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.)

I WAS saddened to hear that Grant Krieger was found guilty. ("Up in smoke
- -- pot plea ignored," June 17) How can society and the lawmakers decide
what is good for us? Many have come forward to say marijuana helps. Medical
patients who use this herb are not criminals. Why are we made to go out and
get our medicine from a criminal who is able to provide it for us?

If we go to someone like Krieger for help, he is charged with trafficking,
while the ones who are profiting are getting away with it because they have
the funds and experience to do so. Our government has the power to help,
but refuses to do so. We are second-class citizens.

We do not have the right to live a quality life because our medicine is
being forced away from us. We must choose to live in pain and continue to
suffer or to live as a criminal. I ask what would you choose?

Lynn Harichy

(Good question.)