Election 2014: Oregon Ballot Measure 91

For me, Measure 91, which would legalize possession, manufacture, and sale of moderate amounts of marijuana for recreational use in Oregon, is not as easy a call as 92 . . . or as it would have been ten or twenty years ago.

I’m no great fan of marijuana. I was exposed to it fairly early, as a high school freshman or sophomore. Basically, I succumbed to the blandishments of a couple of older girls when we were away from school and home at a speech tournament (on the streets of the state capital, Salem, I believe). In the 40 years since, the number of times I’ve smoked pot could be counted on the fingers of my two hands.

Just like the first time, partaking -- whether it was with a friend, smoking dope supplied by U.S. Marines in Mauretania; at the foot of the Jerry Garcia statue at McMenamins Edgefield with some other longtime Gentle Giant fans; or most recently, before attending a Laurie Anderson concert -- had more to do with enjoying the company I was with than any interest in getting high.

Election 2014: Oregon Ballot Measure 92

Oregon Ballot Measure 92, which we’re voting on this week, requires that raw and packaged foods produced entirely or partly by “genetic engineering” be labeled as such. It would apply to retailers, suppliers, and manufacturers, and take effect in January 2016.

Television ads for and against the proposal have followed hard on each other’s heels every night for the past few weeks, and the issue could involve the heaviest spending in this campaign. Despite all the fuss, the question posed by Measure 92 is the simplest on this year’s ballot.

All it comes down to is this: Would you prefer to know what goes into your food? Very simple question, very simple answer: Most of us like to know what we’re eating.

So I’m voting yes.

But it’s been amusing to see the arguments the opposition has thrown up, so to speak, in an attempt to make the matter seem more complicated than it is. Most of them are various “cost,” “fairness,” and “more government regulation” objections that evade the main point of whether the move is desirable.

Another Oregon Election . . . Find the Postage Stamps!

My (non-absentee) ballot for November’s election arrived in the mail last week. What is an unremarkable comment for an Oregonian remains unusual nearly anywhere else in the U.S.

My home state can claim a lot of political and legislative firsts: the first to enact comprehensive land-use programs between 1969 and 1973; the first to pass a bottle bill, in 1971; the first to vote for physician assistance in dying, in 1994; and the first to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana in 1973, and to approve its medical use in 1998.

Also in 1998, Oregon was the first state to institute vote-by-mail, through an initiative petition and a popular vote that scored more than 2 to 1. Statewide elections by mail began in 2000. In the ensuing decade and a half, however, few other states have followed our example.

Washington began to practice vote-by-mail in various counties over the past 20 years, but only made it a statewide practice in 2011. Colorado began holding elections by mail in 2013. Perhaps it’s not quite a coincidence that those were the first two states to vote to legalize recreational use of marijuana as well, in 2012.

At the same time as it cut the cost of elections by several million dollars each year, vote-by-mail increased turnout in Oregon for more than a decade. Turnout in the 2000 primary was 51 percent, and 79 percent in the November general election. Those figures were 46 and 86 percent, respectively, in 2004; and 58.3 and 85.7 percent in the first Obama election, in 2008.

Where Are You? When Are You?

Even the smallest incident -- or the observation of it -- can have broad implications, especially with a little input from others.

Earlier this week, I placed the following post on my Facebook wall about an incident at one of the dozens of Starbucks in downtown Portland:

I was waiting at the bar for my coffee drink. I could see my cup exactly and could tell when it was due, right after the smaller cup destined for the young woman beside me who had ordered just before me. "I have a tall latte," the barista said as she put it on the bar. "Tall latte," she repeated. The girl next to me looked up and asked "tall latte?" as she reached for it. The barista nodded and the girl walked away. "Do you think if you'd said it three times, she would have heard it?" I asked the barista. She gave me a jaundiced shrug.

It’s the sort of slice of urban life that normally might pass without comment, or receive a couple of “ain’t it the truth” comments in agreement. Somewhat to my surprise, however, several of my Facebook friends posted cautionary warnings and a spirited discussion ensued.