TWO LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ON CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS RULING

DEALERS AND COPS, REJOICE

The California Court of Appeals has offered a rare opportunity for law
enforcement and large-scale marijuana traffickers to celebrate together.

The ruling closing cannabis buyers' clubs has been cheered by
law-enforcement officials. The reaction is predictable, since their job has
been resimplified. They won't have to distinguish between a caregiver and a
drug dealer; there will only be drug dealers again. Subtle nuances do not
help to increase arrests or asset forfeitures.

Those people who profit obscenely from marijuana sales on the street also
have reason to be happy. Several old customers (and their money) will
return. As a bonus, these businessmen can expect some of the heat to be
taken off their own operations, since the police will now be authorized to
wreck the life of anyone weak-willed enough to grow marijuana for a sick
friend.

Medical marijuana patients say they feel as if they are being kicked while
they are already down. How typical -- thinking only of themselves. If they
had any real empathy, they wouldn't let allow their misery to rain on the
parade of rejoicing cops and dealers.

STEPHEN YOUNG Roselle, Ill.

LUNGREN vs. PROP. 215

A recent California appellate court ruling, which reinstated an injunction
to shut down the San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club, may have chilling
consequences. The court ruling was specifically directed at Dennis Peron
and the San Francisco club, but I worry that Attorney General Dan Lungren
may use it as an excuse to shut down clubs throughout California. In a Dec.
12 Associated Press story, Lungren said he believes the ruling "gives
proper guidance throughout California and we will so advise the law
enforcement." In the same article, Gov. Wilson's spokesperson said, "The
state needs to do everything in its power to limit the distribution of
potentially dangerous drugs."

That sounds to me like the state government is getting ready to fight with
patients and caregivers throughout California to thwart access to their
medicine. Was that the intent of Prop. 215?

In a dissenting opinion from the appellate court, Justice J. Anthony Kline
said the majority ruling would make marijuana unavailable for many
seriously ill Californians.

Was that the intent of Prop. 215?

Justice Kline said, "The right to obtain marijuana is ... meaningless if it
cannot legally be satisfied." I agree with Justice Kline. I think the
majority on the appellate court got this one wrong. The intent of Prop. 215
was to allow seriously ill patients to have safe access to a medicine that
is beneficial to them.

What is to protect the patients and caregivers from the police? The court
of law has failed them, though hopefully only temporarily. In the meantime,
we have only the court of public opinion.

I urge you to call your local law-enforcement agencies, the attorney
general, and the governor and tell them that you will strongly object to
any attempt to shut down buyers' and cultivators' clubs statewide. State
law enforcement should not be using your tax dollars to fight your sick
family and friends. Prop. 215 was about compassion, not control.

Stop arresting sick people!

LAURA KRIHO Nederland, Colo.