One quote from a Trump supporter explains why those of us voting for Hillary Clinton are so apprehensive about this election.
In a recent wire service article in the Review-Journal, Trump supporter Mike Cannilla says, “Our only chance on Nov. 9 is if the military develops a conscience and takes matters in its own hands.”
He is advocating armed insurrection, and his candidate is aiding the spread of this idea with his constant blathering about the election being stolen.
Do we now need to worry that some of Trump’s supporters are going to try to take over the government if Clinton is elected? If people have a Clinton sign in their yard do they have to worry that Mr. Cannilla or someone else is going to exact revenge?
And you wonder why Clinton used the term “deplorable.”
Please, people, no matter how much you dislike Mrs. Clinton, you have to see that Mr. Trump is totally unfit for office.
Why is it that the pundits cannot accept the voice of the people? Power? Money? What is it that makes them unable to appreciate what the citizens want?
Donald Trump is going to be the next president because the people are fed up with the federal government’s inability to do the people’s business. It is always the special interests and/or the “party’s” interests that get the attention of those in government.
Nicholas P. Gartner
In his Oct. 22 commentary, “High-risk proposal,” fellow physician R.J. Petrella draws misleading conclusions about the health effects of marijuana. He also claims that our organization, Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (DCFR), makes a “false choice” between fully legalizing marijuana for adult use and continuing the failed policy of prohibition.
Dr. Petrella suggests that decriminalization, which reduces penalties on users and low-level dealers, is preferable to legalization and regulation.
DFCR understands that decriminalization is a step in the right direction, but it is not a viable alternative to legalization. If cannabis is decriminalized rather than legalized, the government cannot regulate its production and sale, leaving it vulnerable to contamination and adulteration. Under decriminalization, the lack of product labeling standards makes consumers unable to judge the potency of marijuana, which is like drinking alcohol without knowing its strength.
Where marijuana is decriminalized, the point-of-sale remains in the hands of criminals who will sell marijuana — as well as more dangerous drugs — to children. Under decriminalization, the underground cannabis economy remains untaxed, and the drug’s illegality serves as a price support mechanism that only profits illegal producers and dealers. This also occurred in the 1920s, when alcohol Prohibition — which would today be considered a kind of decriminalization — fueled the rise of organized crime.
And remember that New York state decriminalized marijuana in the 1970s, yet New York City still makes tens of thousands of marijuana possession arrests every year.
We have long known that marijuana prohibition is a failure. Now, with four states having legalized cannabis, we know that regulation and taxation work. Decriminalization, as proposed by Dr. Petrella and others, is the continuation of a failed policy. Call it “prohibition light.”
David L. Nathan
New Brunswick, N.J.
The writer is the Princeton-based founder and board president of Doctors for Cannabis Regulation. He is a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and clinical associate professor of psychiatry at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.
I hope die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters realize that if she wins the election we’ll have a President Kaine within six months. Hillary will be wearing an orange jumpsuit.