Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Gary Crooks: Why is the fight over marijuana?

A petition is being circulated calling for stricter rules on the sale of marijuana downtown. I can see adding churches to the list of places that marijuana businesses can’t be located near, but the current stores need to be grandfathered in. Those owners played by the rules.

Spokane City Councilman Mike Fagan agrees, but he also says the council should consider outlawing marijuana stores in “alcohol impact areas,” which are parts of town, including downtown, where fortified alcohol cannot be sold.

Meanwhile, “respectable” booze can be served and sold inside alcohol impact areas, and the predictable belligerence from imbibers keeps the Police Department busy.

Just the fact that bars need bouncers should raise this question: Why place them outside the alcohol impact area while putting pot stores inside? It’s something to ponder at your next happy hour. Just be careful not to start a fight.

USE YOUR WORDS. According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, plagiarism means “to steal and pass off the ideas or words of another as one’s own.” Also, to “use another’s production without crediting the source.”

In the sentence above, note the quotation marks around the passages quoted verbatim; also note that the source of the information is credited. That’s called attribution.

I bring this up because the Wall Street Journal alerted me to plagiarized passages in the April 16 column (“Obama accelerating pace of regulations”) by Don C. Brunell. Unfortunately, Brunell did use lines – sometimes word for word – from an April 7 Wall Street Journal article (“Obama readies flurry of regulations”) without quotation marks or attribution.

That’s a violation of The Spokesman-Review’s publishing standards. Brunell has acknowledged the error of his ways and apologized. We’ve removed the column from our website.

A note to outside contributors to the newspaper: Use your words. If you use someone else’s words, put them in quotes and tell readers who said it. If you paraphrase another person’s work, attribute the source.

THE PROPOSITION. Last week’s question was about a proposed statewide ballot initiative to bring back $30 car tabs. If confronted with I-1421 on the ballot, how would you vote? Yes on $30 car tab fees, regardless of an automobile’s year, value, make or model? If so, what about the potholes?

Your abridged replies follow:

“I absolutely would NOT vote for universal $30 tabs. Drivers who want streets and roads maintained and repaired cannot just hope the “Street Fairy” does it. Things cost money and to expect repairs at no cost to you is selfish and unrealistic.” – Valerie F. Adams, Spokane

“Tabs use to be a property tax with new expensive vehicles paying $500 for auto licensing and old worn cars about $45. (The adoption of $30 tabs) resulted in poor schmucks saving $15 while the well-off saved $470, shifting the tax burden to the poor as usual and allowing streets to deteriorate.” – Leonard Butters, Spokane

“Yes on 1421. About the potholes: the city must use my tax payments much more practically and efficiently.” – Paul Unger, Spokane

“I moved to Spokane in 1990 and was astounded at the license fees. … Then along came Tim Eyman. I joined his drive and we got it ($30 tabs) passed. … It was amazing how many departments were getting money out of the license fee money. … When Ben Stuckart says, ‘That’s not the plan,’ I do not believe him. When money gets tight, politicians will do anything to weasel out of an agreement.” – Wayne Lythgoe, Colbert

Opinion Editor Gary Crooks can be reached at garyc@spokesman.com or (509) 459-5026. Follow him on Twitter @GaryCrooks.