Opinion: Readers respond: Drugs, whining, salt water and more

TOO MUCH LIBERAL WHINING This letter is prompted by David Lazarus’ article last Sunday in the LA Times business section, ‘ ‘Smart meters’ Aren’t Up to Speed’, in which he whines that the utility meters to be installed by Edison, et al, aren’t broadband enabled. These meters will cost the consumer about $100 he says; while broadband-enabled meters would cost ‘five times’ as much. We can be sure that if the utilities were forcing consumers to pay for the fancy ones, David Lazarus would whine that it was too costly for lower-income households, when the cheaper one would do the simple job required. Which bring me to my main point: there is WAY TOO MUCH liberal whining in this state in general, particularly by LA Times writers such as Steve Lopez, Sandy Banks and David Lazarus. They whine when house prices are going up: ‘Poor people can’t afford them!’ They whine when house prices are going down: ‘A market FAILURE’, said one Times writer breathlessly a couple of weeks ago. They whine when house prices are stagnant: ‘Home values are not keeping up with inflation!’ They whine if a Wal-Mart is proposed in a small town: ‘It will drive mom-and-pop stores out of business!’ They whine while the Wal-Mart is being built: ‘What about the environmental impact!’ They whine while it is operating: ‘The big corporation doesn’t care about the workers!’ They whine when it’s shut down: ‘The loss of jobs, jobs, JOBS!’ They whine if it was never built in the first place: ‘Economic prosperity has passed the town by!’ They whine for socialized medicine: ‘People can’t afford medical care!’ They [rightly] whine about how bad Social Security, Medicare and government-run hospitals are [such as VA hospitals and County USC], not realizing that this is EXACTLY the way socialized medicine is going to be: REALLY BAD!!! STOP THE WHINING, and GROW UP!! The purpose of government is not to take care of our every problem and stupid decision [like a surrogate parent.] There will always be poor people, rich people, smart people, dumb people, and people down on their luck. Studies have shown that if we took all the wealth and spread it around today, things would be back to the way they are in about five years, because some people are just better at making and keeping money than others. Education is good, charities are good, but otherwise, you’re pretty much on your own. Grow up and deal with it. It’s better than having government meddling in every aspect of your life. Pam AndersonGlendale

In their Blowback ‘Keep funding the AIDS vaccine’ April 14, 2008 Dr David Baltimore and Dr Seth Berkley state: ‘Luckily, the cool heads in the AIDS research community are not giving up -- they are searching for new directions.’ Prior to the HIV-1 Vaccine Summit on March 25th I sent Dr David Baltimore and Dr Seth Berkley and all the summit panel members, Fauci, Greene, Gray, Hoxie, Watkins, Desrosiers, and all other panel members, a copy of my commentary ‘HIV-1 Vaccine Summit: Which Direction from Here?’ An Aids Vaccine is a mission which is ‘very possible’. I have studied thousands of articles in the scientific literature and media reports, including many by the International Aids Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) and Dr David Baltimore, in the past 23 years. I have gleaned many insights which I think are relevant to the development of HIV-1 Vaccine. Being considered an ‘outsider’ by the main stream of HIV-1 Vaccine development community I am having great difficulty getting consideration of my thoughts, presented in my commentary’HIV-1 Vaccine Summit: Which Direction from Here?’. At the HIV-1 Vaccine Summit on March 25th there was much lip service given to encouraging new blood and innovative ideas. My commentary is not perfect by any means, but it does point out some important avenues worthy of further investigation as regards HIV-1 Vaccine Development. To date, none of the HIV-1 Vaccine Summit principals or Dr Baltimore and Dr Berkley has even given me a courtesy reply! With friendly collaboration, we can develop an HIV-1 Vaccine sooner than later. Can we all just get along, the health and lives of millions, especially millions of innocent children, depends upon it? A copy of my commentary is available as a comment on the Scientist blog ‘HIVvaccines: Back to basics? At:http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54488/ or upon request. I appeal to all interested in solving the HIV/AIDS Enigma, please give my commentary consideration. Thanking you in advance. Jesse CreelVaccine Research AdvocateFlint, MI

Editor: Calls for an end to public funding of AIDS vaccine research are absolutely justified (“No results? No research money,” April 25). The disaster of Merck’s V520 HIV is only the most recent in a string of more than 80 vaccines for HIV/AIDS that were developed using animals and were complete treatment failures when brought to human trials. Billions of dollars been squandered on this dead-end research while millions of people have contracted HIV and other cases have progressed to full-blown AIDS. Further, these experiments have caused immense suffering to untold numbers of animals in laboratories who are infected with diseases that cause acute weight loss, major organ failure, breathing problems and neurological disorders. The futile search for a silver bullet cure for AIDS has come at a hefty expense, and a paradigm shift away from animal-based vaccine development and toward prevention and human-relevant medicine is a not only an issue of economics and good science, but one of social justice for all animals, human and nonhuman. Justin GoodmanResearch Associate SupervisorPeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)501 Front St. Norfolk, VA 23510

I am glad that someone is finally talking about this. When my mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in 2002 at only age 61 and after her subsequent quick decline, I began to wonder why so much money and attention was being spent on AIDS. Of course I don’t have a soap box to speak on as do the celebrities, but I said it out loud to anyone who would listen at the risk of sounding non-PC. This is what I said: ‘Why is so much money spent on AIDS, a disease with identifiable prevention techniques and anti-viral medications, when the money could be better directed to Alzheimers and other worse-than-imaginable neurological disorders that also cause dementia and other cognitive disorders.’ I very badly want to help the people in Africa control their AIDS epidemic and I agree the funding should go to purchasing and improving the medications. But let’s focus the current AIDS funding on research and cures for diseases that cause dementia and cog! nitive decline. That’s the discussion I want to join. Sherri S.

