Published: January 23, 2014
Cannabis is not the 'devil's weed'
I'm astounded by the misconceptions of editorials condemning recreational sales of marijuana. Marilyn Ware's statement in regards to "the damage it does to the community and Manitou families" was disturbing. What harm am I doing by choosing a safer alternative to alcohol to enjoy responsibly in my home? Why are marijuana users demonized while alcohol consumption is glorified? The U.S. Dept. of Justice estimates 5 million alcohol-related violent crimes per year; the Journal Addiction reports 80,000 deaths annually as a result of alcohol.
In the "Making village a center of pot" article it said, "It's hard to view a weed, sold to alter a person's moods and perceptions, as a legitimate form of wealth."
But malted cereal grain that contributes to aggressive and violent behavior is legitimate? And it's acceptable for drug companies to pedal toxic pharmaceuticals which provides $330 billion annually in corporate profits? These massively marketed psychotropic pills kill 36,000 every year. Despite the evidence of connection between these toxins and mass murders (including school shootings) government has failed to investigate this corrupt and deadly industry.
Cannabis is not the "devil's weed" the government has wasted trillions of dollars promoting it as. Don't believe the hype.
Beverly Brown, Colorado Springs
Our health is our responsibility
Last Friday, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Surgeon General's first report on health hazards of cigarette smoking, his office released a report linking smoking to several new chronic diseases. These include diabetes, erectile dysfunction, cancer of the colon and liver, and stroke, in additional to the well-known links to lung and oral cancer, high blood pressure, and heart disease.
The parallels between cigarette smoking and meat consumption are uncanny:
- The chronic diseases linked to both activities and costs of associated medical care and lost productivity are very similar
- The first government reports warning consumers about health hazards of cigarette smoking and meat consumption were issued in 1964 (by Surgeon General) and in 1977 (by Senate Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs), respectively
- The first warning labels on cigarette and meat packaging were required in 1966 and 1994, respectively
- Both activities are discouraged by health advocates and both are declining
But there is one important difference: the meat industry impacts more state economies with a stronger Congressional clout than the tobacco industry. A Surgeon General's report on the hazards of meat consumption is most unlikely. Our health remains our personal responsibility.
Corey Maker, Colorado Springs
Try watching Fox News
Response to Rusty Baker: So, "the more one listens to Fox News, the less one knows" Let's see how that works. I know the Obama administration completely mishandled the Tarp/Stimulus bailout, giving billions to GM union workers. Most of which hasn't been repaid to us taxpayers. If fact, most of this money has been used by GM to open plants in Red China. Did you know that? I doubt it.
How about Solindra? Obama gave his buddy's company a half-billion dollars of taxpayer money. The company almost immediately went bankrupt. The money disappeared. Did you know that? I doubt it.
Have you heard about our wonderful Justice Department's gun running program, "Fast and Furious"? Another "phony scandal" where a "phony" border guard died. Did you know about that? I doubt it.
How about the IRS scandal, where many conservatives and conservative organizations were targeted for audit. Did you know about that? I doubt it.
I bet you still think "If you like your insurance, you can keep it."
Finally, how about Benghazi. Another "phony scandal" where four Americans died. Bet you think it was caused by some video no one has ever seen. I don't doubt it.
You are right about one thing, Obama was duly elected. Elected by uniformed and uneducated voters. Try watching Fox News, you might actually learn something.
Robert Bee, Colorado Springs
Definition of a bully
Re: Martha Fabian's comment in the Jan. 21 paper, with which I totally agree. The definition of someone who lets ego get in the way of responsibility is a bully.
Jean Brewer, Colorado Springs