Letter to the editor: Drawbacks to legal pot | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Drawbacks to legal pot

Lt. Gov. John Fetterman was in Greensburg recently to discuss making recreational use of marijuana legal (“Fetterman’s marijuana tour stop in Greensburg draws large, divided crowd,” March 4, TribLIVE).

If medical professionals believe cannabis is a good tool in their medical bag for treating chronic pain or other issues, I can support that. But legalizing recreational use is not something I support.

As a law professional with over 35 years of experience, I have interviewed thousands of incarcerated people. All indicated that they started with marijuana and then graduated to other drugs. So in my mind, it is a gateway drug; the evidence is overwhelming.

Furthermore, much evidence supports the fact that people who use marijuana and have the AKT1 gene are seven times more likely to develop psychosis or other mental health issues.

I feel supporters of recreational use are being short-sighted and selfish. They want to get high and eliminate any possible criminal prosecution. They fail to look at the long-term effects on young people and society as a whole.

I would also question why politicians, specifically Democrats, are pushing this issue. Maybe because a chronically stoned population is a more easily controlled population.

The marijuana of today is much stronger than that of the ’60s and ’70s. I would hope that before you want to legalize it, step back from your bong and ask yourself, “Do I want my kids and grandkids being stoned all the time?”

Richard Bell

Ligonier Township

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.