Opinion

Begin the debate over legalizing marijuana

marijuana plant marijuana plant Photo: IStockPhoto.com Photo: IStockPhoto.com Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close Begin the debate over legalizing marijuana 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

A major part of BART's 10-year, $1.2 billion renovation program entailed complete restoration of the aging fleet of BART train cars. Since that "body-off" restoration was supposed to extend the life of the existing 669-car fleet 20 to 25 more years, why is BART now going to replace all of those rebuilt cars?

I spent many years explaining and defending the expensive renovation program, particularly its promised extension of the fleet's life. So what gives?

RON RODRIGUEZ

Arlington, Va.

Retired BART spokesman

No fare? No fair

I would like to request that Mayor Gavin Newsom, the Muni general manager and Board of Supervisors not raise Muni fares.

Instead, they should require that all operators not open the rear doors of the buses to let off passengers, and request that all passengers get off through the front doors so all commuters boarding will pay their fare share.

I take two bus rides commuting to and from work, and I see a lot of people boarding the buses through the rear doors, not paying the fares, and they get away with it.

It's not fair. We're talking about so much revenue lost. We need Muni to be vigilant in enforcing payment of fares.

ELEANOR LASOLA

Daly City

Failed war on drugs

Thank you for publishing Debra J. Saunders' informative and fascinating piece regarding our failed drug policies ("Huge crack in system of drug prosecution," Thursday). The column pointed out what the media and politicians have for long been largely afraid to: The war on drugs makes absolutely no sense, is counterproductive and is so overwhelmingly racist.

We have progressed so far in this country in such a short time, but the sad fact is our draconian, racist and archaic drug laws have hardly changed.

BRANDON LEVEY

Baltimore

They're professionals

I was dismayed to read the front-page article on morals in medicine (May 6). Health care is a service. The professionals who provide it leave their opinions and personal differences at the door when they arrive for work.

I have been a nurse for more than over 30 years, and it has always been so. Nurses receive an assignment each day and carry out that assignment to the best of their ability. There can never be a question of who should or should not receive a nurse's care. This is the nature of service.

Perhaps the meaning of "moral" and "ethical" have been confused in this article. A nurse has a moral obligation to carry out her or his assignment. If she or he has an ethical problem with the type of care provided, she or he has recourse to managers, ethics committees or other channels to work through this dilemma. If she or he wants to give or withhold care depending on personal opinions or beliefs, she or he should not be in health care.

LIBBY BAXTER

San Francisco

The victims of outing

Regarding "elephants in the closet" ("Film purports to rip doors off GOP closet," Friday):

I have worked with and on behalf of LGBT seniors for the past 20 years. Most LGBT people in their 70s, 80s and 90s are in the closet because for most of their years, they could be put in jail or a mental institution for being who they are. They have lost family, friends, school, housing, jobs and more when their sexual orientation or gender identity was revealed.

I believe the one exception about outing is when decisionmakers and community leaders actively promote the policies that have serious negative social, emotional, physical and spiritual consequences for our lives as LGBT people.

I have seen firsthand the damage that is done to people's lives. Enough is enough.

NANCY FLAXMAN

Novato

Training director, Spectrum LGBT Center

Privacy for politicians?

There must be a secret training program for Republicans that teaches them how to make the most disingenuous statements imaginable to the press with a straight face. How else can you explain the ability of Republican propagandist Jon Fleischman to say, without the slightest hint of irony, that the film "Outrage" "flies in the face of an American tradition - that is, that people's personal lives are supposed to be just that."

Why didn't the Republican spin machine offer such a patriotic paean to a politician's right to privacy when those in the spotlight were Gary Hart, Bill Clinton or John Edwards?

RICK FOGLIA

San Francisco

It's my road, too

I'm sick of this "share the road" thing with cyclists. I'll share the road when they share the law.

I was on a Muni bus that had to slam on its breaks to avoid a cyclist who ran a red light. Several people were thrown to the floor. I am a driver, too, and these people need to realize that I obey the traffic laws, and so should they.

PATRICK DUNAVANT

San Francisco

Begin the debate over legalizing marijuana

On the governor's talk of legalizing marijuana (Editorials, May 8): Yes, a serious debate should begin, and studies should be conducted.

This is an important decision for California and indeed America. As your editorial suggests, it is not a decision to be taken lightly. Marijuana is drug that affects the mind, and its widespread over-consumption, especially among the young, would not be beneficial to our health and culture.

One of the things that we have to ascertain is how we can shift away from a culture of frivolous use. It's one thing to legalize it, but to be responsible about it we need to change our attitude about it much the way we have about tobacco, so that marijuana isn't seen as a harmless game but as a substance that carries consequences. If we can do that, we could set up a good model for legalization.

ETHAN CAMP

Lafayette

Keep government out

The argument to legalize pot is based on the high cost to prosecute pot crimes; fair enough. However, pot as a tax resource is a different argument altogether - once pot is taxed, pot bootlegging (a.k.a. "growing your own") will still be illegal - except for that which the government taxes. Therefore, the pot-prosecuting infrastructure will still be fully operational, while the government assumes the monopolistic role of hash slinger.

Freedom? Hands-off government?

You can't have it both ways. Either legalize it because prosecuting it is too expensive, or it is not too expensive to prosecute and must remain illegal.

No government drug-pushing.

GREG AUSTIN

San Francisco

Alcohol is much worse

The Chronicle's editorial "Where there's smoke, there's revenue?" (Friday) gets a major point wrong: Marijuana is not "no worse than alcohol." By any objective measure, marijuana is a far safer substance.

Marijuana is much less addictive than alcohol - with a dependence rate of only 9 percent compared to 15 percent for booze (and 32 percent for cigarettes). And it's massively less toxic. Every year, sadly, people die of alcohol poisoning due to binge drinking, while there has never been a medically documented marijuana-overdose death. Long-term heavy alcohol use does gross, easily visible damage to the brain and liver - so obvious you don't need a microscope to see it. Marijuana does nothing of the sort.

And the main social cost of alcohol use is violence and aggression - booze is a leading cause of domestic violence. In contrast, as the journal Addictive Behaviors reported a few years ago, "cannabis (marijuana) reduces the likelihood of violence during intoxication."

Yes, let's have a debate on marijuana policy. And please, let's base it on scientific facts.

BRUCE MIRKEN

Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C.