Prohibition madness II
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
The argument Jean Thimons makes in her letter “Marijuana madness” against legalizing the drug for recreational or medical use doesn't make much sense.
She asks if we want a school bus driver on pot. The more serious question is: Do we want our school bus drivers on legally obtained medicines? It's just as easy to get oxycodone as pot, if not easier.
Pot is ubiquitous and a lot of the money earned as workers' income leaves the economy and ends up in clandestine hands. This makes zero economic sense.
Making pot legal isn't going to cause someone to take it up any more than accepting a free “hit” at a party will. Some people will use it no matter what, so why shouldn't the country benefit from it by taxing it and wiping out the national debt?
As far as the moral issue goes, I think a government that keeps itself in power by allowing campaign corruption and calling it free speech is a much more serious dilemma.
A smart government would understand the marijuana issue. It's not going away, no matter how much money we spend on eradicating it, so why not benefit from it, like we do all of the casinos?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett’s choice
- Invest in pre-K
- ‘We the people’ are veterans
- Islam & women
- Drought answer?
- Proven success
- Medicaid’s future
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Slots & property taxes
- Apollo-Ridge excellence
- Beneficial, irreplaceable