Cannabis lounges aren’t the bigger threat

I am writing in response to your editorial (March 18) regarding cannabis consumption lounges. I am incredibly disappointed that we are still stuck in the stone age regarding policy around the use of mind altering substances. I am a certified substance use disorder counselor working with Medi-Cal patients in the county for the past six years and it boggles my mind how often alcohol is overlooked as a problematic substance not only in our community, but the entire country. According to the NHTSA, about 37 people die every day in drunken driving crashes. The NIAAA estimates alcohol misuse cost our country nearly $250 billion in 2010 alone.

If public safety and our children’s well-being is truly the concern, then we should be scrutinizing new alcohol establishments with the same intensity, not selectively enforcing outdated stigma against cannabis users. Consumption lounges provide a safe, controlled environment for responsible use, much like bars do for alcohol. We need to stop pretending that cannabis is the bigger threat when history, science and statistics tell us otherwise.

— John Wasielewski, Felton

Pot less an accident hazard than alcohol

Santa Cruzans’ fears about the dangers of legal cannabis lounges are misplaced. Cannabis has a long cultural history of safe use in Santa Cruz.

Driving safety studies have consistently found that cannabis is a lesser accident hazard than alcohol. This is because pot smokers tend to be aware of their performance and drive slower to compensate, whereas drinkers tend to speed up and drive more recklessly.

For years, cannabis use has been common at public concerts and festivals without evident problems. In Sonoma County, over 15,000 visitors used to fill the fairgrounds parking lot at the annual Emerald Cup cannabis festival without a single accident or police incident. Pot smoking has been legal at coffee shops in the Netherlands for 50 years with no public safety problems.

Santa Cruz County currently has over 430 licensed restaurants and bars where alcohol is served. It can certainly tolerate a few cannabis lounges. Many young adults report using cannabis as a substitute for alcohol. If so, lounges could actually improve public safety.

— Dale Gieringer, Director California NORML, San Francisco

Column on cutting PBS funding ‘missed the mark’

George Will, this time you have gone too far (Commentary on PBS, March 18). Being a woman who has advanced degrees and worked in the public sector most of my life, as well as a first generation product of a blue collar family that went to university, it seems to me you missed the mark.

“An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” Thomas Jefferson, given credit for this quote, knew that public supported education and access to the world outside was a road to knowledge. Not everyone who drives a John Deere is uneducated and people without advanced degrees listen to PBS. PBS/NPR provides an opportunity for rural to urban people to consider thought-provoking issues. Looking at your resume, it appears you are one of the educational elites. It seems you are promoting more of what you oppose … keeping women, farmers and rural poor people uneducated and down on the farm.

Cutting this appropriation does little to lower the national debt and does a lot to promote the “elitism” you mock.

— Cathy Stefanki, Santa Cruz

Just where will the train’s $1 billion come from?

Just read the article (Sentinel, March 18) that highlighted the report from HDR to the SCCRTC regarding the cost to replace and repair the 33 bridges and trestles on the (now) 22-mile branch-line … so … $1 billion … no big deal, right? We went from a supposed budget surplus in this state four years ago to a deficit now. And we are supposed to expect this money to come from … where, exactly? When was this newly revealed information actually known by the SCCRTC? How does this affect the entire project? Does adding this billion to the rest of the project expenses push it over $2 billion total projected? Is this project even realistic?

These and many more questions need to be answered, publicly. They change the entire narrative, which was part of the original campaign, that is, that this project could ever be self-sustaining.

— Edwin Pitts, Santa Cruz