Letters to the Editor
OligarchyNot
Published Letters: 25
-
Pothead Mom or Pillhead Mom?
[Read the article: Mom's a pothead]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I grew up with a mother who was addicted to pharmaceuticals from as early as I can remember. Then, after a stint living in New Orleans for 3 years, she became an alcoholic on top of taking numerous pharmaceuticals. At one point in early adolescence, I naively thought I could convert my mother from drinking alcohol to smoking pot. Doing so could have meant the difference between dying if she continued to drink, or possibly living if she switched to pot. Of course, there still would have been the numerous pharmaceuticals she took, but the alcohol was visibly killing her. I have smoked pot since that time, and did so openly in front of my son (who now smokes himself and has a wife who does also). We are all very successful, hard-working and happy people, and have suffered no detrimental effects from smoking pot. In fact, I've never known anyone to suffer detrimental effects from smoking pot (other than the effects caused by it's being illegal) and virtually everyone I know smokes it (most of them are hard-working and many own their own businesses).
Our society needs to quit pretending like marijuana is something it isn't. The most harmful thing about marijuana is the fact that it is illegal. So much harm is done to so many people because of our draconian marijuana laws, and I think schools preaching the anti-drug message and encouraging kids to turn in their parents totally undermines parental authority and is much more harmful to kids than smoking pot could ever be. I don't ever hear of schools telling kids the same about pharmaceuticals, and they've become the most abused drugs lately. No, it's just the opposite with pharmaceuticals -- the schools actually are the ones to initiate children being given Ritalin and amphetamine for ADD. On the one hand, the schools force parents to get their kids on ADD drugs, and on the other hand, they encourage kids to turn their parents in for smoking pot. American society needs to quit sending such mixed signals to kids. That 15 year old doesn't know how lucky he is that his mother smokes marijuana for her pain and pleasure. She could be a raging alcoholic or be addicted to pharmaceuticals (which once started, seems to never end) -- both of which impair people from being able to function. Instead, she partakes of something that makes her giggle and maybe cook some really good food.
Way too much time and money is spent on trying to control marijuana consumption. If we legalized it (as more and more countries have done), we would free up our law enforcement and courts to deal with the really important issues (such as violent crimes) and the genuinely harmful substances (such as pharmaceuticals and alcohol). More than half of all prisoners in federal prisons are there for marijuana consumption (not distributing, but consumption). Since our laws do not allow federal drug sentences to be commuted, violent criminals must be released to make room for prisoners convicted of partaking of marijuana (who are usually notoriously peaceful and usually otherwise law-abiding people). It’s way past due for this madness to end.
-
Lying about Spying??? There's no Way to ever know
[Read the article: Is the White House lying about spying again?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, so you know who can't be trusted and who NOT to vote for next time, I want to let everyone know the names of the 16 democratic senators who voted with the republicans and Joe Lieberman on this issue to allow Bush to spy on us legally:
Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Tom Carper (Delaware)
Bob Casey (Pennsylvania)
Kent Conrad (North Dakota)
Dianne Feinstein (California)
Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)
Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota)
Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)
Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Barbara Mikulski (Maryland)
Bill Nelson (Florida)
Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
Mark Pryor (Arkansas)
Ken Salazar (Colorado)
Jim Webb (Virginia)
Voting for this 6-months of expanded surveillance authority does several things -- it gives Bush legal cover for already having broken the FISA laws; it gives the republicans and the white house the ability to use this surveillance power to skew the upcoming mid-term elections in November in their own favor; and it makes the re-election of all the democrats who voted with the republicans less likely to happen (which may not be a totally bad thing unless they're replaced with a republican).
Each and every one of the democrats who voted for this expanded surveillance by Bush knew when they voted for this legislation that they were going against the will of the majority of Americans, so what is it that made them side with Bush, enabling him to overthrown our government? Even though I am not a constituent from any of their states, I’ve given money to some of their campaigns. But I won’t be doing that again and I’m listing their names on every website I can find so that everyone remembers who sold out our Constitutional protections, who legalized the one act of lawbreaking that Bush was going to have a hard time justifying and who not to donate money to and/or vote for again. Did it not occur to any of them that this was being done right before the mid-term elections this fall? They've just given the republicans the ability to skew yet another election in their favor. If they've fallen for the “we’re protecting you from the terrorists” BS yet again, they're much too easily led and manipulated and might should find another job. The only other thing I can think of that would make them vote with the republicans on this of all issues is that they're really a republican plant like Joe Lieberman was.