Pubdate: Mon, 22 Oct 2012
Source: Fort Collins Coloradoan (CO)
Copyright: 2012 The Fort Collins Coloradoan
Contact: http://www.coloradoan.com/customerservice/contactus.html
Website: http://www.coloradoan.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1580
Author: Dawn Nannini
Note: Dawn Nannini, Ph.D., works for Team Fort Collins and lives in 
Fort Collins.

VOTE TO LIMIT AVAILABILITY OF MARIJUANA TO YOUTHS

Folks at the state level have done a fine job of publicizing efforts 
to legalize marijuana in Colorado. Some of you, however, may be 
surprised to learn that some additional work regarding the legality 
of marijuana is under way locally.

Even though both initiatives will appear on the same ballot, voters 
should not be misled into thinking that theirs is an either/or decision.

The state initiative, Amendment 64, will ask voters to legalize 
marijuana in Colorado. All claims of medicinal use aside, the 
distribution of marijuana would be based on a similar revenue model 
used to regulate alcohol sales.

Question 301, the other marijuana-related initiative that voters will 
be asked to decide on in November, is specific to the Fort Collins community.

Last year, Fort Collins residents voted to remove medical marijuana 
dispensaries from our town. This year, voters will be asked to 
revisit this decision, which could result in the reopening of these 
businesses - complete with neon signs, large pot leaf displays, and 
2-for-1 advertised specials.

 From the perspective of a prevention specialist, both options are 
problematic in that the availability of the substance, particularly 
for children, is dramatically increased.

No on both initiatives is the best course of action for preventing 
marijuana use among Fort Collins youths.

In the same spirit of protecting youth, some amount of skepticism 
regarding promises by proponents of Amendment 64 to fund public 
education is in order.

School funding is little more than a strategy to pull at the heart 
strings of those looking out for children.

The dedicated, fixed-amount money is miniscule when one considers the 
real, ongoing costs associated with running a school.

Forty million dollars will do little more than construct a couple of 
buildings, to say nothing of funding the rest of the campus or the 
teachers to staff it.

Another point of deliberation that also confuses these marijuana 
initiatives was recently advanced by Mr. David Sirota, a proponent of 
the legalization of marijuana - that voters' choice is one between 
alcohol and marijuana.

To his credit, there is good evidence concerning the ill effect of 
alcohol use. The reason we know so much about the risks associated 
with alcohol use is that its high availability over the years has 
provided a fruitful ground for research. While the same effects may 
not be attributed to marijuana use, you can be sure that there are others.

To date, research on regular marijuana use definitively demonstrates 
permanent damage to the development of the brain, the heart, the 
lungs and the reproductive systems of both males and females.

Ill effects aside, Mr. Sirota's argument is fundamentally flawed in 
that it is based on the assumption that alcohol use and marijuana use 
are mutually exclusive. Combined alcohol and marijuana use is a much 
more accurate representation of consumption. So, again, voters beware 
of feeling like you are locked into an either/or decision.

Voting on Amendment 64 and Question 301 is not an either/or decision 
to legalize marijuana or bring back medical marijuana dispensaries; 
it is not a decision to fund or not to fund public education; and it 
is not a decision to replace alcohol users with marijuana users - 
yours is only a choice for or against increased availability of 
marijuana in our community.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom