Letters

Letters 08-31-2015

Inalienable Rights This is a response to the “No More State Theatre” in your August 24th edition. I think I will not be the only response to this pathetic and narrow-minded letter that seems rather out of place in the northern Michigan that I know. To think we will not be getting your 25 cents for the movie you refused to see, but more importantly we will be without your “two cents” on your thoughts of a marriage at the State Theatre...

Enthusiastically Democratic Since I was one of the approximately 160 people present at when Senator Debbie Stabenow spoke on August 14 in Charlevoix, I was surprised to read in a letter to Northern Express that there was a “rather muted” response to Debbie’s announcement that she has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president...

Not Hurting I surely think the State Theatre will survive not having the homophobic presence of Colleen Smith and her family attend any matinees. I think “Ms.” Smith might also want to make sure that any medical personnel, bank staff, grocery store staff, waiters and/or waitress, etc. are not homosexual before accepting any service or product from them...

Stay Home I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read the letter of the extremely homophobic, “disgusted” writer. She now refuses to patronize the State Theatre because she evidently feels that its confines have been poisoned by the gay wedding ceremony held there...

Keep Away In response to Colleen Smith of Cadillac who refused to bring her family to the State Theatre because there was a gay wedding there: Keep your 25 cents and your family out of Traverse City...

Celebrating Moore And A Theatre I was 10 years old when I had the privilege to see my first film at the State Theatre. I will never forget that experience. The screen was almost the size of my bedroom I shared with my older sister. The bursting sounds made me believe I was part of the film...

Outdated Thinking This letter is in response to Colleen Smith. She made public her choice to no longer go to the State Theater due to the fact that “some homosexuals” got married there. I’m not outraged by her choice; we don’t need any more hateful, self-righteous bigots in our town. She can keep her 25 cents...

Mackinac Pipeline Must Be Shut Down Crude oil flowing through Enbridge’s 60-yearold pipeline beneath the Mackinac Straits and the largest collection of fresh water on the planet should be a serious concern for every resident of the USA and Canada. Enbridge has a very “accident” prone track record...

Your Rights To Colleen, who wrote about the State Theatre: Let me thank you for sharing your views; I think most of us are well in support of the first amendment, because as you know- it gives everyone the opportunity to express their opinions. I also wanted to thank Northern Express for not shutting down these types of letters right at the source but rather giving the community a platform for education...

No Role Model [Fascinating Person from last week’s issue] Jada quoted: “I want to be a role model for girls who are interested in being in the outdoors.” I enjoy being in the outdoors, but I don’t want to kill animals for trophy...

Home · Articles · News · Random Thoughts · The end of reefer...
. . . .

The end of reefer madness

Robert Downes - August 4th, 2008
Do you believe in having the freedom to do as you choose with your own body? Or should government make those decisions for you?
That’s the fundamental question in many great controversies of our time regarding smoking, prostitution, abortion, stem cell research, marijuana, wearing a motorcycle helmet, the right to die with dignity, the use of steroids, and drug use to name a few.
At least half the time, we (ie. society) decide to limit ourselves. If you want to make money by inviting strangers to enjoy your body, too bad -- it’s against the law. If you want to hit the ball farther than anyone else on the team by taking steroids, tough luck -- it’s illegal.
But if you want to smoke cigarettes or have an abortion, you are still free to do so. For the time being, that is.
So it‘s all quite arbitrary as to what you can legally do with your own body in our supposedly “free“ country.
That’s why this November’s vote on the Michigan Medical Marijuana Initiative seems momentous: we don’t often decide to legalize anything -- the trend is usually in the other direction.
In March, members of the Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care turned in over 300,000 signatures from state voters, securing a place on the ballot for the Michigan Marijuana Act. The act would amend state law “to allow authorized patients to use cannabis therapeutically under a doctor’s supervision.”
If Michigan voters grant their approval, ours would be the 13th state to approve the use of medical marijuana since 1996, according to NORML (the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws).
Medical marijuana eases the pain and symptoms of glaucoma, MS, and chemotherapy. Should these people be forced to suffer excruciating pain or be forced to pay for prescription drugs costing thousands of dollars when inexpensive, effective marijuana is available? Vote your conscience on this one, and think of that member of your own family whose pain could have been eased.
Ah, but critics claim that in states where medical marijuana has been legalized, there are always a few Sneaky Petes who bend the rules so that they too can smoke pot.
Fortunately, two forward-thinking congressmen have a prescription for nipping this in the bud (no pun intended). Their idea is to simply quit harassing the American people over small amounts of marijuana and let us be free to use it.
What a concept! Freedom. Who could imagine?
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) and co-sponsor Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) have offered a resolution to decriminalize the personal use of marijuana. They have proposed ending federal penalties for Americans who possess fewer than 100 grams of marijuana, or a little less than a quarter ounce.
“The vast amount of human activity ought to be none of the government’s business,” Frank said last week in a Capitol Hill press conference. “I don’t think it is the government’s business to tell you how to spend your leisure time.”
Rep. Frank, who doesn’t smoke marijuana, points out that billions have been spent in law enforcement to try to stop something that Americans routinely thumb their noses at -- just as they did the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. NORML claims there are tens of millions of pot smokers in the U.S., and that there have been 20 million marijuana-related arrests since 1965. In fact, a marijuana smoker is arrested every 38 seconds in our country.
The arrests are a bonanza for law enforcement, courts and lawyers, but a real heartache for parents who’ve had to pay the legal bills for their teens, or have seen their kids sent to the county jail.
Under Frank’s proposal, it would still be illegal to deal marijuana or possess more than a quarter ounce. Obviously, this would require a bit of fait accompli from the government, winking at distribution.
Thus, the main problem with decriminalizing marijuana would, ironically, be a lack of government regulation.
Without government regulation of trade, organized crime would still be involved in marijuana‘s distribution. Then too, there is the question of potency: in Amsterdam, where marijuana is legal, some strains are so potent from being refined through the years that smokers have suffered psychotic reactions.
If marijuana is going to be decriminalized, then we should also consider having it regulated and taxed, to the benefit of Michigan farmers and our state treasury.
 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
 
 
Close
Close
Close