Medical marijuana is a farce? Get real

(PNI) Marijuana might help with pain management? If whoever wrote "Medicine farce obscures debate" had osteoarthritis, he or she might learn why so many people, including many esteemed doctors know marijuana eases pain (Editorial, Wednesday).

If, editorial writer, you had osteoarthritis that can cripple, which would you take to kill the pain? Celebrex, which has killed people, or marijuana, which might ease your pain but definitely won't kill you?

Do your homework, read the warning labels for all prescription medications that treat osteoarthritis and then get real. Only a fool would choose to risk his life with prescription drugs when nature's answer works just fine.

--Rich Austin, Phoenix

Please stop marijuana hypocrisy

Marijuana is today's "demon rum." Obtaining it requires the commission of an illegal act -- sort of like the old Prohibition days.

Who in his right mind would sanction a legal drug that messes up your brain, your liver, your nutrition, your immune system, your digestive system, etc.

Oh! Wait a minute! That's alcohol, isn't it? Why don't we just cut the hypocrisy and treat marijuana like any other drug that has limited therapeutic effects.

Have Big Pharma produce it under the scrutiny of our generally toothless Food and Drug Administration.

The rule of law will be upheld, and another giant corporation will make even more millions pandering a generally useless product to gullible millions of consumers. Who knows? It might even be a job creator.

--Dr. Harvey Turner, Scottsdale

'Studies' graduates living at home

The cost of a university education has continued to climb at a dizzying rate, yet the real-world capabilities and qualifications of our graduates are at an all-time low.

Two Opinions page columns in Monday's Arizona Republic, written by ASU and UA professors, speak volumes to these problems.

Both professors are like so many in today's colleges and universities. They are steeped in liberal ideology, thus aggrieved perpetually and well-versed in victimology. One teaches "justice studies," and the other teaches "Mexican-American studies." Taxpayers and parents should be outraged.

These courses, like so many of the other "studies," reflect minimal academic rigor and even less practical application.

Our graduates must compete in a global economy, yet so many of them will graduate without a clue as to what that means. Private-sector employers are unlikely to attach much value to an academic record peppered with "studies." This is one reason so many of our graduates are headed back home to live with mom and dad.

Clearly, the sluggish economy is partly to blame. But when economic fortunes turn up, the "studies" graduates had best learn to ask, "Would you like to supersize that?" I wonder if they will recognize the injustice?

--Ronald Hoffman, Carefree

Dems believe gays deserve rights

Regarding "How I could become a Democrat" (Letters, Sunday):

The letter writer chastises the Democratic Party because it is in favor of equal rights for homosexuals. This, he says, is contrary to his church's teachings and, should he become a Democrat, would force him to condone and approve of homosexuality.

No, Democrats are merely saying that homosexuals should enjoy all the rights currently granted to heterosexuals. You would still be free to cling to your bias against gays. Thus, there is no violation of the principle of church and state separation.

However, there would be a serious violation of that principle if your church's doctrines were incorporated into law to deny equal rights to all Americans. As John Adams and others have said, "Beware the tyranny of the majority."

--Louis A. Wefers, Phoenix

Match government size with need

It seems everyone wants to complain about how every "surge in government spending becomes the new baseline," or how government always wants more money ("Keynesian economics is a failure," Tuesday, Letters).

But the explanation for growing government is simple. Government's only business is to provide services to its constituents. Fire, police, roads, libraries, new laws, unemployment, health care, parks, etc. are all services we have requested or demanded.

And government's ability to satisfy the demands of its constituents depends directly on the number of constituents it must serve. We might complain about "big government," but it's certain that a government set up to serve 200million people in the 1960s will be inadequate to serve the 300million people living in the U.S. today.

We can argue, of course, about what government should or should not be doing. But once we decide what it must do, we cannot then complain about the size of the organization required to do it adequately.

Some will argue, of course, that government is highly inefficient with its money and should be cut back, but that's an argument about efficiency not about size.

Let's determine what we want government to do. Then, let's fund our mandate adequately for government to do a really good job of what we want it to do.

--Bob Bradford, Fountain Hills

There's that 'haboob' word again

Regarding "Air-quality rule change sought: State law, U.S. bill would shield Ariz. offices from sanctions for violations tied to haboobs" (Valley & State, Tuesday):

There's that word again.

At least the reporter defined it as as "massive natural dust events."

The Arizona Republic's stylebook should be consistent and only list "haboob" if an equally exotic and non-descriptive word is substituted for thunderstorm.

--Tom Tracy, Scottsdale

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here