Having read the June 25 article about Dr. Dustin Sulak, (“Medical marijuana doctor expands to Falmouth”), I feel the need to respond to add some clarity on the legal issues that still surround medical marijuana.

As an attorney and full-time instructor at Kaplan University, I often talk about this very issue with students while discussing the interaction between state and federal laws.

While I admire Dr. Sulak’s compassion for his patients, the fact remains that at the present time dispensing marijuana for medical purposes is not legal under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. Although enforcement against marijuana dispensaries has scaled down with the current administration, it does still exist as a possibility.

In fact, certain officials within federal law enforcement, specifically the spokesperson of the U.S. Department of Justice and numerous U.S. attorneys have recently spoken out against medicinal use and warned that enforcement of federal law against state dispensaries is a very real possibility.

While I’m not suggesting that the Drug Enforcement Agency is going to seek out and arrest every medicinal user, those who are dispensing marijuana for medical purposes risk the possibility of federal prosecution.

I am not making a judgment about the validity of marijuana use for those with chronic illnesses; however, I do think that the state, by declaring medicinal use to be legal under state law, is doing a huge disservice to those who may ultimately face the consequences of federal enforcement.

Until medicinal use is legalized under federal law, it remains illegal in the state of Maine.

Maureen A. Hopkins

Windham 

Law protects crosswalks, but drivers ignoring them 

Is it my imagination, or are all drivers in Maine required to stop at a crosswalk when pedestrians are waiting and there’s no traffic light controlling cars and people on foot?

Many motorists act like they have the right of way at every intersection, including those with visible crosswalks.

Instead of stating that drivers are too stupid or too busy talking to notice us, I’d honestly like to know if anyone enforces the fact that pedestrians have the right of way?

And while we’re on the subject of driving, how about the use of directional signals? Is this a part of Maine law or just a courtesy on the part of some of the drivers in Maine? Please explain this.

Gary Dixon

Ocean Park 

Military returning from war need more opportunities here 

I am of two minds about President Obama’s proposed return of our troops in Afghanistan. Naturally, I am overjoyed and relieved that at least a third of our brave young combatants will no longer be in harm’s way.

But what are they coming back to? No jobs. No housing. No reliable savings or investment institutions. No social services, particularly in the area of mental health, when so many will need counseling.

“Support Our Troops” decals on our cars are not going to be enough in the way of support once they are home.

Add to that a divisive political faction which at times resembles the Taliban more than Americans. Is this really how we want to welcome them home?

Joanna Cameron

Edgecomb 

Greasing squeaky wheels no way to run MDOT 

One wonders if the Maine Department of Transportation has a planning department.

You would expect them to maintain a grid of all state roads with the planned date for repair or replacement of all state roads. The grid would of course require periodic updates to adjust for a change in traffic and weather conditions.

This does not seem the case for the River Road which travels through Westbrook and Windham. The conditions of the road deteriorated to a point of unsafe travel, so citizens expressed angry concern.

This important state department, which spends much of our tax dollars, should be operated by professionals not public comment. One must ask if the large repaving cost will attain its useful life before major road construction will be necessary.

How much did poor planning or no planning cost state taxpayers? Do we have the same management problem which existed at the Maine Turnpike Authority?

Ernie Ryder

Windham

Why pay RSU 5 teachers differently based on location? 

I feel obligated to respond to the taxpayers of RSU 5 (Freeport, Pownal and Durham) with an explanation of the article in the paper on June 23.

In the story it was stated that “The district offered the teachers a 1.7 percent cost-of-living increase.”

This is not entirely accurate. In December, after 11 months of negotiations between the RSU 5 Board and the Coastal Education Association (CEA), the board offered salary/longevity steps attached to the three current, disparate contracts for teachers in Freeport, Pownal and Durham, not COLA increases.

As CEA chief negotiator, I want to make it clear that the CEA declined this offer, citing continued inequities between teachers assigned to the same jobs with the same experience, who were being offered different salaries and benefits.

It continues to be the CEA’s position that individuals with the same experience, educational training and job description should be paid the same amount.

The school to which a teacher is assigned in the district should not be the deciding factor as to an individual’s salary.

Those taxpayers in Durham and Pownal who will be seeing higher tax rates should consider whether their money is going to fairly pay their schools’ teacher salaries or whether they are underwriting the costs of Freeport.

Until there is equity in teacher salaries, there will not be equity in taxpayer burdens.

In the best interest of our students and communities, CEA members hope that a fair and equitable contract can be achieved after what has now become 17 months of negotiations. Those talks have resulted in teachers having worked the past 10 months without a contract.

It continues to be the CEA’s goal to provide a world-class education for all students in RSU 5.

Lois Kilby-Chesley

Durham

 

Copy the Story Link