Marijuana over terrorists?
Re: your Jan. 5 cover story about medical marijuana. If health outcomes determined drug laws instead of cultural norms, marijuana would be legal. Unlike alcohol, marijuana has never been shown to cause an overdose death, nor does it share the addictive properties of tobacco. Marijuana can be harmful if abused, but jail cells are inappropriate as health interventions and ineffective as deterrents.
The first marijuana laws were enacted in response to Mexican migration during the early 1900s, despite opposition from the American Medical Association. Dire warnings that marijuana inspires homicidal rages have been counterproductive at best. White Americans did not even begin to smoke pot until a soon-to-be entrenched government bureaucracy began funding Reefer Madness-style propaganda.
By raiding voter-approved medical marijuana providers in California, the very same U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration that claims illicit drug use funds terrorism is forcing cancer and AIDS patients into the hands of street dealers. Apparently, marijuana prohibition is more important than protecting the country from terrorism.
Please feel free to edit and publish. Thank you for your consideration.
Common Sense for Drug Policy,
A little suspicious
I'm writing about Dean Kuipers' outstanding Jan. 5 cover story: "Feds vs. Meds."
Beyond just the use of marijuana as medicine, why do so many of our politicians want to keep a natural herb that has never been documented to kill a single person, a criminalized substance? Why do apparently intelligent people want to arrest and jail other people who use or sell an easy-to-grow weed?
Perhaps to understand their position we should study the history of U.S. alcohol prohibition. The notorious gangster Al Capone made most of his illegal money from alcohol prohibition. Capone often bragged that he "owned" the city of Chicago. Obviously, he didn't own all of the city of Chicago; however, he had most or all of the politicians and police who ran the city on his payroll. Al Capone was a successful businessman and it's not unreasonable to suspect that the drug cartels of today are following his business model.
It's also not unreasonable to suspect that the drug cartels may have many high-level politicians and police officials on their payroll. Obviously, the type of politicians the drug cartels would have on their payroll are those who advocate the continuation of the status quo of drug prohibition, which is making the drug cartels so fabulously wealthy.
I'm not saying that any specific so-called "drug warrior" is on the payroll of the drug cartels-just a little suspicious. I'm just a little suspicious of the motives of all of the drug-war cheerleaders.
Blame it on Ashlee
Once again, the media bubbleheads at CityBeat have failed to mention the one person who is without question the biggest winner and loser of 2004: Ashlee Simpson ["Cover Story," Dec. 29].
Who else could parlay a disastrous Saturday Night Live singing [sic] debacle into a Classic Coke corporate victory? Any critical reporting by the media turned into sympathy for this acid reflux poster girl. She has single-handedly dethroned Britney as the White Trash Queen of the Double Wide world, and plans for 2005 include being a spokesmodel for Indoor Plumbing magazine.
For those who missed the halftime show at this year's Orange Bowl football game, Ashlee sang without electronic enhancements and was booed by the fans. When asked about her singing performance this time, she said she was doing her Gov. Dean impersonation.
To quote Milli Vanilli's song "Blame it on the Rain": "Gotta blame it on something/ gotta blame it on something/ Blame it on the rain that was fallin', fallin'/ Blame it on the stars that shine at night/ Whatever you do, don't put the blame on you."
The donkey's tail
Never before in my life have I been so honored to be included in a list of losers.
Your inclusion of the demise of Fahrenheit, an independent weekly in San Diego, in CityBeat's list of "Winners & Losers of 2004" ["Cover Story," Dec. 29] was excellent because you accurately pinned the tail on the donkey as to why Fahrenheit flat-lined: the small-town thinkers who work for advertising agencies in this city and their "we don't care if we waste our client's money" love for Jim Holman and his weekly Reader.
I respect Mr. Holman's right to believe or say anything he wants-but no individual or advertising agency need add to his wallet or support his prejudiced views unless they, too, believe in his backward philosophies.
Until San Diego's advertising community realizes this fact, it's doubtful any other weekly paper can compete with the Reader. What a shame.
Best wishes for 2005!
Fahrenheit San Diego
Editor's note: We can only assume Patrick Glynn is referring to Reader editor and publisher Jim Holman's obvious distaste for gay and lesbian members of the community-and maybe the constant haranguing of pro-choice elected officials in Holman's other publication, the rabidly Catholic San Diego News Notes.
We welcome-nay, encourage-letters to the editor about material in CityBeat and other matters of public interest. They will be published as space allows and may be edited for clarity or length. Please keep letters to 500 words or fewer. Please include your full name, community of residence and phone number (for verification purposes only). Send letters to editor@SDcitybeat.com.