Readers write for June 15, 2010

Robert H. Nelson, in his commentary about the BP oil spill ("The oil spill: Responding rationally," June 12), implies that the worst environmental disaster in our country's history is somehow just part of the price we must pay for our economic prosperity. At the same time, he likens the push for strong environmental stewardship to forms of a religious practice. It is hard to argue with his statement that our energy policy must be based on a "hard analysis of needs."

But beyond our shortsighted quest for material comforts, one of our high-priority needs as a society, certainly, should be to protect our only planet for future generations. Whether or not Nelson considers our concern for Mother Earth to be a form of religious expression is irrelevant. This connection with our planet is deep-rooted and has been present in most cultures throughout the ages. We downplay the tragedy in the Gulf (and the wake-up call it presents) at the peril of our generation, and of generations to come.

JOHN CLARK, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

What price is America willing to pay next for the insatiable thirst for oil? Another war or oil spill? Or a lobbied decision to avoid the inevitable: a massive investment in public transportation and alternative energy and a sensible switch to smaller cars with electric engines?

Maybe if we started to pay attention to what our leaders are not doing, we could stop blaming oil companies and incompetent politicians for what we all collectively are responsible for.

NIELLS BILLUND, MINNEAPOLIS

Most Americans agree we are all partially responsible for the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. We feel especially saddened by helpless animals covered in sticky, black crude.

So it is appropriate to ask ourselves: What can we do?

Every little bit helps. Remember that it is our daily habits that, taken together, add up and make such a large impact on our environment. A study by the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management shows that agriculture and food consumption are among the most important causes of environmental damage, more so even than how we heat our homes or what cars we drive.

To reduce our impact, we can reduce the amount of meat in our diet. Today the average American's diet contains four times as much meat as it did in 1950. Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein. More than half of all grain grown in the United States is fed to animals. If we all reduced our consumption of meat by 20 percent, which we might accomplish by not eating meat on two days a week, our fossil-fuel use would drop by as much as if we had all switched from average cars to Priuses.

Every little bit helps.

A June 11 letter writer criticized individual "drug consumers for denying responsibility for the violent horror spots their own actions create." He failed to hold responsible all the rest of us in mainstream society who, by choosing to agree with laws that make certain drugs illegal, have created the conditions for the inevitable violence and gangsterism and international fallout that goes with illegal drug markets.

It is time the people of this country recognize that when we choose to make high-demand drugs illegal, we bear responsibility for the outcome and can't in all honesty point fingers at users alone. There always will be a supply to meet a demand when it comes to mood-altering substances. There will always be tons of profit and violence when they are made illegal.

An alternative is to legalize, tax and regulate drugs, especially marijuana, and at the same time offer and expand drug-treatment programs. If we do that we can both recognize our societal responsibility in the inevitable, far-reaching policy outcomes of our choices and here in America create a much-needed revenue stream for budget shortfalls, as well as a far more humane and just experience than imprisonment for those involved with drugs.

PAUL ROZYCKI, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

It only took a comparative handful of deaths to end Prohibition, and I know a lot more folks who have died from alcohol than from pot or cocaine.

TOM GINKEL, HUTCHINSON

To the gentleman sitting next to my wife and me at the bar during the World Cup soccer match between England and America: Yes, we know you're a hockey fan. You don't have to tell us; you're wearing a Minnesota Wild jersey. But I saw your furtive glances at the TV screen. I really think it was no coincidence that you were in this establishment at such a time and date. Perhaps it was at your wife's insistence, and you wanted to put a disclaimer on it.

I'll accept your denial, but want you to know you're still a man's man to me, and I won't tell your friends where I saw you. But should our team advance to even-more-tempting big games, I just want you to know it's OK to let other sports into your life; it won't hurt you, and it won't dilute your love of hockey. And should you enjoy yourself, you don't have to tell your hockey buddies where you were, and what you saw. Your secret is safe with me.

See you next Friday morning for the Team U.S.A. vs Slovenia. You can have a beer for breakfast: How manly is that!