Printed letters, May 2, 2012

Recently, in a rare moment of short-sightedness, George Will endorsed the legalization of drugs as a solution to drug cartel violence.

His rationale was that this would undercut profits and put them out of business. If only it were that simple. You have to be very naive to believe that if we tax and regulate drugs that these dealers are going to give up, go home and start car washes and taco shops. Drugs will always be cheaper on the street and the black market will continue.

Legalization will only serve to expand the customer base of addicts and make it impossible for the police to control.

Mexico turned a blind eye on the drug trade for decades and now is dealing with so much violence it is in danger of becoming a failed state. Alaska tried legalizing small amounts of marijuana in the ‘80s and in a short time had double the national average of teen drug abuse.

We need to learn a lesson from their bitter experiences and continue to resist the expansion of this trade that preys upon human weakness and addiction.



Why cast aspersions on non-profit organization?

Providing responsible local journalism, apparently, is a virtue that The Daily Sentinel has little or no interest in. The article that describes the Abby and Jennifer Recovery Foundation as a “troubled” nonprofit organization is absolutely pathetic. 

I question what exactly motivated the Sentinel to conduct an investigation in the first place. Was it the paper’s intent to accuse the Flukey’s of wrongdoing? Is it the paper’s belief that a criminal act has occurred or was the article some kind of ill-fated attempt to educate readers how to properly administer a non-profit organization?

It seems as though The Daily Sentinel chooses to overlook obvious noteworthy subjects in lieu of casting shadows on an organization and its founders that provide hope and inspiration to this community and beyond. Shame on The Daily Sentinel.


Grand Junction


Our grandchildren deserve to have us focus on our debt

I wonder what thoughts are going to be going through the minds of Krystyn Hartman’s grandchildren 50 years from now.

As the grandchildren review their grandmother’s musings and postings, they wonder why their grandmother wasn’t more worried about stopping the massive spending that ran their country into so much debt. The grandchildren realize that even if they could find a high-paying job, there is no way they could get ahead of the tax burden they carry to support the government debt their grandmother’s generation created.

Those grandchildren will probably review these early days of this century and wonder why we (Krystyn’s generation) didn’t appreciate the freedoms, liberty, economic and entrepreneurial opportunities available enough to ensure that they (the grandchildren) would have some of those opportunities as well.

But the grandchildren realize that their grandmother’s generation was more worried about peace and harmony and frogs and wind and ... than freedom and liberty and the financial foundation of the nation.




More information was missing in story on evictions

I was disappointed at the content-free coverage of evictions in the recent article. A couple of incidents of long-time renters being evicted were depicted with photos. It all sounded very tragic, and indeed it may be.

However, something important was missing. There are different reasons why people may be evicted: lack of payment of rent, foreclosure or sale of the property, other lease violations, the owner wanting to occupy the premises,  etc. We were not informed in the article as to why these unfortunate people were being forced out of their homes. This omission leaves a very incomplete picture.




People should have to work to pay back student loans

I listened with interest to the arguments of the perpetual campaigner President Obama in Boulder on April 24 — and other colleges this week — and his proposal to keep the interest rates for college student loans low as part of his effort to buy more votes in November at the expense of the American taxpayers.

When I was in college in 1961 through 1968 and earned a BS degree in mathematics and a MS degree in physics, there was also a program to pay for college and a federal program to help pay for the operations of the federal government. At that point in American history, both programs were called work. My work all year round in more and different jobs than I can remember paid for my college bills, living costs in summers and during the school year. I also paid taxes to the federal government on my earnings to help support it and everyone prospered, me the most because I learned how to work and be successful.

I suggest that the federal government and President Obama get out of the student loan business — and a lot of the other businesses they have entered into — and give back to the average American our freedom to be successful and work and learn on their own.


Glade Park


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1

With all due respect for my friends who disagree, George Will was right, as was William F. Buckley, Jr. Both proven conservatives fully understood the connecting dots that the so-called “war” on drugs (actually war on the U.S. Constitution on behalf of the duopoly debt-as-money oligarchy), with its not infrequent wrong-address no-knock no-warrant raids that kill innocent people and animals, has completely and very literally destroyed the 4th Amendment.
I believe that what the well-intended-but-constitutionally-apathetic folks who enable and support the inevitable police state culture and militarization of the police inherently attendant to the “war” on drugs fail to understand is that drugs are poison, plain and simple. They are not nutrition, not fun, but deadly poisons that are seriously detrimental to one’s health and well being.
Humans are sufficiently intelligent that we don’t need laws telling us not to ingest poison. If we did, we would need laws telling us not to eat detergent or drink ammonia. The matter can be adequately handled in a manner obedient to the U.S. Constitution via vigorous and effective anti-drug education. Proof of that exists in the way so many liberals are getting educated as to all the poisons being put into our foods by mega-corporations seeking to increase the shelf life of their products. Who would have guessed that so many liberals would have become increasing resentful of the Nanny State over the issue of wholesome food? I love it.
If drugs were legalized, competition would increase and profits would drop like a rock, which is great news from the supply side of the problem. Obviously the best way to reap maximum profits from drugs is to be in high government positions where you can use the powers of office and law enforcement to prosecute your competition. This paradigm of rampant corruption can only exist when drugs are illegal.
I’m always skeptical about the arguments of those who actually want to play a numbers game, the numbers of “victim” addicts versus the numbers killed in wrong-address no-knock no-warrant raids.
Lastly, I despise the “for the children” straw-man talking point so frequently used to buttress weak logic and constitutional apathy. Obviously it is in the best interests of America’s children to have a society where the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights are in full force and effect.
Lastly, I scorn the hypocrisy of tobacco, alcohol and prescription drug users whose position is: “my drug of choice should be legal, but your drug of choice should be illegal.”
Full disclosure: I am a Christian “teetotaler”.

Page 1 of 1

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
eTear Sheets/ePayments

© 2017 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy