Letters for January 17, 2013
Put away the joint
Re “Kids and pot” by Ngaio Bealum (SN&R The 420, January 3):
The problem with filling the air with pot smoke is twofold: One, not everyone wants to smoke it and be high. The second and more important factor is that you are imposing secondhand smoke on people with health issues. My girlfriend has asthma, and smoke triggers breathing problems for her within a very short period of time. For someone to go around thinking it's their “God-given right” to smoke wherever they please is insensitive and rude at the least. There's nothing stopping people from getting high at home and then going to a movie or dinner. We certainly should have an “open pot burner” law in order to protect others from inconsiderate smokers who think the world only belongs to them. I used to smoke weed on occasion, but I don't miss the smoke-filled concert halls one bit. In fact, it's pretty damn nice being able to go out later and not smell like a pot farm.
Re “Will Sacto finally ban plastic bags?” by Christopher Arns, (SN&R Frontlines, January 10):
For those of us who reuse plastic bags as trash bags, this simply means we have to buy bags which will be single use instead of the free ones that we’re getting at least two uses from.
I put my soda cans for recycling out in a plastic bag for the homeless. I’m not spending $1 for a reusable canvas bag every week, so the neighbors will have to put up with my cans and bottles rolling around loose when there’s a strong wind.
Furthermore, I was told by a trash supervisor that used Kitty Litter must be corralled in a plastic bag before being placed in the trash can, and aside from being significantly larger (therefore more wasted plastic), the flimsy store-bought trash bags simply don’t hold up to that much weight and tear as I’m carrying the litter to the can—which I guess means the solution is to buy the heavy-duty yard-waste bags, at 30 times the size and far too heavy to ever decompose. This helps the environment how?
Karen M. Campbell
Proof of homeless kidnappers?
Re “Breton isn’t wrong” by Nicholas Adamek (SN&R Letter of the Week, January 3):
Adamek claims his 8-year-old daughter is constantly harassed by the homeless in Sacramento. One has to wonder why, if this is true. Does the child yell out insults? Does the father? He is sure that the homeless will soon begin to abduct children like his 8-year-old. He recalls the wonderful, oh-so-safe Sacramento of 30 years ago.
Funny, that. I moved her just a tad under 30 years ago, and as a television reporter and anchor I covered many, many stories of rape, murder and mayhem in Sacramento’s streets. It was hardly safe. Most of the perpetrators were not homeless, but they were apparently folks that Adamek would never fear, because they aren’t homeless.
Could Adamek perhaps give some citation to back up his assertions that the homeless people he so enjoys deriding have ever abducted children like his? Ever? Anywhere?
Domestic violence and the misandrist twist
Re “Girl-on-guy violence” by Raheem F. Hosseini (SN&R Frontlines, January 3):
I am dismayed by Ms. [Julie] Bornhoeft, director of development and community relations at WEAVE, and her fallacious dismissal of the many studies on domestic violence that do not fit a misandrist feminist narrative. There is, in fact, a large body of research, from this country and others, that indicate women initiate acts of domestic violence as much as—and at times, more often than—men (see the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s report “Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships with Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence”; U.K. equal-rights charity Parity’s “Domestic Violence: The Male Perspective”; and Dr. Martin S. Fiebert’s “References Examining Assaults by Women on their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography” for an exhaustive list of peer-reviewed publications on the subject). It is also worth noting that a number of past studies that claimed women to be the primary victims of domestic violence were actually carried out by feminist ideologues that manipulated the data to accomplish their ends (see Murray A. Straus and Katreena Scott’s “Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: The Evidence, the Denial, and the Implications for Primary Treatment and Prevention”). Domestic violence is not an exclusively male act, and sexist ideologies have no place in psychological research or emergency shelters.
Gun education, not regulation
Re “The shameful epidemic” by Bill Durston, (SN&R Essay, December 20, 2012):
I’m [getting] on my soapbox after all the bickering about gun control in the wake of too many recent tragedies. I feel the shooters did not fully understand that death is final; families are left to grieve, and you, the shooter, will spend the rest of your life in a place you really don’t want to be. I support “responsible gun ownership.” However, a gun is an inanimate object. It is the person behind the gun [that is] responsible for the assault. Until we fix the mindset of these individuals, no amount of regulation will be fully effective. Many will not consider or understand the impact of their actions. I support education over regulation. I suggest the [National Rifle Association] use their funding to collaborate on a program to educate our youth. We do it for drugs and cigarettes. Why not guns and death, and the trauma that shootings leave in their wake? Furthermore, we need better, more accessible mental-health care and less media glorification. Both pro- and anti-gun factions are dealing with the consequences of the actions of these individuals. Let’s get to the root before we have to deal with the consequence!