It’s a heart matter
Regarding May 7-8 letter, “Understanding atheists,” by Rev. Frederick E. Emrich: God is concerned for what one “believes,” not just what one does.
With God it is always a “heart” matter and also what you do that he’s concerned with. Scripture says that it is out of the heart that sin comes.
He also says “believe with your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord.” If you “believe” in your heart, actions will follow. So God is not more concerned with the behavior; he is first concerned and foremost with the heart.
Lucille Francoeur
Bangor
• • •
Cost of pot policies
Marijuana is the most widely used illicit substance in the United States. As recently as 2003, statistics show that approximately 25 million people (or about one in ten) Americans reported using the drug at least once that year (Office of National Drug Control Policy).
There is undeniably a demand for this substance, and our policies and stance towards it have been responsible for creating and perpetuating the black market. Our actions have not significantly diminished the demand for this product, and we have merely funneled vast amounts of resources into our ineffective and costly war on drugs.
Today we force otherwise law-abiding citizens to resort to dangerous situations, often with unsavory characters, and the risk of marring their permanent records for something inconsequential. Think it doesn’t happen? In 2009 there were over 750,000 arrests for just possession of marijuana (FBI Uniform Crime Report).
So why do we not move on from our policies that cost us at least $42 billion a year just on marijuana (based on a study by Dr. Jon Gettman, Ph.D.) broken down into $11 billion in law enforcement costs, and $31 billion in lost tax revenue.
Those who benefit most from the current situation are the owners of the prisons in our privatized jailing system, drug dealers and alcohol and tobacco distributors and retailers, among others.
With legalization and proper regulation of this substance, we will maintain control of the supply, enjoy significant economic benefits, and keep well-meaning citizens out of our prisons.
Jimin Sung
Brunswick
• • •
Tax imports for deficit
Various pundits and elected officials continue to battle over reductions in entitlements and-or various changes to our current tax system intended to increase federal revenues. I believe there is a mechanism available that would both reduce debt and stimulate the economy by increasing domestic manufacturing. It is impossible to follow all of the commentary but I have yet to hear anyone discussing the following proposal.
A national sales tax applied to imported goods would contribute significant sums toward paying down our debt if the proceeds were used only for that purpose. The tax should only apply to that portion of a product not manufactured or assembled in America. I believe this sales tax to be more stimulative then a tariff because the final consumer would have the option of choosing imported goods (debt reduction), or domestic goods (lower costs).
Many will argue that increasing costs to consumers will slow economic growth, but, though the American consumer (taxpayer) did not decide to increase the national debt, we are required to pay it in one manner or another. Initially debt payments should be quite high but as domestic manufacturing increased, employment increased and the economy improved, a larger portion of the payments could be made from general tax revenues.
Free traders will describe this as protectionist but, we must remember that the free trade we are engaged in today is a major contributor to our increased debt.
Greg Cyr
Fort Kent
• • •
Sensible labor laws
Maine has very confusing laws concerning employment of 16- and 17-year-olds; so confusing that many employers won’t hire anyone under 18 for fear of breaking the law and paying a stiff fine. Maine’s laws are the most restrictive in the country. Federal law does not regulate 16- and 17-year-olds, except in hazardous occupations, and neither should Maine.
Among a variety of other regulations, Maine law currently prohibits 16- and 17-year-old students from working later than 10 p.m. on a school day, more than 20 hours per week and more than four hours on a school day.
Sen. Debra Plowman of Hampden introduced a piece of legislation that would change only those three provisions of Maine law: it would extend the hours permitted from 20 to 24 per week and the hours of work per day from four to six. It would allow a student to work until 11 p.m. on a school day.
The wrath of the labor movement seems to have come down on Sen. Plowman, making this proposal sound like a return to Charles Dickens’s industrial revolution. It is not! This bill doesn’t force students to work longer hours. That decision is up to the students and their parents. Sen. Plowman’s bill would help those students who choose to work.
It seems crazy to me that a kid can drop out of school at 17 — 16 if his parents let him. A 17-year-old can join the Army, but that same kid can’t work at McDonald’s past 10 p.m.
Peter Daigle
Dedham
• • •
Abortion laws work
I have worked in Maine as a physician for 28 years. After moving to Bangor in 1992, I volunteered to work at the Mabel Wadsworth Women’s Health Center providing abortion services. I did this for 10 years and am now the medical director of the clinic.
Abortion services are under attack in Augusta with three bills, designed to delay and deter women from choosing an abortion.
I am proud to work with organizations providing women’s health because of their commitment to the empowerment of patients. Family planning clinics across the state set a high bar in this regard. Our current system works. The providers of women’s health services believe in providing all information women need to make decisions in a compassionate and supportive environment. Maine’s women use this information to make the best decisions for them and those they love. Government does not belong in the room.
I was deeply saddened by the testimony of those supporting these bills. Through innuendo and implication, women’s clinics across the state were accused of coercive counseling to convince women to have abortions for monetary gain of the clinics. These absurd charges were made indirectly and were never verified. We have seen these tactics used repeatedly in recent years, undermining an opposing opinion with innuendo. This is unacceptable.
Our legislators need to hear the truth from us. Our current system providing care for women who are pregnant works to inform them of all their options. No new legislation is needed.
Elizabeth Weiss
Orono