Other side of the story
On March 16, I attended the “Just Say Know” press conference in Wallingford held by Mayor William Dickinson, First Selectman of North Haven Michael Freda, Senator Len Fasano, Representatives Mary Mushinsky and Craig Fishbein, Reverend Todd Foster of New Haven, School Superintendent Sal Menzo, and others.
It’s about time we hear the other side of the story, and I greatly appreciate the comments of all who spoke. We definitely need to hear more from those who recognize that there are major consequences to legalizing marijuana. We have to stop the speeding train.
I was especially impressed by Reverend Foster, who spoke eloquently and factually; and by Jordan Davidson, the young man who detailed how his escalating addiction to marijuana affected his life.
According to the 11/15/18 impact report by the Centennial Institute (Colorado Christian University), retail marijuana was legalized in only 46 of Colorado’s 271 incorporated municipalities. (Why is that, if pot is so great?)
In 2016 in Denver, the marijuana industry used enough electricity to power 32,355 homes; and it was responsible for approximately 393,053 pounds of CO2 emissions (a greenhouse gas), equal to the amount produced by 38,177 cars. In Colorado in 2016, the marijuana industry used 18.78 million pieces of plastic. A survey of marijuana users revealed that 69 percent say they have driven under the influence – 27 percent daily.
For every dollar gained in tax revenue, Coloradans spent $4.50 to mitigate the effects of legalization, and the largest cost contributors related to the healthcare system and high school dropouts. The number of Coloradans who attended college and use marijuana has grown since legalization, and marijuana use remains more prevalent in the population with less education.
California, Washington and Oregon have similar marijuana Impact reports.
And this is what our elected officials in Hartford want for us here in Connecticut?
William Butka, WallingfordDark moment
In a very dark moment in the history of our country, both of Connecticut's U.S. senators voted on February 25 to block Senate Bill 311, which would protect born-alive abortion survivors. To be clear, and despite what they portrayed the bill as, it would not have restricted abortion in any way. It would not hinder the mother's healthcare, it would not jeopardize the mother's health (because the baby would already be free of the womb). It would not penalize any health care providers involved in the abortion process, unless they failed to provide care. Its sole purpose, considering recent movements by other states, was to insure that any baby that survived a botched-abortion attempt (it happens) would be recognized as a human with all of the rights to medical care, as any other baby would receive. Basically it said that if a baby is born alive, you cannot kill it by denying care, such as when an infant is passively left to die by withholding nutrition or normal medical care. This would be a very rare event, but how do they explain not defending human life? Abortion at any stage is about destroying human life, but killing humans outside the womb, already recognized as murder, is taking this immorality to the next level and introduces a slippery slope of determining at what age legal protection does begin (1 day, 1 month, 1 year old...?). Since Senators Blumenthal and Murphy champion health care for all, how could they vote against this bill (joining all but three Democrats) and ignore our most vulnerable humans. Are they afraid of acknowledging that living, breathing humans (not just “clumps of cells") are associated with any part of the abortion process? It is a truly a sick, despicable position that screams for an explanation.
Bruce Mudzinski, Wallingford