ANTI-DECRIMINALIZATION ARGUMENTS WEAK

John T. Quinn manages to cite every hot-button emotional red-herring in his
argument against the decriminalization of marijuana in "Is legalizing
marijuana a good idea?" ( Jan. 13). Especially
"This-is-really-about-protecting-our children." You could substitute the
word "alcohol" for "marijuana" in his piece and make the very same
arguments. But do we hear Mr. Quinn arguing for the return of Prohibition?
If not, why not? Are a couple of occasional glasses of wine a gateway to
raging alcoholism? And his straw-man argument that decriminalization might
lead to a major influx of America's "pot heads" (his term) is palpably
absurd. Why on earth would they flock to Vermont when they can get it
everywhere else in America?

First of all, a clear distinction must be made between marijuana and other
controlled substances; they are not all the same. Second, regulating the
sale of marijuana -- just as is done with alcohol and tobacco -- will amply
protect the youths of Vermont. It is past time to take the emotion and
hysterics out of this discussion. Too many scarce resources are being
wasted, and a common-sense approach is overdue. Simple possession of
marijuana has been decriminalized in Canada, Australia, Great Britain,
Spain, The Netherlands and numerous other developed countries, and guess
what? Life goes on just as before.

VAUGHN A. CARNEY, Essex

The writer is an attorney.