Little oversight from above
It is extremely satisfying to see the city of Philadelphia invest in ideas like drone usage that actually work to improve the city — especially public safety. When I ran for City Council at-large in 2023, I put forth a plan called “Drone Force Philly.” It was a catalyst for changing the way we think about using technology to respond to violent crimes in law enforcement. One key element of the proposal was both a citizen review board of drone footage and flight conduct. In this regard, the administration has not gone far enough to provide the public trust and confidence necessary to truly go “all in” on drone technology. Additional investment will continue to improve the effectiveness of the program, but drone technology and policing will always raise concerns among residents without additional transparency and community outreach. The police would be well served to have a series of community meetings to discuss how drones will and will not be used by their department. Second, the mayor should install a citizen review board committee, composed of residents and subject matter experts, to increase accountability.
Philadelphia must continue to be bold and innovative to tackle its problems. This means having sometimes uncomfortable conversations with residents and stakeholders.
Jalon Alexander, Philadelphia
Regulate THC
A recent op-ed by Stephen Gambescia raises important concerns about cannabis, particularly around public health, youth exposure, and impaired driving. These risks are real and shouldn’t be dismissed. But his conclusion — that legalization is therefore “an unwise thing to do” — rests on a false choice between prohibition and harm. Legalization doesn’t endorse cannabis use; it replaces an unregulated market with one that reduces harm and protects public health and safety.
Cannabis and intoxicating THC products are widely available across Pennsylvania through illicit markets and unregulated retail channels. Prohibition hasn’t prevented youth access, impaired driving, or problematic use. Regulation requires lab testing, restricts marketing, creates enforceable age limits, and provides funding for youth prevention programs.
A recent statewide poll found that 69% of likely voters support regulating cannabis for adults 21 and older, with support rising to 72% when paired with strong safety measures like product testing and youth access restrictions. Even more striking, 89% of voters support restricting unregulated intoxicating THC products — such as Delta-8 — to licensed, state-regulated businesses instead of being sold in gas stations and convenience stores.
This support reflects a recognition that the status quo is failing. Pennsylvanians aren’t choosing between safety and legalization — they’re demanding both.
Meredith Buettner Schneider, executive director, Pennsylvania Cannabis Coalition, Malvern
No skin in the game
Letter writer Norma Van Dyke recently brought out that old saw about how “unfair” closed primaries are, and voters who aren’t registered members of either party aren’t able to vote and decide who the candidates of those parties will be in the general election.
Let’s look at it another way: If someone is completely unwilling to join either political party because of some perceived “stink,” why should they have any say in who that party runs in the general election?
To make it even clearer: Someone never plans to live in your house, but wants to tell you what kind of furniture you will purchase, and even insists they should decide how to arrange that furniture.
Really? Somehow, this just doesn’t seem fair.
Ron Stoloff, Blue Bell
Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.