I included the text of the letter below that I submitted to the Bozeman Chronicle several days ago in a previous post. It was published in yesterday’s paper so I am including it again today because it’s part of a bigger issue that I see happening and was triggered by something I read in the paper this morning. My letter is:
“Our new Republican governor, senator, representative and legislature have barely been in office three weeks now and already seem hell bent on doing things and passing legislation that smacks of hypocrisy. Senator Daines and Representative Rosendale decided to join in an effort to propagate a lie about the election and overturn the certified Electoral vote counts in other states. The legislature decided that allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to carry a concealed weapon almost everywhere, including on college campuses is a good thing for Montana. Hikers are advised to carry bear spray since it is more effective than handguns against predators but the legislature has decided that arming college girls is the safest form of self-defense. Governor Gianforte, in the midst of a pandemic, repealed restrictions meant to slow the spread of the virus and has stated that he will repeal the state-wide mask mandate. He argues that he prefers personal responsibility to government-imposed restrictions. If Montanans were really responsible, we wouldn’t have one of the highest drunk driving rates in the country. And now, after all of this talk about ‘Montana values’, ‘states rights’, ‘government overreach’, and ‘personal responsibility’, the legislature is reviewing legislation to restrict access to abortions. So, my question is this, “If you are so damned concerned with ‘government overreach’ and want to promote ‘personal responsibility’, why do you think you have the right to stick your government noses into a personal decision that should be the solely between a woman, her partner and the doctor?” A woman is responsible enough to decide to carry a gun, to go to a crowded bar in the midst of a pandemic but she is not responsible enough to make decisions about her own reproductive health? Your words are hollow and ring loudly with hypocrisy. “
This morning I read that a member of the Idaho state legislature is proposing an amendment to the Idaho state constitution to ensure that marijuana cannot be legalized in Idaho – even medical marijuana. The states surrounding Idaho – Washington, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah (medical marijuana only) – have all legalized marijuana possession and use within the limits imposed by the various state laws. The simple fact is, in the future if anyone in Idaho wants marijuana, they could simply take a day trip to any of those states and purchase whatever they want. It reminds me of when I was I college and people would make trips to Idaho and Colorado to pick up cases of Coors beer because it was not available in Montana!
Let me make it clear right here that I am not advocating the use of marijuana. I don’t use it but, once again, I refuse to make that decision for someone else. The evidence is overwhelming that it can be beneficial for some medicinal treatments and the fact is, about two thirds of American support the legalization of marijuana. So, we are once again seeing a situation where someone has been elected to an office and is now going to use the powers of that office to push a personal agenda that is in opposition to the wishes of the majority of Americans. That, in my mind, is one of the major problems with how governments are functioning (or not functioning) these days.
In Montana, despite all of the campaign ads leading up to the election, in which the Republicans promised ‘lower taxes’ and ‘more and better jobs’, nothing that they have done to date has addressed any of those issues. Instead, they got right to work passing a law allowing almost unlimited concealed carry of firearms in the state – lowers taxes? Jobs? They got right to work on anti-abortion legislation – lower taxes? Jobs? And now in Idaho, someone is pushing a constitutional amendment to prevent the legalization of marijuana at some point in the future, even if it gets put on a ballot and is approved by a majority of Idahoans – lower taxes? Jobs?
In an ideal world it seems that the country would be better served if, before submitting legislation, elected officials were required to provide 1) an economic impact of the legislation (that is required in some states); 2) an analysis based upon facts and data (peer reviewed sources) as to what specific problem this piece of legislation is attempting to solve and 3) data from 3 to 5 reputable polling firms as to the level of support for a particular piece of legislation amongst the population that will be affected. If those three requirements were required PRIOR to someone just writing up a new bill, perhaps it wouldn’t be quite so easy for people to use their elected office to push personal agendas as opposed to using their offices to work on legislative efforts that address ‘big picture’ issues for the entire population of the state or the country.
Of course, we don’t live in an ideal world, so for the foreseeable future we will be stuck with elected officials who seem to think their job is to push personal beliefs regardless of the costs, long term consequences, or popular support. And the rest of us will have to live (or die) with the consequences.
Right wing conservatives just want to do the opposite of any government restrictions. Because of their rebellious nature maybe reverse psychology would work on them by telling them they must not to wear masks in public or they must carry guns with them everywhere they go.