LESS DANGEROUS

To the editor:

Kudos to Assemblywomen Chris Giunchigliani for her stand on the marijuana
initiative. Make no mistake, I am a lifelong Republican and a strong
believer in law and order -- reasonable law and order. As the police like
to say, follow the money. So, who has the most to lose financially if this
proposal is passed? Why, the law enforcement agencies, of course. We would
need at least 15 percent fewer of them, and that is a serious threat to them.

Who else loses? Drug dealers, but I don't care about them. Criminal court
judges and defense attorneys also could take a little reduction in income.

Then there are our do-gooders who have appointed themselves as our moral
saviors. They would not allow us a beer, a hamburger, or a medium-rare
steak. Recovering alcoholics will chime in with, "Why should anyone have to
take something to make themselves feel good?" My answer: That is and always
has been human nature. We all want to feel good. Some people achieve it
through thrill-seeking such as sky-diving or mountain climbing. Other
people get their satisfaction from sex or eating foods they love. Almost
all of us take a pain pill when we have pain.

The point is there is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking pleasure as
long as it is done in a reasonable fashion. Anyone with an IQ above 80
knows that marijuana is a less dangerous drug than alcohol, particularly
when it comes to harmful effects to the body, and it is certainly less
addictive.

Our government is always looking for ways to raise more money to waste, so
let's let it in on the action through taxes and maybe it will stop looking
for other ways to steal from us.

H. Riefstahl

Las Vegas