Editor:
The July/August issue of The Reader’s Digest has a very current article on the impact of marijuana use in teenagers.
There is a medical case against marijuana use by teenagers. Many teenagers, when asked directly if marijuana is dangerous, responded that “they did not consider it dangerous.”
Yet studies have discovered “long-term memory loss in adulthood – even years after they’d stopped.” “The results can be lasting and detrimental,” says the article. “Teens who frequently smoked pot, especially young men, were less likely to hold full-time jobs as adults, or finish their education. Numerous studies have shown that its use impairs driving which increases the risk of a crash. Since the drug was legalized in Colorado, related visits to emergency rooms and urgent care centers have increased almost threefold among those under 21.”
If those who sell the products containing marijuana promote that it does not need to be smoked, who will be policing what those who purchase those nonsmoking products will actually be doing with them? Who will be policing that it will not be passed on to younger people (those under 21)?
It is a fact of life that cigarette smoking was finally proven to be a health hazard; it is on the packaging. Yet, many who are 21 and older will and do purchase cigarettes for those under 21. Humans get into habits and become calloused to their future health from those habits. Every individual is responsible for themselves and for those who they are part of in their family.
What about the children these adults bring into this life? How will this drug affect their health and future?
So why are we even allowing this drug to take over the safety and future health of any young person in our community? Why are our young people not important enough to stand againt this tsunami heading toward us?
Why do we believe our “right to be free to choose” leads us to think it is not important to others as long as it is what we want?
Does this community really need four stores selling a drug that is already proven to be dangerous to many, is so understood to be so unsafe for younger people it is only sold to those age 21 and over?
The retailer has no issue with providing what someone else wants to spend their income on, because it is only about money to them. Are there actually so many adults in this town that need to spend their income on this drug that it takes four stores to support that want?
We all will answer to our Creator eventually. Are you sure you want to accept the choice of not caring about the future of the people around you?
Bonnie J. Neal
Sweet Home