A recall of conservative semantics
To the Editor,
I’m tired of listening to the NRA and Fox News pundits droning on about “the real reason for the Second Amendment,” implying that the founders put a mechanism into the Constitution that would allow armed citizens to rebel against a tyrannical government. This is patently ridiculous. Why would the architects of a new government plan for its eventual demise? James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, never mentioned anything either in his published writings or his personal letters, about needing an armed citizenry to combat the dangers of a potential future tyrant. This new conservative interpretation is simply revisionist history. Madison’s Second Amendment was put into the Constitution specifically to allow states to maintain armed militias. For more than 200 years, the Supreme Court upheld this interpretation.

In the 2008 Heller decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment applied to an individual’s right to bear arms. However, even this conservative Court stated in its decision that the Second Amendment should not be misunderstood as conferring “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever, for any purpose.” In this decision, the Court specifically found that conditions on the commercial sales of firearms were lawful. The Court also asserted that the Second Amendment is consistent with laws banning weapons that are “dangerous and unusual.”

As Colorado’s Solicitor General, Mike McLachlan has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. So it’s probably fair to say that he has more than a basic grasp of Constitutional law. The same, unfortunately, can’t be 4 said of those who are still pushing this absurd recall. McLachlan has never “lied” or “changed his position” regarding the Second Amendment. It is possible to both be “pro-gun” and still support some common sense gun restrictions. Even Supreme Court Justice Scalia has admitted that the Second Amendment does not grant unlimited rights. Don’t let the NRA propaganda machine control this debate. McLachlan’s votes for Colorado’s new gun laws are not inconsistent with his campaign rhetoric or with the Second Amendment.

Nobody could have predicted the Newtown shootings prior to the last election. That event has dramatically galvanized public and political pressure to reform the current gun laws. Mike McLachlan’s votes were cast in this light and were in no way politically dishonest. Why is it when conservative legislators (Eric Cantor, et al) flip-flop on issues like immigration reform, they are “evolving,” while McLachlan is a “liar” and a “traitor” for simply responding to a changing political and cultural landscape?

– John Wickersham, Durango

Giving shut-eye the slip
To the editor,
Have a significant other or roommate or alarm clock light that stays on later than you’d like to sleep? Traveling and need some shut eye? There’s a time-honored tradition in my family that may work for you. It might cost 50 cents at the thrift store but I promise it will be the best two quarters you’ve ever spent. Ready? Knee-length black ladies’ slip. Silky as you can find. Layer it lengthwise over your eyes and buenas noches. Also can be draped shamelessly over your head as you drool in public places.

Thanks Mom and Dad! Public service rocks.

 

Navigating the nuclear rainforest
To the editor,
Nuclear threats made by North Korea – followed by terrorism in Boston – demonstrate the need for a strong defense. If we let the national debt get to the point where all revenue is consumed by interest payments and entitlements, we will be at the mercy of such nations as North Korea and Iran, (maybe eventually China.) We will also be more vulnerable to terrorists getting nukes, as we would no longer have the deterrent of being able to trace such weapons to their country of origin. We must write to our elected officials about all this.

We should urge them to stop deficit spending, and adopt budgets that will pay down the national debt and looming entitlement shortages. It would help if we sell rainforest owners the expertise for harvesting the rainforests much more profitably and sustainably (perhaps for a lease or share, at least for some term.) This is discussed at www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm. (For subsistence farmers, see www.rainforestsaver.org. And the need for firewood can be reduced by working with Solar Cookers International.)

– Sincerely, Alex Sokolow, Santa Monica, Calif.

Plastic bag users should pay
To the editor,
When I shop at the local grocery store I am amazed that the checkers are still prompted to ask, “Is plastic OK?” We all know, that plastic is not OK! You can only use those bags once or twice before they need to be discarded: they end up in landfills, trees or the ocean and cannot be recycled in our new single stream-recycling program. Not to mention the energy and oil it takes to make them.

The local grocery stores should be training their staff to ask, “Did you bring your own bags today?” Why do these supersized corporations still promote plastic bags? Natural Grocers never gives out plastic bags, but there are free cardboard boxes at the checkout for those of us who forget our re-usable bags. What a great, obvious solution! City Market surely has ample cardboard boxes that could be given to their customers.
Education about the environmental risks and waste of our resources is clearly not enough to change the behavior of us as individuals, or the big corporations.

I praise Durango City Council for taking action regarding this issue – not by banning plastic bags but by simply asking the people who want them to pay for them. I think it fair that I not be forced to pay for other people’s plastic bags; let them pay for their own bags if they cannot do without.
The cost of these bags in our environment has a number and it is not 0. So attaching a fee is appropriate, so that the users pay at least part of the real costs. The fee on single-use plastic bags is not the same as a “ban.” Anyone can still have as many bags as they want, just pay for them, like you pay for all the other things you value.

