Re "Firm Loses Appeal to Sell Marijuana," July 16 This article contains a wonderful quote from Judge William Peck that perfectly sums up the entire issue of drug use and freedom: "Any financial harm [Rainbow Country marijuana seller Andrea Nagy] may suffer is outweighed by the concerns of the state in protecting its citizens from alleged illegal drug sales," said the Court of Appeals decision. What concern is it of the state that some individuals choose to use marijuana to "harm" themselves rather than alcohol or tobacco? The above quote is followed by another wonderment of doublespeak: [continues 67 words]
Dear Editor, The above referenced article reported by Steve Mayer provided me with my second big laugh of the day. It left me grinning, shaking my head and saying only in Bakersfield. Having been born and raised there, I hold a special place in my heart for my hometown (I graduated for EBHS in 1955). However, whenever as I watch your politics my brain suffers from an overload of disbelief. Your reporter, Steve Mayer, should know better. The real story is about intolerance, no brain policies and a failed War on Drugs that actually increases demand and brings in more drugs. [end]
Editor -- Kudos for your special report, "Criminal State, When Justice Goes Unserved.'' The stats in the sidebar graph say it all. In San Francisco there are 5,605 unserved warrants for "dangerous drugs,'' while 20 homicide warrants are left unserved. Probably 60 percent of the dangerous-drug warrants were for marijuana possession. Now, who's afraid of someone walking around with a baggie of marijuana in his/her purse/pocket? The "Why Warrants Are Not Served'' sidebar gives such reasons for lack of service as other priorities, staffing cuts (money), communication breakdowns, inadequate computer systems and sheer volume. Lighten the load and all these reasons would go away. Let's get real. It's time to toss the possession warrants into the floor file and allocate resources where they will do some good, such as serving murderers, kidnappers, assaulters of all kinds and illegal weapons holders. Gerald M. Sutliff Emeryville [continues 5 words]
The war on drugs is the primary culprit but the "three strikes" law is a close second. As any first year law student can tell you, the definition of a "felon" is vague enough to be meaningless and often is not related to violent behavior. Keeping non-violent offenders in prison is a certain way to turn many of them into violent persons. Spending additional millions building prisons will accomplish little except help Gov. Davis repay a political debt, provide a few jobs to Kern County and burn up our surplus tax revenues. Gerald M. Sutliff Emeryville [end]
In his excellent May 2 op-ed column, David Broder inadvertently repeats the drug warriors' propaganda. He writes, "It long has been known that drug abuse is the major factor in swelling our prison and jail population almost to 2 million." There is a great difference between drug use and drug abuse. Somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 (or more) of those drug "abuse" prisoners were arrested for marijuana possession. As stated in the Institute of Medicine's report on medical use of marijuana, marijuana's potential for abuse is doubtful or at most slight. Marijuana's addictive powers are, for most people, nonexistent, therefore no treatment is necessary. [continues 79 words]
Without doubt, the parole of Larry Roman Lavell from San Quentin Prison was a tragic error in judgment by the parole authorities ("Arrest in S. Bay manhunt," May 18). These kinds of tragic mistakes are inevitable in any kind of parole system. Nevertheless, perhaps if our prisons were not overcrowded, Lavell who has pleaded guilty to double homicide would have been given closer scrutiny before release. Punishment for the likes of him is not relevant. However, protection for society is. The supreme irony is that thousands of non-violent offenders, mostly drug offenders who pose no threat to anyone except themselves, have no hope of parole. Our governor plans to spend money building a huge prison in Kern County, in part to alleviate prison overcrowding and in part to reduce unemployment in Kern County. Also he will do so in no small part to repay his political debt to the prison guards' union for their early endorsement and financial support. All that is kosher-enough politics, but the drug convictions are driving the prison system out of control. Gerald M. Sutliff Emeryville [end]
Gerald M. Sutliff, Emeryville, CA [end]
Gerald M. Sutliff Emeryville, Calif. [end]
In his May 9 column, guest columnist Joseph Perkins raises the specter of erroneous or involuntary application of euthanasia as inherent dangers in an Assembly bill permitting euthanasia (sponsored by Berkeley Assemblywoman Dion Aroner). Unfortunately, he neglected to address a necessary aspect of the issue: pain management. Our government's zeal for supervising physicians' use of pain medication has an unfortunate side effect. Very often, it prevents the prescription of adequate quantities of medication at the time of the dying patient's extreme need. Who among us would not beg for death were we on the torture rack of pain without hope of escape? Prescribing "acceptance" is thin soup to the patient who wishes only for escape from unrelenting pain. [end]
Kudos to Cherry Wong for her commentary on "Pot, Police, and Prostitues" (4/15). However, her concluding paragraph, even though accurate, misses the bigger point. She said, "By keeping prostitution illegal in most of this country, it's giving the message that Americans don't have the individual common sense to choose what's right or wrong for them." What that really means is that the santimonious prigs who make the law want to keep their power. Power means job security, deferential treatment, and command of resources. Who wants to lose that? Because drug and sex laws are so often ignored by the citizenry, police have a free fire zone to pick out whomever they like for targeting. Is it any wonder that racial and ethnic minorities take the brunt of it? [continues 10 words]
To the Editor, It is important to note that the police practice of racial profiling did not begin with the war on drugs [news article, May 1]. However, ending racial profiling may well doom the war on drugs. If the police are required to turn to random selection for stop and search, a much greater number of middle and upper-middle class white men and women will suffer the humiliation that members of minority groups have suffered, and the war on drugs will end. Gerald M. Sutliff Emeryville, Calif. [end]
Your March 16 editorial, "Police, prosecutors don't have sole claim to drug forfeiture proceeds" is truly excellent. You ask many of the right questions. May I add the following comments: Your editorial reflects the sad fact that asset forfeiture can lead to official corruption, if not of the officials, of their goals. Forfeiture programs are intended to make the police narcotics units self-supporting. From there it is an easy step for the narc units to allocate resources based on potential income rather than stopping drug trafficking. Consider this: Narc units don't get money from seizing two kilos of high-grade heroin (not legally, anyway) but if they bide their time they can seize the proceeds of its sale, i.e. the cash, house, boat and car. Why do you think it takes two years to shut down a crack house every body in the neighborhood knows about? [continues 76 words]
In opposition to these farmers the Office of National Drug Control Policy stated that "in many instances the mature plants (marijuana and hemp) look the same." That reflects stupidity based on ignorance. Are these the people we want heading up our drug education policy? Gerald M. Sutliff Emeryville [end]
Rather than "certifying" Mexico as an anti-drug partner, we should list her as a casualty of the United States' war on drugs. The degradation of social and civil order in Sinaloa and the border states is a direct consequence of our drug prohibition laws. That policy creates obscene profits for the ruthless. The drug traffickers' budget far exceeds Mexico's law enforcement budget. The more we and Mexico "crack down" on trafficking the greater the profits. Will we learn before it is too late? Gerald M. Sutliff Emeryville [end]
Kudos for publishing John Wagers' sensible and intelligent op-ed, "Time for new tactics in the War on Drugs." I have a quibble, however, that his representation that we spend $18 billion annually grossly understates the direct expense of the War and Drugs. To that, I add that the monies spent have developed powerful interests which are loath to keep the purse strings loose.(*) Also, it is in the interests of the drug lords and their minions that we keep the War on Drugs in place. Finally, Wagers calls for an end of the War on Drugs -- not, as your headline writer put it, "new tactics." Gerald M. Sutliff Emeryville, California [*Whoops, I misspoke myself. GMS] [end]
Editor -- No doubt J. Davidson's heart is in the right place (Letters, January 31) as he deplores the human tragedy and social waste of what he calls ``drug abuse.'' However, he fails to differentiate between drug use and drug abuse. Who is inside and who is outside his circle? Americans spend over $3 billion annually on Prozac, are they abusers? Or tobacco smokers? Coffee drinkers; how often must one drink a cup of coffee to become an abuser. There are 40 million or more occasional users of marijuana. Which are abusers and which are not? On the drug issue debate we haven't yet defined the issue. Is it any wonder we have made so little progress in setting effective policy? [end]
Dear Editor, Dan Walters (1-14-99) writes about Governor Davis's budget problems saying that "while prison operations are technically discretionary, if fact...they are not." Wrong! The huge numbers of mostly non-violent prisoners in California's prisons are driven by irrational fear, political cowardliness and the state's own version of the racist War on Drugs. 150,000 prisoners times $25,000 (estimated amount to house a prisoner after the $30,000 cell is built) is $3.75 billion per year and growing. The governor's office is not without the power to do what is needed to stop this cancerous growth that is destroying families, wrecking futures and shrinking the education budget. He needs a great deal of political courage. Here's hoping. Gerald M. Sutliff 6400 Emeryville CA 94608-1024 510-652-7929 [end]
The column in the Dec. 19 edition of the Journal Inquirer (from The Day of New London) about the inability of Long Lane's staff to address the drug abuse problem of its involuntary residents is not quite on point. Most drug abusers have emotional or "adjustment" problems before they ever begin using drugs. Drug abuse hardly makes things better for them, but ignoring the underlying cause of drug abuse is also stupid. No drug abuser, young or old, deserves incarceration. Each needs love, understanding, tolerance, and help. Blaming the drugs alone is a self-defeating conundrum. Gerald M. Sutliff Emeryville, Calif. - --- Checked-by: Richard Lake [end]
LETTER-WRITER Hugh Robertson is correct when he states that it took the US Government ten years to realise its mistake and repeal Prohibition, The Noble Experiment. But here we are at the beginning of the 21st century and almost no government has learned, including the US, that prohibition of drugs doesn't work and is worse than the disease it tries to stop. At least, during alcohol Prohibition there were 'medical' and 'religious' exceptions. Not so here in the Land of the Free in 1998. Gerald M Sutliff, 6400 Christie Avenue 1409, Emeryville, CA 94608-1024, USA. - --- Checked-by: Rich O'Grady [end]
Wars always cause collateral damage. Who keeps track of it? Or does anyone? The damages are multifaceted, deep and reach into the future. Harm reduction is about accessing the damage of drugs use, abuse and trafficking against the collateral damage caused by the effort to stamp it out. General McCaffrey's tactic of impugning the motives of the harm reductionists and legalizers, thus far, has allowed him to avoid addressing these important issues. How many more villages will the general's drug warriors burn before he starts counting? Gerald M. Sutliff Emeryville, Calif. [end]
Who decided what shall be illegal? Not scientists and doctors, but congressmen and unemployed alcohol prohibition law enforcement agents. Sadly, the ads themselves will be nothing more than reflections of the "reefer madness" images and half-truths residing in the minds of those controlling the money spigot. Gerald M. Sutliff Emeryville [end]
Milton Friedman pointed out over 25 years ago that prohibitionary laws are at their core corrupting of law enforcement, the judicial system and society itself. Drug transactions between seller and buyer are consensual - neither makes the complaint about the activity. Consequently, law enforcement authorities resort to using informants to obtain convictions. This leads inevitably to a point where, as was said by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, "The judicial process is tainted and justice cheapened when factual testimony is purchased, whether with leniency or money" ( "Loss of plea deals perils war on crime," July 20). The war on drugs would become nearly impossible should the 10th Circuit decision stand. For that reason I am confident the decision will not. The verbal contortions required to reverse the dead-on correct decision will make interesting reading. Gerald M. Sutliff Emeryville - --- Checked-by: "Rolf Ernst" [end]
Remember the slogan of the 1990s is " Just say know." Gerald Sutliff Emeryville, Calif. [end]
I read in the Bulletin's recent series on youth drug use of Lequita Twete's difficulties in surviving her drug addictions and wondered whats is the point? Perhaps you intended it as a warning to parents. We parents were, or should have been, aware that there would be many hazards " out there " when we had our children. The headline " Drugs not a problem? Think again " suggests that there are some who believe otherwise. Such believers will be hard to find. Perhaps it is intended to be a warning against reforming or liberlizing our prohibitionist drug laws. That's pointless too, because, as the article makes clear, drug law reform cannot make "Illegal" drugs anymore available. [continues 121 words]
The question was asked, "Don't we have better ways to spend our money and resources?" The answer is yes. Prostitution and use of "illegal" drugs are personal, consequential acts that become crimes by legislative fiat, usually executed by moralistic prigs while the rest of us who know better don't bestir ourselves. Where there was no injury before, the law enters and turns ordinary people into victims of law enforcement. Is that accidental? GERALD M. SUTLIFF Walnut Creek, California [end]
Once again, someone has illustrated the propaganda ploy known as, "When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger." Gerald M. Sutliff Walnut Creek, Calif. Via the Internet [end]
The settlement ensures the survival of a major industry and allows that industry to continue to sell its products. Furthermore, the federal government will continue to support the industry's efforts to sell to foreign markets, thus helping balance our unfavorable trade balance - much like the English pushed opium in China 100 years ago, leading to the first opium war and Eng-land's acquisition of Hong Kong. Implications for our government's drug war should be clear to all but the most obtuse, fanatical or financially dependent upon it. Gerald M. Sutliff Walnut Creek, CA [end]
However, he should learn to count. If alcohol prohibition is the first, then self-ingested drugs (i.e. cannabis, heroin, cocaine and others under current law) are the second "prohibition." That makes the coming tobacco-products prohibition number three. GERALD M. SUTLIFF Walnut Creek, Calif. [end]
However, he should learn to count. If alcohol prohibition is the first, then selfingested drugs (i.e. cannabis, heroin. cocaine and others under current law) are the second "prohibition." That makes the coming tobacco products prohibition number three. GERALD M. SUTLIFF, Walnut Creek, Calif. [end]
