Readers Write for Sunday, May 31

Leave it to the Star Tribune to show the most degenerate path for our community to take. This time, it's about legalizing marijuana ("3 myths about marijuana," May 24). According to the commentary, one of these "myths" is that it is "less dangerous than alcohol." Not true! Marijuana is the gateway for countless users to a drug world even more damaging than marijuana itself.

The last thing we need is to make available to young people yet another legal way to destroy themselves and their futures for a short-term rush, and we don't need to increase law enforcement's struggle by adding new addicts of yet another approved harmful substance. Alcohol has given us too many tragedies already.

JUNIUS STENSETH, MINNEAPOLIS

•••

Thank you, Rob Kampa ("3 myths about marijuana"), for giving our kids the green light to get high! I could almost hear our teens woo-hooing as they reached for a light. To hell with what the health experts, brain scientists, addiction counselors and, especially, parents are saying.

If Kampa's unsubstantiated statements relating to marijuana's less-than-minor health risks and nonaddictive qualities weren't so serious, they'd be downright laughable.

MARY B. MICHELS, MINNEAPOLIS

Rob Kampia's commentary should have included a fourth "marijuana myth," the one concerning its proposed use as a therapeutic medication -- the real discussion point of the recent Minnesota legislation.

Myth No. 4: "Medical marijuana is valuable and needed for terminal cancer therapy." As Kampia states: "If we wish our laws to prevent harm, they must be based on evidence." Where is the evidence (scientific documentation and controlled studies) proving that smoking marijuana is a valid and effective treatment for "terminal cancer" therapy? Physicians already have access to oral preparations of marijuana products; why subject ill patients to irritant smoke, etc.? And who defines who is "terminal"?

Nearly all public safety agencies have opposed liberalization of marijuana laws. Professionals dealing with cancer treatment and problems related to laws/drug abuse should be providing education and direction in these matters -- not the government.

C. PAUL MARTIN, MARSHALL, MINN.

Katherine Kersten's May 24 column on the costs of giving in to government only tells me that her absence as a columnist has not changed her slant.

Forty-seven million people lack health insurance. Doesn't Kersten have a problem with that? What would she suggest the president do?

RICK BRAUSEN, HOPKINS

•••

So Katherine Kersten doesn't support big government's intrusion into our freedoms. I assume this means she agrees that the government should not limit a woman's freedom to decide what she does with her own uterus or be able to decide whom adults can and cannot marry?

MOLLY HENSLEY-CLANCY, MINNEAPOLIS

What makes more sense in interpreting the purposefully unspecific text of the Constitution -- attempting to figure out what the drafters may have thought hundreds of years ago but refrained from clearly stating or interpreting the text in a way that makes sense in the time we live? This underlies the reason why no judges truly follow strict constructionalism, except for the occasions when it happens to suit their positions.

PAUL SHERBURNE, MINNEAPOLIS

Regarding the imprisonment of terrorists in the United States -- whatever happened to the adage "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer"?

GERALD JOHNSON, DUNDAS, MINN.

As a straight ally, I'm appalled by Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of the Safe Schools bill. This legislation aimed to protect all children in our schools. In a time where children commit suicide because their classmates call them "gay," it's obvious that we have a lot of work to do to create welcoming, inclusive school environments. The governor's excuse that current law is sufficient just doesn't ring true.

•••

It is truly disappointing to have the governor choose political ideology over the safety of students in our schools by vetoing the Safe Schools for All bill. Research shows that schools that have the specific type of policies contained in this bill experience less bullying and higher attendance (and affected students have better grades) than schools that simply condemn bullying.

Shame on you, Gov. Tim Pawlenty.