In response to David Burns’s Aug. 19 letter “The Real Question” about a marijuana dispensary: There are strict regulations about how the tax income from marijuana sales can be used, per the new Connecticut law, including streetscape improvements and other neighborhood developments in communities where cannabis retailers, hybrid retailers, or micro-cultivators are located; education programs or youth employment and training programs in the municipality; services for individuals living in the municipality who were released from Department of Corrections custody, probation, or parole; mental health or addiction services; youth service bureaus and municipal juvenile review boards; and community civic engagement efforts.

It has also been proven that in communities that have had legal marijuana for many years (including Colorado, Oregon, and Washington), the cost of having a dispensary in a town far outweighs the income: According to the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University, for every $1 in tax income, there are $4.50 of new expenses, including increases in crime (dispensaries are all-cash businesses as banks that are federally owned do not recognize them as legitimate business), ER visits for accidental ingestion by children, traffic accident issues, increased needs for mental health services, absenteeism due to use, and many others.

While the legalization in our state cannot be changed as Mr. Burns states, Clinton absolutely does not need this business in town. As recently stated by a former Morgan student, we don’t want to be known along the shoreline as the drug town. Also from other states, communities that house dispensaries also tend to have higher use rates, as the business increases accessibility. I think that Clinton needs to show its commitment to the health of our youth and families, not to falsely promised income. Connecticut already prioritized money over health. I hope Clinton will not do the same.

Kelley Edwards, Prevention Coordinator

Clinton