I guess it would be too much to expect you to make a point without
resorting to specious remarks and overbearing moralizing. ("Reefer
sadness," June 18) There is research that clearly refutes your glib
generalizations to justify the maintenance of this state-supported
program against users of cannabis (I encourage you to read Marijuana
Myths, Marijuana Facts)

Since you seem to appeal to the nanny-state mentality and the
law-and-order hoi-polloi, I expect your paper will champion the
judge's ruling with the utmost urgency. When, then, can we expect your
publication to initiate a campaign to lobby the appropriate
authorities to ensure the two most lethal drugs, alcohol and nicotine,
are distributed under only the auspices of a physician or pharmacist?

Carey Ker

(Never.)