I write to express my disappointment with Heidi Rice’s March 19 opinion column titled “Everybody Must Get Stoned,” in which she attributes statements about marijuana use to an unnamed local attorney and makes light of the serious concerns voiced by local employers about employee drug use.
As a local attorney who has conducted three informational seminars in Glenwood and Rifle addressing the topic of medical marijuana and the workplace, I want to make it clear that I am not the attorney to whom Ms. Rice is referring. In fact, I do not recall hearing anyone say the things she quoted in her article, but perhaps she attended a different seminar.
Either way, her column glossed over the real issues and promoted “getting high.” In my opinion, this trivialized the concerns of employers and overlooked the difficulties facing persons with legitimate medical problems who choose to utilize marijuana in their course of treatment.
I believe the column also caused confusion because this newspaper covered my seminar last month and people around town knew that I had been discussing these topics. Some of those people read Ms. Rice’s article and reasonably but incorrectly assumed that Ms. Rice was writing about me.
I believe that even when writing a “humorous” opinion article a journalist ought to be aware of the potential for confusion that could arise by attributing quotes to “a local attorney,” but failing to explain that the attorney she is quoting is someone other than the person whose seminar her own paper recently covered.
My disappointment is offset by the solid journalistic work of John Gardner, who covered my seminar for the Post Independent last month. I thank Mr. Gardner and the Post Independent for covering this important issue, and I hope this letter will help clear up any confusion caused by Ms. Rice’s column.
Daniel C. Wennogle
I feel the letter to the editor was very extreme regarding Silt’s town administrator, Betsy Suerth.
I have personally contacted Ms. Suerth many times via e-mail, with everything from sidewalks to mosquitos, and she has professionally addressed every concern in a caring and prompt manner.
Emotions and drama are running high in Silt with the upcoming election. I have to ask why Dave Moore and gang have formed their “posse” instead of running as individuals. It is obvious they have some agenda.
I don’t know all the candidates, but I do know Bob Shivley because we drove buses for Re-1 school district for a couple of years. I will tell you he is honest, intelligent and fair.
Let’s hope that this election will put forth the candidates to finally give Silt a little respect instead of being the round-a-butt of jokes.
I attended my first precinct caucus on Tuesday evening. After the event, I spoke with one of the more seasoned Republicans, whom had been to many of these gatherings. He indicated that he had no interest in attending the State Convention, but if he were to run for State Delegate, he would make sure to support candidates whom had been the most successful, thus far, at fundraising. He reasoned, that since the Democrats are well-funded, it would be wise to nominate someone that could immediately compete on the airwaves. Such logic, I believe, epitomizes governmental ineptness as we know it today.
I’m not saying that money has no business in politics. However, the candidate with the most money, likely owes the most favors. For a party advocating “change” in 2010, Republicans should be quite wary of nominating retreads whom are largely responsible for the party’s poor performance in the recent past.
Before the caucus Preference Poll for Governor, letters from both Scott McInnis and Dan Maes were read. Maes’ letter outlined who he was, what he planned to do, and how he planned to do it. McInns’ contained only cliches, talking points, and his resume as a career statesman. McInnis went on to win the poll by a large margin throughout the state. To me, it’s amazing that so many Republicans chastise Democrats for advocating “politics as usual,” and then rush to support the usual politicians during the primaries.
Scott McInnis has more than 20 years in politics while never serving as an executive in any capacity. Dan Maes has more than 20 years of executive experience, but not one of them as a politician. As a Conservative yearning for real reform, the choice between these two men could not be more obvious. However, I know of at least one man who considers the size of a candidate’s war chest to be paramount. Such rationale is the primary reason that, November after November, people are stuck with choosing between the “lesser of two evils.” Dan Maes wants only to return Colorado to its people; there is no evil in that option.
I, too, am disgusted by the trash on I-70. I went to Grand Junction last weekend and I could barely contain the scream in my throat as I passed bags upon bags of garbage.
I can’t stand the slow melting dead elk and deer I pass every day when I go to town. I can’t understand why CDOT can’t pick up the trash, or at least the big stuff and carcass melt.
Maybe Lou can get the prisoners out of bed and on trash duty, I have not seen a crew in months ( I know it’s winter), but come on, the highways have been pretty clear for weeks now!
I don’t think I could even go look around north of Rifle where everyone loves to dump their refrigerators and dead dogs.
The dump is giving free trash day to all Garfield residents, but the problem is we have a surplus of slobs and lazy people who live here now and they don’t know how to pick up their trash.
To all you litterbugs, shame on you all I can say and Karma is real.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User