Take It Slow on Marijuana

I would like to thank the Vermont House for taking a slow approach to legalizing recreational marijuana, especially large-scale commercialization. A quote in the paper — “and I thought Vermont was a liberal state” — made me smile, as it reflected a common and inaccurate stereotype. Vermont is a moderate state, with a history of tolerance and sensible compromise. Yes, we fight over issues, but the pendulum has always tended back to the center. I like to think we welcome a good discussion, after which we continue to talk to one another.

I believe that it is likely that the state (and people) will eventually allow a small amount of recreational marijuana to be grown at home, and be in an individual’s possession. (As well as continuing to support medical use and decriminalization.) But I hope Vermont never allows large commercial growing (think big business from out of state), despite the appeal of potential tax income. The black market will continue (as it does in Colorado), and treatment costs for a growing number of addicts may use up much of that revenue. Instead, we need to focus particularly on protecting kids better than we do now, as well as supporting ongoing research on pot’s effect on the brain, and educating everyone on the risks of this much more potent form of marijuana. We can draw a line here — we don’t need yet another commercial drug out there.

Sally Duston

Thetford Center

High Costs of Drug Abuse

In his May 8 column, Jim Kenyon appears to offer the view that for the Vermont Legislature to legalize the recreational use of marijuana would be, effectively, smart; and for it to fail to do so, dumb.

Yet what’s the purpose of laws restricting the use of mood-altering substances? To help to protect our society from their adverse effects, of course, and in particular, to increase the likelihood that young people will develop appropriate critical thinking skills before getting behind the wheel, or into the back seat, while under the influence. Are such laws perfect, and do they lead to perfect outcomes? They do not. However, they do fulfill the state’s obligation to serve by offering the best achievable limitations, and guidance, on individual behavior.

While knowledge of, and public acceptance about, the causes and effects of the use of mood-altering substances has expanded in recent years, and reveal that decriminalizing recreational marijuana use may offer lots of advantages, those advantages largely apply to our legal system. Legalization sends quite a different message than decriminalization. As with parents, what our government promotes, and what it discourages, matters. The decline in rates of cigarette smoking among Americans since our federal government began disseminating accurate information about the effects on the health of smokers is a case in point.

Regarding recreational marijuana, The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ National Survey on Substance Use and Health for 2013 reveals that kids aged 12 to 17, “who perceived strong parental disapproval for trying marijuana or hashish once or twice” were more than six times less likely to do so (4.1 percent versus 29.3 percent) “than those who did not perceive this level of disapproval.”

While most people who smoke pot for fun don’t develop a substance use disorder, many do, and pot is clearly a gateway drug for many of those. And, as the late Surgeon General C. Everett Koop put it over 10 years ago, substance use disorders are arguably our greatest health care challenge.

Finally, whether or not harmful drug use is a problem in a given family, it costs every single one of us — man, woman and child — over $1,500 in federal, state and local taxes annually, according to, “Shoveling Up II — The Impact of Substance Abuse on Federal, State and Local Budgets.” That figure is from 2005 and has only increased since then.

Chris Weinmann

Norwich

LGBT Community Propaganda

That was quite a propaganda piece in the Valley News’ Valley Parents magazine last week on gender identity. While I’m certain that many in the LGBTQ community are quite pleased with your coverage, you have done a tremendous disservice to our children, especially those struggling with gender dysphoria, a recognized mental disorder listed in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V). I urge your readers to go to the American College of Pediatricians, an organization whose stated purpose is what is “Best for Children,” and read its position statement entitled “Sexual Ideology Harms Our Children” for themselves, but include the following highlights from that paper for your readers’ convenience:

1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait.

2. Gender is a sociological and psychological concept, not an objective biological one.

3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.

4. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98 percent of gender-confused boys and 88 percent of gender-confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.

5. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous.

6. Children who use puberty-blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence.

7. Rates of suicide are 20 times greater for adults who use cross-sex hormones and sex reassignment surgery.

8. Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.

Shame on the Valley News for participating in the abuse of our children!

Jim Newcomb

North Haverhill