A recent letter decries the “fact” that stimulus money is being used for drugs (“
The stimulus check and the additional unemployment benefits are intended to stimulate an economy, thus the moniker used for funds to Americans not working. Of course the recipients are using it for food and rent. That’s just silly and a common trope used about “welfare” recipients. Thank goodness that recipients of the extra funds are actually spending the funds in the community, that, guess what, stimulates the local economy.
The revenue from dispensaries provides more tax revenues to the state than purchasing other items. Why wouldn’t a state make decisions based on the need for tax revenue in the midst of the worst catastrophe in a century? The letter implies that is somehow wrong-headed decision-making. Do you want to have legitimate K-12 education? Do you like your parks? Trails? That is why we have tax revenue (it’s not a conspiracy, truly!). Perhaps the letter writer would rather absorb a massive tax increase.
Making a moral argument based on data from one dispensary is also silly. I read there has also been an increase in alcohol and nicotine sales, but no data are presented for that. The argument regarding “drug habits” is based in the type of 1940s logic that has long been rejected. Educate yourself. Uninformed rants are not productive.
Michael McGuireDurango
