Regarding "Opioid reliance: One of the great mistakes in medical history" (April 17): Doctors prescribe opioids, but insurance companies share the blame for the addiction crisis by paying for medical doctor visits and for the pills prescribed. Try alternative treatments, and you'll fight and lose the battle to have insurance cover the costs. The rising costs of medical care and ease of obtaining pills encourages people to use pills instead of alternatives for pain. Chiropractic care, for one, offers noninvasive pain reduction and control, yet it is regarded as not valid and is most often not paid by insurance. Yes, these methods may take more visits, but the treatment is nonaddictive and, in reality, much more cost-effective. Until the medical and insurance industries offer to help with the costs of such alternatives, the addiction crisis will be with us for a long time.

Donna Foth, Edina
REACTIONS TO ISLAM

There has to be room to voice disapproval

For the record, I don't have any problem with Muslim immigrants. I would never go to one of the presentations described in the April 17 article "Anti-Muslim pitches give voice to fear."

But I did find something deeply disturbing in the article. At a meeting attended by Minnesota lawyers, a U.S. attorney stated that, left unchecked, "Islamaphobia is going to destroy the social fabric of the state."

I could forget about the over-the-top hyperbole, except for the context. Islamaphobia is not against the law. Saying misleading or inaccurate things about Muslims is not against the law, even if you say them to a crowd of ill-mannered people. So who exactly is going to "check" it, and how?

Firebombing is against the law. Assault and vandalism are against the law. Throw the book at scumbags who commit these crimes, no matter who is victimized. But speech is protected.

A headline accompanying the article's continuation on an inside page asked: "Free speech or hate speech?" There's no dichotomy between these two concepts. To quote the ACLU: "The First Amendment was designed to protect offensive and unpopular speech. It is in hard cases like this where our commitment to free speech is most tested, and most important."

Catherine Walker, Minneapolis

• • •

Barwaaqo Dirir, wearing an American flag hijab in a photo accompanying the April 17 article, completely missed the mark with her attempt at patriotism. Middle East issues, immigration and Islamophobia aside, her actions are a direct affront to the national symbol that Americans hold so dear. Before donning such a wardrobe, one should have reviewed U.S. Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8 paragraph D; "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel." Actions like this give anti-immigration activist Ron Branstner's position more credibility. U.S. Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8, paragraph J; "The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing." I recommend some civics homework when planning to make a patriotic statement.

Gary Jonson, Prior Lake
NORTH SIDE CRIME

The unspoken connection

The April 17 article "Numbers tell the story of prisons' racial disparities" asserts that "[i]t's indisputable that Minnesota's criminal justice system has imprisoned people of color at highly disproportionate rates when compared to the state's racial makeup." We've been hearing this complaint for years — as if "the state's racial makeup" is the correct denominator to use when calculating these types of proportions. In the same Star Tribune issue, we're told of wildly disproportionate gunfire on the North Side of Minneapolis. People seem to want to sidestep the logical conclusion: disproportionate imprisonment is largely the result of disproportionate bad/criminal behavior. Similarly, disproportionately low graduation rates (and the results thereof) are largely the result of disproportionately low school attendance and other behaviors. Until the behaviors align with other societal groups, it's misleading to look at proportions based on population makeup.

Doug Berdie, Minneapolis