It's not about hemp. It's not about your personal choice to self medicate or toke up for a better "recreation" experience.
It's not about your choice of garden plants. It's about retail marijuana stores in Paonia. It's about non-residents telling lifelong town residents to get used to it or MOVE AWAY. I wonder if the 64% majority who voted for legalization meant for the "victory" to be about more than personal choice.
Did the 64% mean to change the lifestyle and face of the town they so profess to love? Did they consider what this town would be left with if business owners and residents who did not want retail marijuana stores did move away?
Promotion points for this enterprise include the fact that marijuana is already here and readily available to willing users so why not tax it even though folks growing their own won't be engaging in taxable sales due to licensing fees.
Jere Lowe states that Paonia could have the retail market "by the balls" and then tells people who don't like it to move away and Scott Wilson suggests Utah as a suitable destination. They are quick to tell us about alcohol-related accidents, and discount accidents and statistics from other intoxicants while encouraging Paonia to become the destination to buy the "other stuff."
Replying to a comment posted on Charles Stewart's letter created a new discussion (only one of which was signed) in which my points were not addressed, but I was "treated" to the fact that the writer had negative feelings about his own religious background and that prayer chains, etc., are part of a religious jihad. I was also told that recent policy announcements by the administration put resistance to the issue to rest and that I should just "relax and be happy."
Years of working with assault victims makes that phrase an inappropriate one to use on me in the context of resisting something I see as wrong.