In response to Dianne Slater’s letter (Globe, Feb. 22), her insinuation that I have brain damage is misplaced.
I have simply read all the available data of any change in use rates of marijuana, availability of marijuana, or adolescents’ perception of drug use in regard to a change in the law. The answer is clear and overwhelming; there is not a connection.
As I said in my last letter, all we have to do is look to the experience of 12 other states that eliminated criminal penalties for simple possession, most of them 30 years ago. In none of those states was there any increase in use attributable to the reform. If that were not so, those states would have repealed their reform laws long ago.
Also, people who want to use marijuana are already using it, and there is no reason to believe that lessening penalties for possession of a small amount of marijuana would make those people more likely to drive under the influence.
We are extremely opposed to any person who drives while intoxicated, and we think they should be strictly punished if they do. By freeing up law enforcement resources now wasted arresting and prosecuting adults who are possessing small amounts of marijuana, this initiative will allow police to pursue real crimes, like keeping intoxicated drivers off the roadways.
Kelly Maddy
Campaign director of Sensible Joplin
