Letters for August 19, 2010

Letter of the week
Better off stoned?

Re “Legalize it?” by Nick Miller (SN&R Frontlines, August 5):

Why would those legally allowed to sell pot be against Proposition 19? Maybe because allowing private citizens to grow 25 square feet would prevent a monopoly? Until this allowance is removed from the language in this bill, it seems there is maybe a conflict of interest.

However, a higher priority has my conspiracy thoughts running, and I think legalization is a technique to prevent the masses from action. Arguments tend to mention how mellow weed is compared to other drugs, claiming people [who use marijuana] are less violent. That’s precisely the reason authority would like us stoned. Imagine how pot smokers will rebel when all those civil liberties are taken away? What king of force can defend itself while on dope? I am sure there will not be much of a resistance.

Additionally, is it not absurd to suggest marijuana is less dangerous than drinking or smoking? Everyone knows how cigs cause a yellow filmlike filth on windows, indoors or in vehicles, but resin from weed is thicker. Just look at the neck of any pipe. So I disagree that pot is not as harmful, personally.

Further, is it logical to argue the sale of cannabis will eliminate California’s deficit?

No, because as the governor says, “We have a spending problem.” As soon as new revenues are accounted for, these monies will be fought for by the state unions for other reasons than paying our debts.

The one good thing about weed is that is can slow the mind down, which might allow some to think clearer, because, in my opinion, weed is like truth serum. Weed gets some to focus on matters otherwise they couldn’t care less about. Imagine if California was high and the consumers began thinking of political matters. Wouldn’t this ballot measure defeat what is politically accepted?

Last, it appears as irony in a capitalistic country because a lot of U.S. workers are obviously unproductive, and marijuana does not seem to speed labor up. By allowing pot heads, we can be sure to watch more jobs leaving, as I rarely witnessed people high and efficient at the same time. Remember a song some years ago that claimed something was to get done, but then “I got high”? In most cases, I have witnessed this same non-ambitious action, and it is not smart to allow people to be motionless.

Legalizing weed is a very lazy Band-Aid-problem prolonger. Maybe the state ought to charge taxes on Internet sales, since we have lost millions, if not billons, by shopping online. Or better yet, and probably more lucrative, would be to allow prostitution. Sex is a better feeling, and by mandating “safe” sex, the public morale might increase, along with productivity.

Ron Schmidt

Grow trees, not lawns

Re “Kill your lawn” by Ted Cox (SN&R Feature, August 12):

I think that grass lawns in suburbia are one of the stupidest things ever. There is so much to use land for; I don’t think land should be wasted. Use it for trees and farming. I particularly like groves.


But then who’d cut the lawn?

Re “Kill your lawn” by Ted Cox (SN&R Feature, August 12):

If we stop making hundreds to thousands of immigrants into U.S. citizens every week, we would have more water to water our lawns and would not have worry so much about “green energy.”

Jim Kuhlman

Screwed by biotech

Re “Biotech canaries” by Seth Sandronsky (SN&R Frontlines, August 12):

Just wait until biotech creates the first zombie. Then we will all be screwed.


‘Brights’ is too New Age-y

Re “The Bright side” by Rachel Leibrock (SN&R Feature, August 5):

Atheist = Bright? Really?

As a lifelong (well, as far back as I can recall) atheist, I am happy with the term “atheism.” The term is pragmatic and clear: “disbelief in the existence of God or gods” (according to the gospel of the Oxford Dictionaries).

True, there is certainly prejudicial thinking about atheism and atheists, but at least it is based on a true and correct understanding.

We can address this prejudicial thinking in two ways: First, take whatever opportunities we may come upon to help others understand the importance of thinking scientifically in an age dominated by issues that must, ultimately, be resolved by scientific thinkers; or, second, change our name to obfuscate our beliefs. If we select No. 2, we are then known as that New Age-y, cultish group called Brights. Why would that be appealing, in any way, to a scientific thinker or support the importance of scientific understanding? That idea is completely counterintuitive.

I am an atheist. I hope that I can be respected for my right to be so. If I am disliked (or even hated) for it, so be it. It is my belief system. I have no desire to hide under something that disguises it.

Then again, the world loves silly catch phrases. Ah, well, to each his/her own.

Boston B. Briggs

Digging on the Bright side

Re “The Bright side” by Rachel Leibrock (SN&R Feature, August 5):

I dig the term “Bright.” I decided to self-describe and register as one with them when I saw the other terms, definitions and intentions. “Super,” describing religious folk, I think is legit, and even more legit is the focus on civic participation and community involvement. We don’t have to all agree on the ultimate nature of reality to agree on the current natures of our shared realities, in cities, states and countries. There’s much work to be done to reduce suffering and increase happiness. That there’s a basic tenant I can work toward.

Dave Nelson
via e-mail

Not buying it

Re “The Bright side” by Rachel Leibrock (SN&R Feature, August 5):

So you are “Bright” if you don’t believe in an eternal God, and, instead, believe in eternal time and matter? Something can’t come from nothing.

Bruce Ramsey

Atheists and spirituality

Re “The Bright side” by Rachel Leibrock (SN&R Feature, August 5):

Good article, as I have never heard of the Brights. I am not atheist, but do have issues with organized religion. It is my experience that a great number of atheists are far more spiritual than the many God-fearing members of society.

Star Barker