Pubdate: Mon, 19 Jan 2015
Source: Rutland Herald (VT)
Copyright: 2015 Rutland Herald
Author: Tom King


The letter in the paper, "Legalization not so simple," was
simple-minded when the writer states "it seems obvious that regulation
would not remove underage access to pot ..." This way of thinking
rules out any parental guidance or, for that matter, any of the
authorities from enforcing the law. If pot is sold to adults over age
21 and these "children" (I define children as ages 5-12 and teens ages
13-17) the writer speaks of are at home and not out on the street,
then police and others will enforce the laws and deal with violators.
This argument would translate to any controlled substance.

The writer seems to believe that children can get anything they want
as long as it's legal. In fact, it's just the opposite. If it's illegal, 
then dope dealers will sell it to anyone. Then the part about emergency 
rooms and children overdosing on pot is wrong, too. ODs are normally 
involved with hard drugs, not pot. In order to overdose on pot, a person 
would need a lot and even then it may not happen.

Lastly, the part about drug dealers continuing to sell pot after it's 
legal makes even less sense. Why would anyone take a chance on getting 
busted by police if they can buy pot at the state liquor store legally? 
Duh. The writer obviously is not very street-smart and has little or no
experience with what he's talking about.

Most of these arguments against legalizing pot are attempts to tell
people what they should and should not do. Making it illegal just
creates even more interest in it from children. "Forbidden fruit" is
always more in demand. It's human nature to want what you cannot have.
Once pot is legal, it'll be no big deal. Otherwise things will remain
the same and drug dealers will continue selling pot to "children."

Tom King

- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt