Letter: Flawed opposition to dispensary

EDITOR,
Your opposition to a medical marijuana dispensary in Scotts Valley is weak (“Marijuana dispensary seems wrong for Scotts Valley,” editorial, March 5). The reason a slim 61 percent voted in favor of Proposition 215 is that many of SV’s citizens grew up in the era of the 1938 “Reefer Madness” and other nefarious campaigns against the “evil marijuana threat” — propaganda that was pounded into the psyches of millions of pre-war citizens.
You also cite SV as cultivating “a certain image”: child and senior-friendly, community-minded, low crime, athletics and schools. Dispensaries, their clients and marijuana are not inherently oppositional or threatening to these things.
You mention SV wishes to be “a Silicon Valley in miniature.” Excuse me? I don’t think our residents want the woes of that valley here. Incidentally, Forbes Magazine recently listed Silicon Valley’s Apple Inc. as “the most admired corporation” in America. The very same company that has dazzled us for decades with product innovations, often reportedly conceived during smoky sessions involving — you guessed it — cannabis. We admire the engineers, artists and musicians who serve and entertain us while abhorring any ethic or substance that might act as a muse for them. Odd, indeed.
Lastly, you ignore a very attractive element of dispensaries: municipal income. A properly organized City Council can effect regulations, permits and taxes that bring substantial funds to the city’s coffers. Perhaps this money could be used to bring Scotts Valley Drive up into this century.
Let’s embrace the present and look to the future with an eye toward intelligent application of state laws for the benefit of SV residents. As our blessed elderly transition into their next lives and our privileged middle-agers resolve their religious-centered, knee-jerk reactions, SV could thrive within a 21st century America founded on diversity and the healthy exercise of state’s rights.