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
Mr. Anderson,
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.
Reason #1:
Reason #2:
Reason #3:
Reason #4:
Reason #5:
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?
Joseph Boyle
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.
I am happy to have had opportunity, as Joe called it, to disagree with such a worthy adversary for these 30 years.
And occasionally, rarely, agree.
But what of the alternative?
‘Does your dog bite?’
‘No,’ replied the lady walking along the sidewalk, a dog trotting nearby.
So, he reached out his hand to pet the dog and came away with bloody fingers.
‘I thought you said your dog didn’t bite!’
‘He doesn’t’ she said. ‘That’s not my dog.’
There’s an ancient proverb that seems to suggest the avoidance of conflict not our own; to not intermeddle in the affairs of others; that if people want to fight and quarrel we should just pass it by, continue on our merry way and let them duke it out.
Kind of a ‘not my dog’ or ‘I don’t have a dog in this fight’ ambivalence.
Taken to extremes, it’s sometimes called the (Kitty) “Genovese syndrome” of indifference, despite a murder taking place.
The proverb, however, does not suggest we bury our head in the sand, or pretend we neither see, nor hear, nor speak of evil but rather in the unavoidable conflict – that conflict that we in fact make our own because, after all, we’re community, we’re in this together, we still live on this planet – that in that conflict we avoid name-calling and ad hominem responses.
And to our argument we affix our name, our full name, and nothing but our name, not some alias – an Internet bush – behind which we hide.
We do not relinquish our right, nor our responsibility, because of some position we hold in life – ever – to speak up when a wrong needs to be made right.
To someone who has recently taken exception to what I wrote – that I should only share happy stories, heartwarming stories and avoid political discourse – I responded that is as likely as a zebra changing its stripes; a leopard removing its spots.
Not gonna happen.
If only someone had spoke up, the Mariners would not have lost to the San Diego Padres when Cameron Maybin walked to first base on a full count. Unbelievably, nobody said anything, and he would go on to score the only run of the game and the Mariners would lose because nobody said that is not right.
If only one – just one – of the 16 of the nation’s top snow boarders and skiers that fateful day near Steven’s Pass had given voice to their worry of the snow conditions, chances are three of their members would not have been swept up – and gruesomely pummeled and killed – in the massive avalanche of 7,000 cubic meters and 11 million pounds of snow.
I am happy to have had opportunity, as Joe called it, to disagree with such a worthy adversary for these 30 years.
Joe Boyle is a curmudgeon, and I am too, and there are others of such ilk likewise regularly contributing here.
They – we – are not those, says Jon Winokur, who are “haters of mankind, just mankind’s absurdities.” Curmudgeons comment on matters of great moment. A curmudgeon is “anyone who hates hypocrisy and pretense and has the temerity to say so.”
They are, and certainly Joy Boyle is one, who lives as a square peg in a round hole world.
I can identify.
Joe Boyle, not Joy Boyle. Although sometimes. 🙂
David Anderson,
You have indicated the two of us are curmudgeons. A typical definition for curmudgeon is as follows as shown in my cut and paste.
CURMUDGEON –
The definition of a curmudgeon is a cranky, ill-tempered individual. An example of a curmudgeon is a person who is always angry and never socializes with others.
Are you working with a different definition? I do not feel like either of us fits the standard definition as being cranky or ill-tempered all the time, nor am I a guy who never socializes as is evidenced by my many visits to TCC, the greatest coffee shop of all time.
I am confused by what you are saying. See. See. See. We do not agree again. But I am not cranky about it.
Joseph Boyle
http://www.curmudgeon-alley.com/about/
Both of you guys should watch Grumpy Old Men once a month – together….
That’s funny.
Joseph Boyle
I disagree. 🙂
I have said it before and I will say it again, “That’s funny.”
Joseph Boyle
You two guys sound like the characters in the show, The Odd Couple.
More funny!
Joseph Boyle