Medical Boards should not be evaluated based on a score of the number of serious disciplinary actions that they take. That would give them a strong incentive to find problems that do not exist. Instead these boards need more discipline themselves and should be put out of business when they use police state tactics such as investigating physicians without informing them of what exactly is being investigated or what any accusations might be or who is making them, interrogation of physicians in a room with armed guards, and the assumption that physicians are guilty until proven innocent. Such boards do not need more resources but objective law and the protection of individual rights. We cannot ‘provide greater protection for the patients of all our states’ if we treat physicians as if they have no rights to due process. Brutal bureaucracies demanding more money will not improve the quality of medical care. Richard E. RalstonExecutive DirectorAmericans for Free Choice in MedicineNewport Beach, CA

Perhaps, we are looking at this problem from the wrong perspective. Maybe we should be looking at this problem from a generational point of view: ie..18651618247/30 = 8.3 Generations19651865 100/30 = 3.3 Generations20081965 43/30 = 1.4 Generations20081618 390/30 = 13.0 GenerationsThe Big Question: How many generations have the Negroes have been held in bondage in the US? Since 1618, this amounts to 11.6 generations. How many generations have the black people had some of their immunities, privileges, or rights enforceable at law? Since 1965 1.4 generations more or less. How many generations will it take the white people to accept the black people as equals in social, economic, and political rights? I estimate that it will take more than 4 and less than 8 generations to cure this social ailment in our society. Translate that into years. At a minimum 120 years and at the most 240 years. For example, a typical family is a child, two parents, two grand parents, and two great grand parents for a total 4 generations comprising 120 years more or less at the most 240 years more or less at the longest point in time. Will time heal this racial divide? Only time will tell the this story. How long can the black people rely on the Rule of Law for protection? Joe Stalin perhaps spoke the truth when he wrote: It matters not who votes, but who counts the votes. Who counts the votes will determine how this country will progress toward participatory democracy, or whether it reverts to a autocracy the direction that it is headed in now. The winners will nominate the judges. The judges will roost with the flock on the same tree they flew in with. Coach Darrell Royal once remarked: We dance with those that brung us. William Berka

Dear editor, In the April 23 ‘Dust-Up’ between Jacob Sullum and Charles Stimson about presidents and presidential candidates who used drugs, one thing is clear: Sullum is being intellectually honest and Stimson is not. Sullum makes the factually correct point that a great many prominent Americans have used marijuana without any meaningful harm to their lives, careers, or families. Stimson simply ignores the reality of responsible marijuana use and describes a hypothetical president high on heroin during a crisis and a real friend who was an alcoholic. Inadvertently, Stimson makes Sullum’s point. No one favors abuse and addiction, whether the substance is alcohol or marijuana. But no one in their right mind would favor barring anyone from being president who has a glass of wine now and then. Since marijuana is less addictive, far less toxic, and orders of magnitude less likely to elicit aggressive or violent behavior than alcohol, why do we treat it so differently? Bruce Mirken, Director of CommunicationsMarijuana Policy ProjectP.O. Box 77492 -- Capitol Hill -- Washington, D.C. 20013-- http://www.mpp.org Please visit http://www.mpp.org/subscribe to sign up for MPP’s free e- mail alerts.

Subject: Raiding states’ rights? 4/22 Dust-up Dear Editor, If health outcomes determined drug laws instead of cultural norms, marijuana would be legal. Unlike alcohol, marijuana has never been shown to cause an overdose death, nor does it share the addictive properties of tobacco. Marijuana can be harmful if abused, but jail cells are inappropriate as health interventions and ineffective as deterrents. The first marijuana laws were enacted in response to Mexican immigration during the early 1900s, despite opposition from the American Medical Association. Dire warnings that marijuana inspires homicidal rages have been counterproductive at best. White Americans did not even begin to smoke pot until a soon-to-be entrenched government bureaucracy began funding reefer madness propaganda. By raiding voter-approved medical marijuana providers in California, the very same federal Drug Enforcement Administration that claims illicit drug use funds terrorism is forcing cancer and AIDS patients into the hands of street dealers. Apparently marijuana prohibition is more important than protecting the country from terrorism. The following Virginia Law Review article offers a good overview of the cultural roots of marijuana legislation: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/vlr/vlrtoc.htm Sincerely, Robert Sharpe, MPAPolicy AnalystCommon Sense for Drug Policywww.csdp.orgP.O. Box 59181Washington, DC 20012

To even consider desalination without saving the runoff from our area is probably a scheme hatched by corporate interests. If we would save the water from the roofs of our houses and businesses by use of cisterns and reuse the water by use of gray water technology. That along with the use of permeable concrete and asphalt would not only provide plenty of water, it would stop the pollution of our oceans. It is a shame that no corporate entity would make money out of this basic technology. Drinking free rainwater what a socialist pipedream!!You do not have a water shortage problem in California, you have a water storage problem.John LayEdmonds WA