Marijuana costs outweigh benefits? Prove it

To the editor,

In response to Norma DeVilbiss’ April 24 letter to the editor:

In defense of the Frontiersman, there is a clear distinction between reporting on the projected revenue of the regulated recreational marijuana industry, and an endorsement of that industry. To suggest that the Frontiersman, in reporting on the projected revenue of marijuana is somehow callous or uncaring toward heroin and meth addicts, is ludicrous. It’s a shame that anyone should point a finger of blame towards a local news organization for simply reporting the news. Reporting on crime statistics is not endorsement of crime. Reporting on the revenue of liquor and tobacco is not an endorsement for liquor and tobacco use.

The second section of Mrs. DeVilbiss’ letter quoted “from years of study and research, I can guarantee that the amount received in revenue from marijuana production will ultimately be far outstripped by the long-term costs of mental health problems (which can include psychosis, depression, suicide, brain damage, drug addiction, drugged-driving accidents) and the ultimate cost of shattered lives and families.”

Prove it. “Guarantee” your claim with an unbiased university or government study of the statistical evidence projected into the future. Colorado has had legal, regulated adult use of recreational and medical marijuana sales and consumption for years. If the evidence you speak of “From years of study and research” is so patently obvious, then surely by now there should be plenty of sourced, peer reviewed material from Colorado for you to reference. According to you, Colorado revenue from the marijuana tax will not cover the expenses when you account for all the increased expenditures for treating mental health issues and other problems that you claim can be directly attributed to the legal, regulated recreational and medical marijuana industry. Let’s see it.

Peter Zell

Wasilla