Pubdate: Sun, 17 Apr 2016
Source: Rutland Herald (VT)
Copyright: 2016 Rutland Herald
Author: Robert Gershon


A recent Herald story ("Shumlin defends marijuana legalization," 
April 12) notes an auto dealer's implication that should that 
legislation pass, his employees will necessarily be stoned on the 
job. That dealer's response is understandable, a manifestation of the 
80-plus-year-old campaign of fear foisted off on the public by 
ambitious politicians. But it begs the question, are we then to 
assume that since alcohol is legal those same employees are now 
drunk? Or perhaps Governor Shumlin's tongue-in-cheek rejoinder, that 
they may already be high, hits too close to home - that they might 
not even know if their workers are high. Which means for all 
practical purposes, assuming the business has any kind of quality 
control, they are doing their jobs well.

So why would we want to make an activity that, despite all efforts to 
smear it, seems to be undetectable and harmless to both users and 
those with whom they come into contact? In other words, why do 
proponents of banning cannabis want to abridge the rights of their 
fellow citizens who, according to the preponderance of evidence, 
cause no harm to anyone (as carefully detailed in the recent Sunday 
Herald/Times Argus commentary "Marijuana 'experts' disappoint")?

I've no answer. I hope if the House fails to consider the 
legalization bill currently in committee they will find a convincing 
one for their constituents and their consciences.

Robert Gershon

- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom