This is in regard to Ric Llewellyn's Oct. 16 column, "Just say no to Proposition 19." We voters, when deciding whether to vote for Proposition 19, need to start at the indisputable fact that, heretofore, marijuana prohibition, in its many permutations over the decades, has been a costly, harmful and abject failure. It's true that that criminal cartels will not go away with passage of Prop. 19, but law enforcement will have more resources available to turn its attention toward more egregious enterprises, i.e., transportation of humans to become virtual slaves/prostitutes. Currently, the incarceration of marijuana violators, a simple peccadillo, is a costly burden for society to bear. [continues 140 words]
I liked Mike Miller's Dec. 30 Community Voices article, "America's polarized camps need to stop pretending and bow to certain truths." We should all take a deep breath and resolve for the new year to ban hypocrisy from our thinking. Even though, like most people, I find the "abortion issue" vexing and deeply disturbing, I've never ceased to be amazed how anti-abortionists mightily resist contraception education and the availability of the necessary medications/devices. There's the one place where there's an opportunity to compromise. Also, I was disappointed that Miller failed to mention our propensity to consume alcoholic beverages while opposing legalization of marijuana. Bakersfield [end]
Re "Pot Is Called Biggest Cash Crop," Dec. 18 No doubt the report is accurate, but its "real" market value would be much smaller should marijuana be legalized. Prohibition is an effective price-support program. Other economic effects would be loss of income for the law enforcement and prison/industrial complex, as well as competition against the pharmaceutical companies' products. Gerald M. Sutliff Bakersfield [end]
To the Editor: "Lighting Up in Amsterdam," by John Tierney (column, Aug. 26) is an intellectual breath of fresh air. A half million arrests a year: that's hard to take, but it does keep lots of people employed, on both sides of the law. Gerald M. Sutliff Bakersfield, Calif. [end]
Writer Marisa Trevio asks whether illegal immigrants coming across our border with Mexico are really the "bad guys." A timely question, well put. But a better question is whether our "war on drugs" makes any sense. The U.S. war on drugs actually creates an ever-lasting profit motive for criminals, thereby making the "war" self-perpetuating. Illegal immigrants often get caught in the crossfire between drug gangs and the Border Patrol and local law enforcement. The Drug Enforcement Administration targets them as potential drug runners. The war on drugs, then, is what causes the battles along our Mexican border that Trevio refers to. In addition, the concern with drugs serves as a distraction from looking for terrorists and slave traders on the nation's borders. Gerald M. Sutliff Castro Valley, Calif. [end]
Castro Valley, Calif. -- Kudos for your Feb. 28 editorial "Marijuana by prescription only." It shows good sense and reasonability, both of which have been undervalued for decades in our government's ill-named drug war. Compassion has been non-existent. War is an atrocity; this one's no different. Gerald M. Sutliff [end]
Re: "Families' complaints led to raid on clinic," June 13. You report that District Attorney Bill Hill said that publicity from the raid has generated several calls to his office from people complaining that their family members became dependent on painkillers prescribed by Dr. Maynard. I want to know how someone who is subject to severe protracted constant pain could not become "addicted" if the prescribed substance was effective in relieving the pain. Recently, I was given a prescription for Tylenol with codeine for agonizing pain caused by a herniated disk. After a few days, my body healed sufficiently to stop taking the prescription, however, until the healing took place, I could very easily describe myself as "addicted" - I couldn't stop using. [continues 107 words]
Editor: Kudos for publishing the story "A Quarter Ounce a Day" [June 20]. Your story amply shows that not only is marijuana relatively safe on the risk/benefit scale, it is cost effective! Could it be that prescription-drug manufactures support marijuana prohibition in order to protect their bottom line? Nah .. they're in the helping and healing business. Castro Valley, Calif. [end]
Kudos for publishing Greg Sagan's perceptive and humane April 22 column about District Attorney Terry McEachern's DUI arrest. One wonders which would be more difficult for the unfortunate DA - taking his medicine or admitting he was wrong when he prosecuted (I would prefer "persecuted") the unfortunate Tulia residents caught up in the now-infamous Tulia drug sweep. Gerald M. Sutliff Oakland, Calif. [end]
YOUR FRONT PAGE picture (" 'My dad's a hero,' " Jan. 22) says a thousand words in support of Ed Rosenthal. It may even save him from 20 years to life. However, after the now-seated jurors went through the voir dire process, one wonders how any of them could vote not guilty without being charged with lying during that process. It's time California sent the feds home. Gerald M. Sutliff, Oakland [end]
THE ED ROSENTHAL trial showcases the machinations of the "greatest justice system in the world." Now that the judge has denied him the right to explain the reasons for his acts by barring medicinal marijuana testimony, and the jury has been stacked to exclude anyone favorable to Proposition 215, a slamdunk is expected. Any pretense of fairness and reason has been stripped away in the fanatical war on drugs. Lies, fabrications and stacked decks are the order of the day. The political prosecution of Ed Rosenthal is an affront to anyone with a sense of fairness and justice. Harry D. Fisher, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles County) [end]
