From: CenturyLink Customer
To: Ann Millner, Steve Urquhart, Jim Dabakis, Wayne Niederhauser, Mark Madsen, Jerry Stevenson, Howard Stephenson, Marie Poulson, Michael Noel, Carol Moss, Daniel McCay, David Lifferth, Eric Hutchings, Greg Hughes, Francis Gibson, Justin Fawson, Steve Eliason, Kim Coleman, Lowry Snow, Brad Last, LaVar Christensen, LaVar Christensen, Wayne Niederhauser,
Subject: SB45, SB73,SB89
Date: Thu Feb 18 01:45:16 MST 2016
Body:
Feb 17, 2016

Dear Legislators,

    Thanks for your service and time spent in helping to govern the state.  My input on three bills under consideration:

SB 45 COMPULSORY EDUCATION REVISIONS. Chief Sponsor: Alvin B. Jackson, House Sponsor: Jacob L. Anderegg.    This bill eliminates criminal (misdemeanor) penalties for parents of an excessively truant school-age child, which parents refuse to accept their legal responsibility of doing what is necessary to get their child to attend school unless there is a legitimate excuse for absences.
    The law as currently written enacts criminal penalties only if the involved student has missed school excessively without a good cause or legitimate reason, as provided by the parent, and if the parent refuses to meet with school personnel to correct the attendance problem, and refuses to  use reasonable influence to make sure the student has no more than five more unexcused absences during the rest of the school year.  I am sure this penalty in the current law was made law only after it was found that anything less than a legal consequence wouldn’t assure that some parents would accept their legal responsibility of making sure their children attend school.
    If you want to make it even more difficult for public schools to manage students and be accountable for student achievement, pass this bill.  Otherwise please do not approve this bill.


SB73  MEDICAL CANNABIS ACT, Chief Sponsor: Mark B. Madsen
SB 89    MEDICAL CANNABIDIOL AMENDMENTS, Chief Sponsor: Evan J. Vickers

    This afternoon I attended a meeting where both bills were explained and questions answered.  Both of the bills seem to me to be well written and well intended, the main issue being the possible increased illegal use of marijuana with SB73. Both bills have legal restrictions on use and production, as well as provisions to do more study. SB73 would create a larger pool of information for such studies. So I have no strong feelings about either one over the other. 
    But it concerns me that the use of marijuana is a criminal act, while the use of alcohol, with very similar physical/emotional affects on the user and the user’s family is not considered a criminal act.  It is my understanding that the children of a cannabis abuser will be taken away because the user is considered a criminal, even if the parent is doing a reasonably good job as a parent; but the children of an alcoholic will be taken away only if it is determined that the parent is not being a responsible parent. Yes, I know that marijuana is often referred to as the gateway drug, but there are also positive medical benefits, where alcohol has very few if any positive medical benefits.
    Vote your conscience, but I think that unless alcohol is declared illegal, I would vote for SB73.

Sincerely,
Fred Ash, URSEA Legislative Chair