Dear Attorney General Suthers,
I recently read “Legalization Will Harm us,” your powerful argument against legalisation of recreational marijuana for the state of Colorado. You argued that marijuana use could increase crime, conflict with federal laws, change the workplace and schools, and pose a major risk to public safety. You craft an impressive argument as you implore voters to reject the proposition. However, I believe that recreational marijuana use could do a lot more good for Colorado than harm and that a few of your arguments don’t hold up to a closer evaluation.
You argue that recreational marijuana would turn Colorado into the “top distribution hub in the country” and increase the presence of organized crime and drug cartels. While this is a distinct possibility, isn’t it also possible that legalization could take the distribution out of the cartels’ hands and into the hands of government-regulated growers and dealers? This could create a safer product for the millions of U.S. citizens who smoke marijuana. Plus, it could reduce the amount of people locked up in our country for petty drug crimes, thereby reducing crime and taking strain off of the police force.
In addition, the lack of a residency requirement could mean that “out-of-state dealers and users could buy … and use anywhere else,” as you say in your article but that doesn’t have to be negative. This could mean people who don’t have access to medical marijuana from nearby states could spend a weekend in your state, which is already a tourist destination, and infuse the local economy with their spending. Remember, they won’t just be coming to purchase marijuana. They will stay in hotels and shop at Colorado businesses. You might think twice before assuming that “Colorado doesn’t want that kind of tourist.”
Though I disagree with your claim that legalization will increase crime and bring the wrong types of people to Colorado, I agree with your opinion that it would put your state in conflict with the federal law. You’re right when you claim that Colorado’s plan “wouldn’t really ‘legalize’ marijuana” and could be enforced “aggressively” by federal prosecutors. Still, Colorado has a unique opportunity to be the standard bearer for a wide scale decriminalization of marijuana. Many major changes in our country, even as recently as the legalization of gay marriage, started with a few states choosing to challenge federal law. You could be at the start of a similar snowball effect in terms of marijuana legislation.
Finally, you give some very convincing research that marijuana could be a safety concern, including the statement that “10 percent of Colorado’s traffic fatalities are due to marijuana-impaired drivers.” However, it is unfair for you to tell voters that it is accepted scientific fact that “Marijuana affects perception, coordination and reaction time - just as alcohol does” because that statement involves cherry picked data that supports your argument. In fact, the National Institute of Drug Abuse says that we cannot make definitive claims about marijuana’s impact on the brain because there are often other factors at play for the average marijuana user (most notably other drugs) Since the jury is still out, you cannot just assume it’s accepted fact.
I find it quite interesting that you choose to compare marijuana to alcohol - which is legal for adult consumption and a leading cause of traffic-related deaths. Why should we treat marijuana differently? I don’t think any advocates for legal marijuana would ask for it to be exempt from laws that govern impaired driving.
Finally, while I appreciate that you mention teachers, business leaders, police, and other members of your community who agree with you, the fact that you don’t mention them by name makes me a little suspicious. I’m sure there are members of all of those communities who support the proposition, too. Without support from a teacher’s or law enforcement union or governing body, I’m less likely to believe you. I’m also not sure I accept that medical marijuana is the only cause for the increase “suspensions … expulsions … referrals” that you mention. You could be assuming a false cause - just because something happened after another event does not mean it was caused by that event.
It’s clear you’re passionate about the effects marijuana will have on your community, but I think you need to remember that you represent people who currently smoke marijuana. Their opinions are just as valid, and it’s possible that they are on the right side of history. Perhaps, instead of continuing to criminalize something they enjoy, we should see what happens when we give them the freedom to decide?
Sincerely,
Michael Reppenhagen