Dear Editor, Thank you for publishing the excellent letter arguing that decriminalizing of drugs is an overlooked but obvious step of getting a handle on street Oakland's street violence. The Tribune's editorial history on the drug issue is light years ahead of most other newspapers. Still I often wish you would grant more space to the complexities of the issue. To what extent do the governmental bureaucracies contribute to the continuing funding of War on Drugs? How does the War on Drugs actually serve to contribute rather than deter drug use among the young? Why is that even though white middle class young men are the primary end use customers of the curb side retailers is it that the latter get all the blame and most of jail time? One of Oakland's oldest and most successful business had (and maybe still does) the business motto, "Find a need and fill it." How is that different from the activities of drug traffickers? Gerald M. Sutliff Oakland, CA [end]
Editor -- Joseph Perkins' chortling column about the defeat of marijuana reform around the country is a hard one for reformers to take ("Voters see pot reform for what it is," Nov. 11). He accuses us of being well-funded while we sweep against the tide of a $20 billion-plus federal budget and the clout it brings in. More important, he fails to explain why access to marijuana without risk of criminal persecution for those who need it, medically or recreationally, is an evil thing. He can't do that without mounting a pulpit. Oakland [end]
Editor -- Kudos to you and Susan Greenfield on publishing her recap of previously published, and tiresome, studies suggesting that maybe pot affects the mind, perhaps in ways some may not find beneficial. Now, if the Oxford professor would explain whether she is advocating keeping marijuana illegal. Perhaps she is arguing by extension that we should prohibit other, oftentimes harmful, legal drugs such as alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, refined sugar, cooking grease and aspirin. While she's at it perhaps she could explain why young people benefit more from experiencing prison rather than from experiencing marijuana. Oakland [end]
Regarding, "Medicial Marijuana Bill Deserves Honest Look." (Dec 19, 2001): Kudos for the fine sentiments but it's marijuana itself that deserves an "honest look." Actually there have been a number of clear-eyed looks over the decades, all have been ignored because the evidence has refuted the "Reefer Madness" sentiments of the body politic. Also, you ask, "Who better to make (the) determination (how the medication should delivered) than a doctor? My reply is the question, why not the patient and the doctor working together without interference from power hunger bureaucrats? Gerald M. Sutliff Oakland, Cal. [end]
Dear Editor - In the news story, "Substance-free dorms planned" (The Guelph Mercury, Dec. 15), you stated "The university hopes to make several suites, possibly in the East Residence complex, into substance-free areas for the 2002-2003 academic year." Does the prohibited substances include coffee and/or NoDoze? If not, why not? How many of these students will take the pledge due to parental pressure? The University should get real. Gerald M. Sutliff Oakland, CA [end]
KUDOS to David Broder for his column ``Drug warriors face uphill fight'' (Opinion, Aug. 26) It might have been better titled ``Drug war debate goes mainstream,'' such are Broder's credentials and readership. Nevertheless, by using the phrase ``the scourge of drugs,'' he buys into the drug warriors' propaganda. It can't be said with certainty that the ``scourge of drugs'' wasn't caused mostly by the ill-conceived ``zero tolerance'' policy practiced by our criminal justice system. It may be argued that the war on drugs actually increases use and abuse of the prohibited drugs. [continues 109 words]
KUDOS TO the Tribune and to Kate Scannell for her excoriating article about bottom-line underpinnings of drug research. However well Dr. Scannell stated her case, the reality is worse and positively detrimental to our health. Drug companies are major political campaign contributors to both major party members, especially to those likely to be re-elected. The pharmaceuticals actively lobby against research that has the potential to lower the consumers' expenses for medication. Examples abound; however, none are more obvious than their decades old effort to prevent research into the potential medicinal benefits of marijuana. [continues 51 words]
Kudos for Dr. David Marley's op-ed piece Aug 12. He adds reasoned clarity to the hysteria debate over drug use and abuse of legal and illegal drugs. However, he doesn't address the question whether addiction, in and of itself, would be so detrimental to the individual and his/her family if the substances were readily available from legal sources. Gerald M. Sutliff, Oakland, CA [end]
Who's the one smoking pot? Your story, "Bizarre tip leads to biggest pot bust of the year" is a great example of the ambiguity surrounding the felony offense, but harmless act, of growing marijuana for personal use. Assuming the thief is caught, which "criminal" will get the most time? By the way, if the sheriff thinks 27 full mature marijuana plants is worth $1 million he's smoking something. That's $9,260 per oz. Gerald M. Sutliff Oakland, CA [end]
