The editorial "judicial illogic" raises some serious issues regarding
medical privacy, the prosecutor and the police[Opinion,July 30].

The prosecutor's office and most police departments do have a history
of civil-rights abuses using information obtained through a trial.

Do we have any guarantee that truly sick people using the Cannabis
Co-Op won't be subjected to harassment? Obviously not. If the
prosecutor has his man, what interest does their office have in
knowing the name of the consumers?

There are other unanswered issues such as right to property. For
example: Say a person with a medical need and a note from his doctor
is growing a couple of marijuana plants in his back yard. His neighbor
climbs the fence and steals his marijuana. Is this man entitled to
police protection of his stolen property?

My suggestion for a peaceful implementation that is cost effective
would be for the county to set up a program through Social Services to
distribute medical marijuana.

The participants' medical notes can then be verified as bona fide. The
marijuana to supply the program can come from illegal marijuana seized
by the police departments.

This would supply the medical need without any of the abjections
advanced by the District Attorney's Office. The cost to program
participants would be only the cost of administration.

Will Carl Armbrust ever come to the table in good faith?

Gregory J. Barnett
Costa Mesa