Medical marijuana laws

are not justified
Your article on federal efforts to undermine Oregon’s voter-approved medical marijuana law (“Search and Seizure,” ODE, Nov. 8) underscored the need for a state distribution system free from federal intrusion.
The first marijuana laws were enacted in response to Mexican migration during the early 1900s, despite opposition from the American Medical Association. White Americans did not even begin to smoke marijuana until a soon-to-be entrenched government bureaucracy began funding “reefer madness” propaganda.
Dire warnings that marijuana inspires homicidal rages have been counterproductive at best. An estimated 38 percent of Americans have now smoked pot. The reefer madness myths have long been discredited, forcing the drug war gravy train to spend millions of tax dollars on politicized research, trying to find harm in a relatively harmless plant.
The direct experience of millions of Americans contradicts the sensationalistic myths used to justify marijuana prohibition. Illegal drug use is the only public health issue wherein key stakeholders are not only ignored, but actively persecuted and incarcerated. In terms of medical marijuana, those stakeholders happen to be cancer and AIDS patients. Oregon patients may be protected, but medical marijuana providers aren’t.
The Drug Enforcement Administration has conducted numerous paramilitary raids on providers in California and Oregon. The very same DEA that claims illicit drug use funds terrorism is forcing sick patients into the hands of street dealers. Apparently federal marijuana laws are more important than protecting the country from terrorism. Students interested in helping reform harmful drug laws should contact Students for Sensible Drug Policy at www.ssdp.org.

Robert Sharpe

program officer

Drug Policy Alliance

Washington, D.C.

It’s their money
I was outraged to read your editorial suggesting that Bill Gates and other “ultra-rich” be forced to pay a special tax to eliminate homelessness, (“Communities should pressure richest citizens to help homeless,” ODE, Nov. 5).
It is unclear from your piece at what time Gates starts living his life for the sake of your opinion. Is it as soon as you made your demand for his money? The fact that you have put your claim to Gates’ money above Gates’ claim to his own money should be morally offensive to all of your readers. And before responding with some comment about need, remember what happens when capital is distributed based on need.

Scott Parker

senior

general science

Don’t grade opinions
It utterly and thoroughly sickened me to read the so-called “advice” from Natasha Chilingerian in her Pulse column, “Ask Nat” (“Don’t let politics get in the way of grades,” Nov. 12, ODE).
It pertained to a student who received an F on his/her paper. Professors that are willing to flunk students because of their political views, and then themselves stand on their ivory towers of Ph.Ds and prestige in order to pontificate their political beliefs upon impressionable students, are nothing more that petty tyrants who do not deserve to be teaching students, much less receiving tenure.
A university is a place to learn — and this is achieved by hearing all sides of the debate. Here is a bit of advice to the student: Be proud of your beliefs, and never let a professor bully you into thinking that their way is the only way toward receiving an A.

Jarrett White

junior, business

chairman

College Republicans

Thanks for the support
I want to thank the residents of Oregon’s Congressional District 4 for a strong vote of support in the election. It is a tremendous opportunity and honor to once again be chosen to represent Southwest Oregon in Congress.
I will continue to do my best to actively represent concerns and unique Oregon perspectives in Congress.
As always, please write, e-mail, call or visit one of my three district offices to express your opinions and concerns on federal issues or to ask for help with problems you are having with the federal agency or program.

Peter DeFazio

member of Congress

Measure 23’s failure

will cause crisis
Measure 23 volunteers were terrific, breaking signature-gathering records and educating their friends. As the medical crisis becomes more evident, voters will recognize their missed opportunity.
More than $20 billion will be spent in 2005 for health care in Oregon, and 25 to 40 percent will go to corporate insurance-related charges. The same amount of money under Measure 23 would have paid for every Oregonian’s medically necessary health care. I do anguish for all the million individuals without coverage or not enough coverage, especially seniors with no dental, prescription or long term care. Premiums in 2005 are predicted to be 50 percent higher, and fewer and fewer citizens will afford insurance. Measure 23 would have been cheaper except for the richest 10 percent.
Hundreds of rural communities today have no health care, and by 2005 there will also be fewer medical centers. There will be an increase in bankruptcies, now 45 percent because of health costs. More Oregon companies will become self-insured for their healthy working population, and the rest of us will pay for the sick, disabled and the elderly.
Everyone must become better informed about health care, work for campaign finance reform and contact their elected officials about the importance of having a single payer plan for Oregon.

Ruth Duemler

Eugene