to vote to legalize marijuana for recreational use. A total of some 90,000 signatures recently obtained upon the initiative was sufficient to place the issue upon the ballot occurring the same time as the   presidential election. No other state has so legalized pot. The measure would not just legalize up to one ounce of marijuana for those over 21. It would also allow the growing at  home for up to six plants. Specially regulated stores could sell it, though communities could option out of such business permission. One cannot yet predict the success of this proposal. But is it not the right way to decide upon a controversial issue - getting the citizens to vote upon it? Direct democracy in action! When will Ontario reach the 21st century, to establish rules to permit referendums here?

Geneva, Switzerland, and troublesome protests

Did you know that in Geneva, Switzerland, a bastion of Direct Democracy, they held in March a   referendum upon a seeming popular subject; - the  disruptions caused by "protest" movements. The people voted by referendum to allow their government to fine organizers who do not obtain   approvals for a demonstration. The amount of the potential fine is Sw.F 100,000. That is not very dissimilar to what Quebec's legislature  ultimately had to do to get some control of the anarchy disturbing that province by masses of students who thought they had some sort of entitlement to cheap education.
Such a much better manner to handle rebellions. Determine what the majority wish by letting them have a referendum on the subject. But, do it before the issue gets out of hand.  Might  Ontario  some day attain such a level of democratic action, before it becomes unduly disrupted?

Wisconsin's newest democratic decision

One can recall the daring efforts of the governor of Wisconsin last year to try to get control of his state's terrible debts, by attempting to curtail certain aspects of the state employee's union's bargaining rights. A traditional bastion of socialism, the unions there had considerable might. The legislature was flooded by opponents; a significant portion of representatives actually left the state for awhile  to reduce the chances of a proper vote from happening. Well, the governor ultimately managed to get his way. But, his opponents were not finished. They decided to utilize a   state law permitting them to try to "recall" their governor. They needed a petition signed by 300,000 citizens. They got 600,000. And the referendum upon that issue was held. But, lo and behold, the majority of the citizens actually agreed to the governor's efforts to obtain control. They opposed the recall effort. What an example of Direct Democracy!  Why are not more such processes used in this modern age? Clearly in Quebec where many students seem to think their opinions are in the majority, such process is not available. Nor is it anywhere else, except in an awkward way in B.C. But, shouldn't it be? Students, -  start thinking out of the box - and towards Direct Democracy and its processes of petitions and referendums. You might actually improve the world, instead of making a nuisance of yourselves.

Electing mayors in Britain?

Did you know that most cities in England do not have elected mayors? The current government there thought that having such might improve local governing. And so, what did they  do?  PM Cameron authorized referendums for ten of the biggest  communities in Britain. And the result? Only one city approved the idea - Bristol. The majority of communities seemed to be wary of allowing a semi-strong local, elected  personage to sort of rule over them. London's experiment where, since the year 2,000, elected mayors tended to accumulate influence, even without formal powers may have swayed them negatively. An interesting difference from the fount of democracy, compared to our own; where we seem to like the idea of having heads of local government elected just about everywhere. But, the most interesting aspect of this process was - establishing referendums where the people's wishes would determine the outcome. Direct democracy was certainly put well into play. Sometimes the results are surprising - but very clearly it was what the  citizens wanted that counted.

Protesting Quebec students improving democracy?

Can one say anything favourable about the demonizing efforts of the young, but oh so wise(?)  protesting students of Quebec? They are trying to force their government to undo a proposal to reduce the debilitating debts of their province, by increasing their too low tuition fees? They have almost brought the operation of the government to a halt. The one semi-good thing about it is their allegation that what they are doing is trying to improve the democracy of their province. Democracy does need to be improved. Our method of representative democracy has hardly altered since its creation 150 years ago. But, why cannot they appreciate that the improvement that is needed is Direct Democracy, not anarchy? Have their poli-sci classes not taught them about it?  If their claim is so sound, it could be properly proven via a petition of sufficient numbers (possibly 5% of the citizenry) followed by a referendum. If properly instituted into the law, the results of that referendum would be binding upon the government. That would be the civilized, modern manner of improving democracy, and society; not wild and damaging protests.

Rights of citizens being trampled upon by judges.

So many recent issues - which could be determined by citizens, through their votes. If only we had the right to do so. Talk about democratic "rights" and the 30th anniversary of the charter of rights. Where within it does it give to the Canadian citizens, if enough are concerned about the issue, to vote democratically to see if their concern is shared by a majority of others? The only groups to which the charter gives power are unelected judges.

And so, how about them just the other day declaring prostitution a right; and also, giving a right to heroin users free access to centres at which to indulge their terrible habit? And of course all women must have a right to abort their expected daughter if they wish (now that they can have a right to know(?), of the expected sex long before the date of birth).

Maybe some or all of those issues are indeed favoured by a majority of Canadians. If so, in a democracy wherein by definition the majority of citizens should be the rulers, those matters could be part of the law. But, not yet in Ontario, or Canada, are we allowed that sort of right to decide. Is this the 21st century , or are we still mired back in 1867 - or even 1982?