Printed letters, Oct. 8, 2010
Wow! I finally read Janet Rowland’s recent, medical-marijuana article in The Daily Sentinel. She said it’s not up to her to take away any rights, but rather to uphold the state Constitution. That is very noble. What about upholding the federal law that states marijuana is illegal?
Rowland said she doesn’t get to pick and choose what parts of the state Constitution she doesn’t like. This argument is nonsense because she does get to pick and choose in this case. Cities and counties all over Colorado are doing just that, based on the fact that the state has recently given us that right.
Oh, of course, picking and choosing the parts of the federal law you fight to uphold is OK?
It’s sad that this elected official is only working to maintain the status quo. God forbid we would have a politician who would actually try to make things better instead of simply preserving bad policy.
I vote for politicians who have a basic understanding of right and wrong, good and bad. I vote for politicians who fight to protect my family. I vote for politicians who will fight to push out dispensaries. I vote for politicians who will protect the value of my property.
How many legitimate business owners in Mesa County really think they would be able to more easily sell their property with a dispensary next door? How many people in unincorporated areas of the county will have an easier time selling their house if a dispensary operates right around the corner?
Rowland should stop pretending that we don’t have the right to ban dispensaries in Mesa County because, once again, the right to do just that has been provided by the state.
‘Dope houses’ a mockery of voters’ compassion
When I voted for the medical marijuana amendment, I was being shown folks with cancer, HIV, glaucoma and severe neurological disorders, claiming that marijuana helped them. It was represented that marijuana would be prescribed by doctors in a clinical setting and the “medicine” would be legally grown in America and provided to treat similar genuine medical needs.
Now I see a bunch of dopers prescribing dope, smuggled in from who- knows-where, offered to anyone with a story about some old injury, handed out from garishly colored dope houses, all making a mockery of the compassionate voters of Colorado.
Good for the city councils of western Colorado for trying to get control over this abuse of the good will of voters.
Unions seek to level playing field on votes
In response to Diane Schwenke’s letter against the Employee Free Choice Act: Her example is of a company with 6,000 employees and, of those 6,000, only 1,000 participate in the election, so only 501 would need to vote “Yes” to get the union accepted.
What she fails to mention is that in Colorado, because of the Peace Act, a union must get 75 percent of the total of the 6,000 employees, which totals 4,500 employees.
She also fails to mention that if an employee doesn’t vote, it counts as a “No” vote, favoring the company.
The unions are only looking for a level playing field. I know of no other election in this country where you must garner 75 percent of the total potential votes, not just 75 percent of those who do vote.
Democrats misrepresent Buck’s views on Fair Tax
I recently saw an ad by the Democratic Party accusing Ken Buck of promoting a 23 percent tax hike. The ad conveniently forgot to mention that he was referring to the Fair Tax program that supports a 23 percent sales tax instead of our present income tax system.
The Fair Tax is a consumption tax and would bring in additional taxes from those who are presently avoiding taxation, such as non-citizens, those dealing in illegal businesses and others. The more a person spends the greater the taxation.
An additional benefit from the Fair Tax would be a reduction in the size and cost of the IRS.