Please support our City Council in their efforts to reduce the use of single use plastic bags.

– Mip van Suchtelen, Durango

Shout out to LPEA District 4, Herb
To the members of LPEA District 4,
I want to thank you for trust and support in electing me as your newest member on the LPEA Board of Directors. I overwhelmingly heard you joining with me in desiring our community to be a leader in energy development that supports local businesses and keeps dollars local. And for those of you who also communicated to me the challenges and struggles already faced with the increase in rates, you have given me my marching orders to keep rates fair and low. And so, I join the LPEA Board with these directives in representing you.

I also want to take this moment to recognize Herb Brodsky, who has been a part of this LPEA family since attending his first board meeting upon his arrival in Durango in 1981. Herb’s dedication, devotion and commitment to serving this community deserve acknowledgment as well as applause … thank you, Herb!

With that, thank you again Members of LPEA District 4. I am truly honored to represent you.

– Jack Turner, Durango

The pot profiling the kettle
Dear editor,
Let’s see. The same people who vehemently advocate in favor of “profiling” in order to uncover those who enjoy life in America while not paying taxes, are now apoplectic over the IRS “profiling” a political organization that overtly advocates against government and taxation, while applying for an IRS tax loophole to keep from paying taxes? Can you say, really? Get over yourselves.
– PJ Breslin, Rifle, CO

Don’t let your city go to pot
To the editor,
The approval by voters last fall of Amendment 64, one of the most expansive marijuana laws in the world, was only the first step in implementing the constitutional amendment.

The Colorado Legislature was given significant latitude in the just-completed session to put in place a regulatory structure that protects the interests of all Coloradans. However, we are concerned that the final legislation fell short of that goal.

The tight deadline for passing legislation implementing Amendment 64 this year meant that legislators had an incredibly steep learning curve in creating a regulatory structure for an industry that has never been legal before.

Predictably, the marijuana lobby and those making a profit in the pot business were out in full-force at the statehouse and their influence was felt throughout the process.

Smart Colorado was formed in early March as a statewide coalition of concerned citizens to ensure that Amendment 64’s implementation does not compromise public health and safety, the taxpayers’ interests, and our state and children’s future. Unlike the marijuana industry, we have no financial motive.

Smart Colorado advocated for many protections for the public, and a few of these important measures were adopted by the Legislature. Successes include:

- A drugged-driving prohibition, one of the more significant measures that passed. It’s disturbing that marijuana advocates opposed even this basic public safety protection.

- Some protections for children, including bans against advertising and marketing to children, restrictions on some types of marijuana edibles, and requirements for childproof packaging.

- Steps towards basic consumer protections with requirements for testing and labeling of marijuana products.

- The Legislature also passed a tax structure that, if approved by voters this fall, will at least help defray the cost of regulating the expanded marijuana industry. While we support these taxes, it remains to be seen whether the marijuana industry will campaign for the passage of these taxes, which are necessary just to ensure that the industry can at least cover its own regulatory costs. Even with approval by voters of these taxes, however, the Amendment 64 campaign’s promises of an influx of new money for state priorities will likely remain a pipe dream.

The Legislature fell short in other areas. While Smart Colorado advocated for the strictest regulatory framework, legislators voted for an approach that could open Colorado up to mass commercialization by Big Marijuana next year. Additionally, the legislature failed to enact marijuana potency limits, mandatory statewide caps on production and licenses, a ban on Internet advertising, and educational programs for middle- and high-school students about how marijuana impacts the teen and young adult brain. Smart Colorado also advocated for additional resources for addiction prevention, as well as collection of data on the impact of recreational marijuana on Coloradans.

As the Legislature’s work ends, the focus now turns to state regulators and Colorado’s cities and counties. Local governments have significant discretion to implement Amendment 64 in a way that represents the views of their citizens, including prohibiting recreational marijuana stores. We urge local officials to hold public hearings so that citizens can have a voice in the decision-making process. Local officials should not assume that critical protections have been put in place by the state.

Smart Colorado will remain engaged in the debate, helping people learn more about this issue. We are saddened and concerned that there will be many negative consequences from the mass commercialization of recreational marijuana. Everyday citizens who want to get involved can visit SmartColorado.org to learn more and see how to make their voices heard.

Speak up and insist that your community not compromise public health and safety by putting the interests of the marijuana industry ahead of everyday citizens. Let’s not look back on this time as a missed opportunity to protect our state.

– Gina Carbone, Diane Carlson and Henny Lasley, Smart Colorado