Moving along on my critique of The Oregonian’s published endorsement
in support of Measure 91, legalized recreational marijuana in the State of
Oregon, brings me to their 3rd premise:
The Editorial stated:
“Opponents of the measure are right about a couple of things. Allowing retail sales of recreational
marijuana inevitably will make it easier for kids to get their hands on the
stuff, as will Measure 91’s provision allowing Oregonians to grow their
own. It’s also true that outright
legalization will increase the number of people driving under the influence,
which is particularly problematic given the absence of a simple and reliable
test for intoxication. There is no bong
Breathalyzer.”
True’s Comment: In a
sort of roundabout, unintentional way, the Editorial Board has made a good argument against
Measure 91. It is about the “kids.” It really is.
It’s about our children and our grandchildren. Most of us don’t much give a damn about
what adults inhale or drink or inject in their veins. Except that when those adults get in trouble,
the taxpayers always have to foot the bill.
Of course, we nonsmokers, non-inhalers, and non-injectors
will have to be especially cautious when we drive. Make sure you buckle-up. And, the moderns who bought small cars to
conserve fuel may want to reconsider the possibility of being hit head-on by a
driver, under the influence of yet another legal intoxicant, in his 4X4 truck.
But, the part of this argument by the Oregonian that really
got me was the last sentence. “There is
no bong Breathalyzer.” Bong? Was that supposed to be funny, a joke? Or was that the Editorial Board’s attempt to
show they know the ‘street’ terminology? I didn't think it was funny. I thought it was stupid.
True Nelson
No comments:
Post a Comment