Why are alcohol, tobacco, obesity acceptable risks?

Editor, The Seattle Times:

I was pleased to see your editorial support for medical marijuana ("Misjudging marijuana," Times, Sept. 10), but disheartened to see the implied disapproval of recreational use of pot. Your concluding statement was, "The problem is ensuring that marijuana actually is used for medical, not recreational, purposes." Why, precisely, is that a problem? Disapproval for either use is not supported by the data we have.

Medical marijuana is an issue today because of the disconnect between government policy and medical reality. Government policy insists that marijuana has no therapeutic value, while hundreds of doctors and thousands of patients have discovered that there is in fact significant value. The citizens of Washington and many other states largely agree.

There seems to be no mechanism whereby the government can admit it is wrong, so thousands of government agents are forced to engage in a dance of denial, while thousands of sick and dying people are denied a source of relief.

Similarly, government policy insists marijuana has no safe recreational value, while literally tens of millions of U.S. citizens have discovered differently. The vast preponderance of evidence is that recreational use of marijuana by adults is far safer than other permitted recreational drugs, to wit, alcohol, and that the health risks of marijuana are dwarfed by the health risks of alcohol, tobacco and obesity. So, if we permit adults to engage in consumption of alcohol, tobacco and food, what is the logic for constraining their choices in other, safer pursuits?

The problem is not recreational use of marijuana, it is the U.S. government's cynical policy of war against its own citizens, for the sake of preserving the federal drug-enforcement bureaucracy.

Andrew Brunette, Bellevue

Disturbing attitude

I did not expect to be reading about or thinking of the possible danger of speaking out against a U.S. attorney who appears to target activists for the medical use of marijuana . or those who support them ("Feds pose challenge to use of medical marijuana," Local News, Sept. 16).

According to the story, 100 plants is about the allowable number for one person with a doctor's prescription for marijuana use. One hundred plants were seized, along with a lot of expensive equipment, from four men with prescriptions. Something is wrong with the math, isn't it?

What truly sickened me and prompted me to write this letter was the attitude behind the federal prosecution of the four, dying Bremerton men. Assistant U.S. Attorney Doug Whalley said, "I never met a medical marijuana user who didn't smoke and grow it before they got sick." This is terrifying! This is exactly the same kind of thinking that used to prevail against rape victims. The men's drug use before they got sick is no more part of the issue now than a woman's sexual history before a rape.

It should also be noted that the federal government will waste time and resources prosecuting dying people for trivial marijuana possession and use because "those issues don't make any difference to us at the charging stage." Does it really make sense to take such a narrow view and ignore the full reality? Last time I read the paper, there were more important things to do.

Sherry Rind, Seattle

Roll up the drunk drivers

I truly appreciate all that our government does to protect us, but considering past and current world events, I have to wonder about our government's use of manpower, money and other resources to protect us from marijuana.

If our government really wants to protect the public, maybe they should place an officer in the parking lots of all the taverns, lounges, and casinos several hours before closing each day! Think of all the revenue they could generate by preventing drunken drivers from getting on the roads, not to mention the lives saved!