Is legalization the answer to less crime?

I have long thought on what is needed for societal change to occur. History suggests that a focusing event is needed. For reasons given below it has been obvious that drugs should be legalized. So what is the catalyst to achieve this? ... Answer, when prison costs exceed the affordability. How best to bring this about? ... Answer, pass ever more stringent laws criminalizing drug use. It seems we have or are about to reach this point.

Terence Farrell in his article about the prison population says it has risen from 200,000 inmates in 1972 to 2.3 million today. His only suggestion for reduction is that some of the criminals be diverted from prison to rehab programs.

However, approaching half the population is incarcerated for drug offenses. It is obvious that drugs should be legalized in the same way as alcohol and cigarettes are ... such action would reduce the prison population and costs substantially, would provide a tax base, and reduce gang activity across the nation. The answer to the criticism that drug addiction would increase is that anyone wanting drugs can get them now, and there is little research to show that drug addiction would increase.


Kennett Square


There are better safeguards

Why do well-meaning folks blame inanimate objects for evil acts? A Chester Springs resident pleads for the insanity to stop and then urges control of so-called assault weapons as the solution. True, our right to bear arms predates the development of rapid-fire weapons, but so do the safeguards meant to keep them (and muskets) out of the hands of deranged persons. The woman who legally acquired the AR-15 found in the possession of the shooter at the Connecticut elementary school knew, or should have known, that her son was not qualified to handle the gun. Therefore, more rigorous background checks in this case would not have prevented this tragedy.

Pressure cookers have a legitimate, useful purpose and controlling their possession would be an unnecessary, useless inconvenience that would not have prevented the recent Boston tragedy. It would have only changed the method by which the deranged perps accomplished it. The identification, treatment and/or incarceration of such individuals is a far more effective safeguard against such tragedies whether committed with guns or pressure cookers.


Chadds Ford

Is Fairshare really fair?

I am sure a lot of you are saying what is Fairshare!? Let me say it appears to be primarily used by school districts that have teachers unions. The two in this area that it pertains to are the Oxford Area School District and the Avon Grove School District. In both districts the teachers are unionized. Fairshare says you do not have to be a member of the union to teach there but you have to pay union dues. Why? Because the union negotiated the contract and you benefited from it.

Now granted, you only pay about half of the unionized teachers dues but you still pay.

If you file a grievance does the union represent you or do you have a say in who the officers of the union are? I asked Pam Brown, president of the union at Oxford and got no response. No response tells me nonunion teachers are paying for nothing.

I do not believe Fairshare is fair but unions these days need money and I guess they will get it anyway they can. I think the only way to avoid this is if Pennsylvania becomes a right to work state.

Your thoughts on this subject would be appreciated.