For more than 25 years, Amtrak has provided thousands of people with transportation between the major populations centers. While not always perfect, it gets you there, usually pleasantly and comfortably. Yes, it also pro-vides a number of people with good jobs that pay reasonably well, at taxpayers' expense. Compare that with the financial costs accumulated by 50 odd federal agencies that feed off the failed War on Drugs. During the past 25 years, this "war" has consumed between $16 billion to $50 billion per year. [continues 113 words]
Doesn't Brad Owen know the drug war is lost? When he goes to Washington, D.C., to lobby for monies, he's doing his job. But restoring funds for the Washington state National Guard's anti-drug program makes him look like a clown. Tell him to go back and lobby for monies that will do somebody some good. Also, he should get a hairdo that doesn't make him look like a "made-for-TV" extra. Gerald M. Sutliff Walnut Creek, Calif. [end]
It hit me hard, but not the way, I think, he intended. His conclusion bears repeating here: "(When asked the question) have you ever been face-to-face with a real Nazi? I could have truthfully answered yes; yes, I have. It happened long ago in Vienna. Some men with swastika armbans were systematically ransacking my family's home. It's something that, even today, I don't take lightly I don't think anyone else should either." Neither do I. Today here in America, police and federal agents wearing body armor and helmets) regularly crash in the doors of families, hold the occupants (including women and children) at gunpoint and "systematically ransack" the occupants' homes. I'm writing of the homes of ordinary families who have been informed upon by the most dubious of sources. When nothing is found, no apologies are offered. [continues 66 words]
FINALLY, someone has explained why your Government perpetuates its war on drug users and drug providers. Marijuana makes the users stupid, silly, careless, distracted, unmotivated end thereby endangers us all right? Sure. Fortunately the same may not be said about alcohol, a most popu!ar drug. Otherwise, you would have to jail all the users, providers, retailers, and aIcohol traffickers. Not only thal, elected officials would have to refuse political donations from alcohol kingpins. Moreover, magazines and the media would have to refuse ads pushing, whoops, I mean, selling, such products. And finally, we would have to increase the number of police on the payroll and build more prisons. [Abridged] Walnut Creek California [end]
Drug Enforcement Agency representative Rogene Waite's statement that "people who eat these dishes could test positive in a drug test" shows one of the many reasons people test positive for drugs when they are not users or intoxicated. Another food that causes people to test positive is poppy seeds. Drug use is a moral issue, and we should not allow police agencies to enforce morality. It is time to stop the War on Drugs. Gerald M. Sutliff Walnut Creek, Calif. [end]
Until we take necessary steps to take the obscene profits out of drug trafficking, drugs from Mexico, Nicaragua and elsewhere will keep coming. GERALD M. SUTLIFF Walnut Creek, Calif. [end]
Gerald M. Sutliff Walnut Creek, Calif. [end]
If DARE the organization wants to survive it should try telling the truth or at least stop the obvious lies. The most common one is calling all recreational drugs bad. Another is that there is no such thing as responsible use, and there is no benefit, even when used responsible. That is an arguable point. However, how does anyone expect the students to believe that their own eyes and experience contradict? Gerald M. Sutliff Walnut Creek, CA [end]
Your editorial is timely and makes good sense. Attorney General Lungren efforts to regulate card-rooms are meritorious. You state he wants, "bring controls to this form of gambling that poses an easy target for money laundering, loan sharking and other crimes." You not further that the states 203 card rooms operate unchecked. No one oversees that clubs operate legally" and you end with, "Californians should be able to rest assured that those establishments operate within the law." Oh, were it so that Mr. Lungren could apply this logic to the "medicinal marijuana" operations. For an excellent example of how this might be done he should call his counter part in Boston, MA and learn how Governor Weld and the state are trying to regulate medicinal marijuana in a way that assures proper use for medicinal effect while protecting its states doctors from the federal government over reaching ban on the substance to which Californians have demanded access. Very truly yours Gerald M. Sutliff [end]
The article reports that the government's plan to fight the California referendum legalizing the medical use of marijuana "would threaten doctors with revocation of their federal registration and possible criminal prosecution if they prescribe the drug." But under the law, doctors will not be prescribing or dispensing marijuana. Recommending marijuana for a patient is a communication to the state and local law enforcement authorities. It remains up to the patient to obtain the marijuana. How can that be a violation of prescription-writing rules? Since the federal government cannot legally move against the law or the doctors, the drugwarrior establishment is resorting to terror tactics. GERALD M. SUTLIFF, Walnut Creek, California. [end]
