On February 9, 2016

My vote is “no” for a bill that seeks to legalize marijuana for recreational use

Dear Editor,

In a recent letter to friends, family and neighbors I addressed a question many have asked: where do I stand on the legalization of marijuana?

I’ve spoken to many of you about this topic. I’ve heard your thoughts and concerns and I am convinced now, more than ever, that should a bill that seeks to legalize marijuana for recreational use come to the floor of the Vermont State House this year—I will be voting no.

As I’m sure you’re aware, the issue has picked up steam over the last several years as Colorado and Washington legalized it within their borders and the national conversation and stigma surrounding its use have softened. Additionally, millions of dollars have been spent by marijuana advocates on advertising and lobbying campaigns that have, obviously, borne fruit.

While many of the arguments made by legalization backers are compelling and while I believe that there might be medical or other scientific benefits of cannabis yet to be discovered (beyond those already fully established and accepted by many in those communities), the overall tenor of the “legalize-it” argument is that marijuana is not truly an addictive or harmful substance in the traditional sense. Frequently, the argument is also made that the negative effects on youth are exaggerated and that legalizing the drug in Vermont would usher in a new era of budget surpluses.

I must disagree with all of those arguments.

It has been shown in many studies that marijuana use can lead to overstimulation of certain receptors in the brain that directly affect memory, concentration, motor skills, coordination and sensory perception while also paving the way for serious withdrawal symptoms–all of which pose myriad complications for our State’s law enforcement and healthcare communities; and research acutely demonstrates that marijuana is not only addictive ( 1 out of 6 young people who use marijuana will establish a dependence) but that the negative effects of marijuana are far more pronounced in adolescents than in adults.

Also, for a state so at war with opiate addiction, marijuana is unquestionably a gateway to other, more dangerous drug use and studies have shown that regular use of marijuana may lead to a significant and irreversible drop in IQ. (It should also be noted that the marijuana smoked today is not the same that was smoked even twenty years ago. It has become exponentially more potent, and the scientific research is having a hard time keeping up with the changes to the drug.)

And while the idea of millions of dollars in new revenue is a tantalizing one, the increase to our receipts would likely lead to an increase to our budget–more spending and more programs. Should our neighboring states also legalize it we would find ourselves with an even wider budget deficit as the easy money dried up.

We must also keep in mind, as a state so eager to be attractive to employers, that it would remain illegal for many no matter how the law might change. Anyone that works for a company with a drug-testing policy or for anyone that must pass a DOT physical, work for an airline, be a federal contractor, be one of the 4000 members of our National Guard and even Petty Officer Second Class Job Tate, as long as he wants to stay within the good graces of the United States Navy.

As I’ve sought out and talked to many of our local law enforcement officers and school officials about this topic, the consensus has been overwhelmingly clear: legalization right now would hit a state that is woefully unprepared to handle the legal, economic and health effects it would present. We should let research further evolve and better understand the possible damage (and benefits) of the drug, build a consensus around a balanced policy in terms of law enforcement and, if possible, develop safe, effective, FDA-approved medications from the active ingredients of cannabis.

I know that legalization is a passionate issue for some and I’m still eager to hear your unique views on the subject. Please know that I certainly don’t believe someone should be locked up and have their life ruined for smoking some pot, and I think there is work to be done on that very issue–but right now, in 2016, I truly believe that passing such a law would be a bad idea for Vermont and I simply can’t support it.

Very respectfully,

Job Tate, state representative for Mendon, Chittenden, Killington and Bridgewater

Do you want to submit feedback to the editor?

Send Us An Email!

Related Posts

The magical mythical equalized pupil

May 15, 2024
By Tom Evslin Editor’s note: Tom Evslin, of Stowe, is a retired high-tech entrepreneur. He served as transportation secretary for Gov. Richard Snelling and stimulus czar for Gov. Jim Douglas. The Vermont Legislature is playing an expensive shell game — and planning worse. The “equalized pupil” is the shell under which the pea is hidden.…

Tell the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to protect the Connecticut River

May 15, 2024
Dear Editor, It has been 12 years since the relicensing process began for five hydroelectric facilities on the Connecticut River, and until May 22, there is an opportunity to comment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).  The last time these hydro facilities were licensed was in 1979, and once the new licenses are issued,…

UVM, don’t punish student protesters

May 15, 2024
Dear Editor, As a pastor, I feel it is my professional and moral responsibility to speak to the crisis of conscience facing our nation and state. As of this writing, the civilian death toll in Gaza stands at around 34,654 according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health. A third of these casualties are children. I do…

H.289: Good intentions on renewables but one big flaw

May 8, 2024
By David Bittersdorf Editor’s note: Dave Blittersdorf is the president of All Earth Renewables in Bristol. The Vermont General Assembly — in attempt to move the state to 100% renewable energy — is making changes to how the state’s utilities buy energy. Within the next couple of weeks, the Senate Natural Resources Committee will consider…