Letter: Pot greenhouses are another issue
This letter is a rebuttal to the editorial that appeared in Friday’s Aspen Times regarding the moratorium on recreational marijuana entitled “Slow approach hampers retail pot industry.”
The 75 percent of Pitkin County voters favoring Amendment 64 voted for the legalization of marijuana, not specifically for the cultivation and sales of said product. There is a distinct difference. It is my belief that the commissioners who favor a moratorium do so because the rules and regulations concerning marijuana have not yet been completely formulated, issues pertaining to the drug have not been well discussed with other agencies in the county and the matter of where to sell and grow marijuana has not been clearly defined. Rushing the licensing of a drug would be foolhardy, if not totally irresponsible.
There is no need for urgency in the selling of marijuana in Pitkin County as it is available for purchase just minutes away. A moratorium does not prohibit the purchase (in nearby towns) or use of the drug. Rather it gives time to formulate the proper framework for the selling and cultivating of a controlled substance that is still federally illegal. The unincorporated areas of Pitkin County are asking for indemnity and exclusion from the licensing of medical and recreational marijuana in an effort to maintain our historical farm lands from massive commercial enterprises, such as the growing of marijuana would require. Most of the people in Pitkin County want to keep the pastoral and natural elegance that our area provides, and a moratorium would allow the commissioners’ time to carve out specific areas in which to allow commercial activities such as the cultivation and selling of marijuana. The editorial neglected to mention the Woody Creek caucus, which has overwhelmingly voted for a one-year moratorium on any marijuana licensing.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.