On April 19, 2020, Tillicum’s David Anderson published a letter titled Letter: Is coronavirus a reason for cannabis home delivery? In case you missed David’s letter, click my link, which provides background information helpful to readers before devouring the remainder of my writing below.
The other day I could not help replying to Mr. Anderson’s letter. The essence of my original reply is presented below via the miracle of computerized Cut & Paste. To get the most out of my response, I suggest readers review David’s letter first.
QUOTED REPLY TO DAVID ANDERSON’S LETTER:
Joseph Boyle says APRIL 20, 2020 AT 9:48 AM
Do you realize the year 2020, is a special year for you and me? That’s right. We have been disagreeing for 30 years. Twenty of those years have been recorded for posterity in this newspaper, The Suburban Times.
We should feel proud that with 30 years of disagreements, never did either of us throw the first punch. There was that time back in 1998 when you wanted to punch me in the face, but you didn’t. We have always kept our disagreements civilized.
Today once again, I emphatically disagree with you. Your article is narrow and one-sided. It is unconscionable that you refuse to include the positive virtues for allowing home delivery of marijuana. A well-written article should always include the pro and the con. Yours is strictly a narrow con article.
To help your readers understand both sides of this issue, I am going to present the Top Five reasons for allowing home delivery of marijuana.
David, I guess you win on this argument after all. I cannot think of a single reason for allowing home delivery of weed.
I can add to your con list, though.
Con #1: Allowing home delivery of dope will expose weed customers and their neighborhoods to “returnable rats ripping them off because they know there are money and dope inside. Having been a police officer, I know better. I do not even use food delivery to my home.
Con #2: If the delivery person gets into a car wreck causing the car to flip over and catch fire, all that burning weed intended for home delivery will make the firemen, police officers, and neighbors high.
Con #3: Once an individual lands a job as a home delivery weed driver, they can augment their income by delivering their own inventory of heroin, meth…you name it.
Con #4: A weed customer could suffer the consequences of a shoot-out as armed robbers rip off the weed delivery driver and then go for the home owner’s money they know is inside the house.
You win this argument, David. I, too, am against home delivery of marijuana.
I wonder if the members of the TNTEB were high on marijuana as they made the decision to promote pushing society down this slippery dope slope?
END OF COMMENT.
Well, David, there have been a few times when we agreed, like right now on the home dope delivery deal. Smoking dope is not what was originally meant by the old saying “keep the home fires burning”.
Mr. Anderson, thanks for participating in our public discourse by sharing your opinion regarding home dope delivery. I am confident you are absolutely correct this time, as is evidenced by the fact that Joe Boyle agrees with you.