Home› A Moving Train

Proposals in your area??

Heatherj43Heatherj43 Posts: 1,254
edited November 2006 in A Moving Train
Here, in Michigan, we had 5 proposals:
To start a hunting season for doves.
To stop affirmative action.
To keep monies gained from recreation to recreation and not be spent elsewhere.
Not allow imminent domain.
Incease state money to school districts, to balance things out.

What were the proposals in your area?
Save room for dessert!
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    Question 7

    Regulation of Marijuana Imitative

    Initiative Petition to amend the Constitution to establish a comprehensive system of regulation for Marijuana while permitting adults aged 21 and older to use Marijuana in private and purchase it from a regulated market generating tax revenues that will be dedicated primarily to alcohol and drug treatment and education programs


    "I said yyeeeeeeeaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!"
  • Heatherj43Heatherj43 Posts: 1,254
    cutback wrote:
    Question 7

    Regulation of Marijuana Imitative

    Initiative Petition to amend the Constitution to establish a comprehensive system of regulation for Marijuana while permitting adults aged 21 and older to use Marijuana in private and purchase it from a regulated market generating tax revenues that will be dedicated primarily to alcohol and drug treatment and education programs


    "I said yyeeeeeeeaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!"
    I heard about that one!!! Its not even medical pot only!!! Good job!
    When I first heard of it, I thought, aha, the baby boomers are getting older...its only a matter of time...LOL!!
    Save room for dessert!
  • Skitch PattersonSkitch Patterson Posts: 642
    Not allow eminent domain is a bit misleading...

    The proposal was to add a constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of eminent domain to give land to private buyers.

    it will still exist for roads, etc.
  • denverfandenverfan Posts: 218
    Initiative 44...to allow an ounce of marjiuana or less state wide
    Initative I...to have the state recognize a homosexual couple with similar legal rights that others are afforded etc.

    Colorado will be electing a Dem. as governor, I voted for him as well!
    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity but they've always worked for me." Gonzo

    'If my fuckin' ex-wife told me to take care of her dog while her and her new boyfriend went to Honolulu, I'd tell her to go fuck herself." -The Dude

    Whisky Drinker, Non-Hunter from Denver.
  • Heatherj43Heatherj43 Posts: 1,254
    Skitch Patterson wrote:
    Not allow eminent domain is a bit misleading...

    The proposal was to add a constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of eminent domain to give land to private buyers.

    it will still exist for roads, etc.
    I don't think it was misleading. While it would be nice to not have to have it at all, at least it was addressed and they won't be taking property for really bad reasons, (well not be able to say its for those wrong reasons).
    I do think that for roads and such, there has to be a way to get property.
    Save room for dessert!
  • DarkStarDarkStar Posts: 734
    Heatherj43 wrote:
    I don't think it was misleading. While it would be nice to not have to have it at all, at least it was addressed and they won't be taking property for really bad reasons, (well not be able to say its for those wrong reasons).
    I do think that for roads and such, there has to be a way to get property.

    i thought it was at least inaccurate...but i digress to the mourning dove issue...I didn't know this until today...but on June 18, 2004 HOUSE BILL No. 5029 was approved by the Governor @ 10:17 AM. HOUSE BILL No. 5029 included Mourning doves within the definition of "Game."
    ... the governor and a slight majority of the state legislature ... In June [2004], after heavy lobbying by national hunting groups such as the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Sportsman's Alliance (which represents firearms and ammunition makers), the Michigan legislature narrowly passed and Governor Jennifer M. Granholm signed into law House Bill 5029, which redefined the mourning dove as a game bird and authorized hunts for three years.

    http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/hunting/restore_michigans_dove_shooting_ban.html

    ds
    And no one sings me lullabyes
    And no one makes me close my eyes
    So I throw the windows wide
    And call to you across the sky....
  • Heatherj43Heatherj43 Posts: 1,254
    DarkStar wrote:
    i thought it was at least inaccurate...but i digress to the mourning dove issue...I didn't know this until today...but on June 18, 2004 HOUSE BILL No. 5029 was approved by the Governor @ 10:17 AM. HOUSE BILL No. 5029 included Mourning doves within the definition of "Game."
    ... the governor and a slight majority of the state legislature ... In June [2004], after heavy lobbying by national hunting groups such as the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Sportsman's Alliance (which represents firearms and ammunition makers), the Michigan legislature narrowly passed and Governor Jennifer M. Granholm signed into law House Bill 5029, which redefined the mourning dove as a game bird and authorized hunts for three years.

    http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/hunting/restore_michigans_dove_shooting_ban.html

    ds
    In 2004, some guy came to my home with the petition to get this mourning dove issue on the ballot, which I signed.
    I still wonder why anyone wanted to hunt doves to begin with??!!! This is one example of Granholm's poor leadership. We have enough various game in this state that we don't need to be shooting doves!

    I am just now hearing that the affirmative action proposal flew by with over 60% for yes. I am shocked!!! That means to get rid of affirmative action. I agree to get rid of it, but I had been hearing that it was one of the reasons so many Detroiters got out to vote, they were suppose to vote no.
    I expected it not to pass.
    I am glad. Affirmative action is discriminatory.
    Save room for dessert!
  • Skitch PattersonSkitch Patterson Posts: 642
    Heatherj43 wrote:
    I don't think it was misleading. While it would be nice to not have to have it at all, at least it was addressed and they won't be taking property for really bad reasons, (well not be able to say its for those wrong reasons).
    I do think that for roads and such, there has to be a way to get property.


    No, what YOU Said was misleading, that Michigan was voting (and voted) to ban eminent domain... and we wernt- we were voting to restrict it....

    i was just clarifying.
Sign In or Register to comment.