Why not a warning?
Sixty-three percent of Americans think the feds should respect marijuana laws, but some Michiganders have a hard time accepting the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.
One reason is that they have noticed problematic behavior from a member of their family or friend who is using cannabis (marijuana).
It is uncomfortable to be in their presence. Ann Arbor has numerous marijuana dispensaries up and down the college town streets with same-day certification from doctors for an inexpensive fee.
It takes as little as 20 minutes to complete a form without having to provide documentation to support alleged medical problems.
Little do people realize that although marijuana (cannabis) may not be physically addictive, when it is consumed it has both psychoactive and physiological effects.
Some negative effects are causing an increased heart rate, memory and learning loss, a subjective change in perception, alteration in mood, reduction in blood pressure, just to name a few health hazards.
If cannabis is supposed to be therapeutic, then there should be all positive and no negative effects.
Marijuana is typically consumed by smoking, further contributing to potential adverse effects.
We put a health warning on cigarettes, alcohol and other vices, why not place a warning on marijuana?
Not a radical proposal
I heartily agree with the Record-Eagle editorial of Wednesday, Jan. 30. The editorial calls for changing our state Legislature to a part-time body.
This is not such a radical proposal since it is already the practice in many states.
At an annual salary of over $71,000, Michigan ranks fourth in the nation.
At a time when we see schools getting by on less and Michigan's infrastructure deteriorate, why do we continue to pay so much for a Legislature which seems mostly concerned with passing legislation to weaken unions, nullify federal gun regulations and change the way we elect a president in a way that will help the Republican Party increase political power?
John W. Boals
Lock up your guns
The gun control debate is stupid. Everyone is debating the future. What about the present?
None of these new regulations would stop a shooting tomorrow, next week or, for that matter, next year.
There are millions of guns out there right now, who's going to control them? Certainly not the politicians.
Then who? Us, that's who. How? Three steps: first, by putting trigger locks on every weapon you own; second, lock up all your guns in gun safes, locked closets, whatever; third, lock up the ammo away from the guns.
If that mother would have implemented these three steps, maybe, just maybe, there wouldn't be 20 dead little kids. How about this: Every gun sold is sold with a trigger lock.
Maybe the National Rifle Association could send a trigger lock to anyone who wants one for every gun they own.
If all gun owners are truly responsible, and I believe most are, then they can and should control their own guns.
Why haven't we heard this from the NRA or anyone else?
There are lots of bully pulpits out there. Radio, TV, internet, newspapers, that could get this message out.
Gun owners, lock up your guns.