Darryl Strawberry

* In response to Keven Bellows’ column “Here’s Why Strawberry’s Problem Is a Disease, Tom,” Commentary, April 7:

I found her disagreement with Tommy Lasorda’s statement to be over a minor semantic point that has no bearing on Lasorda’s conclusions or actions. As a person also suffering from the disease of alcoholism, I believe its classification as a disease is important in deciding a course of action for the afflicted (a disease gets medical treatment but I’m not sure how to correct a moral weakness). However, having this disease does not in any way lessen Strawberry’s responsibility for his actions nor should it mitigate the consequences. He can’t help what he is, but he sure as hell can control what he does. Being an alcoholic no more justifies his irresponsibility than it would a death caused by a drunk driver.

I would rephrase Lasorda’s quote to “How anyone could be dumb enough to take drugs, I cannot comprehend. I mean, it’s crazy . . . I don’t give a damn whether it’s a disease.” Bellows is right, sobriety is a challenge. I wish Strawberry the best of luck and God’s help, but I don’t think Lasorda and the Dodgers have to put up with it.

JOSEPH AREEDA

Los Angeles

* Despite Bellows’ protestations, Lasorda’s comments on Strawberry’s drug abuse were 100% correct. It is a weakness, not a disease. Sure, it’s an addiction, but so is sugar, caffeine and tobacco. True, some may cause a stronger craving than others, but they can be overcome. Some, like alcoholism, may even be inherited.

While we realize that many have an economic interest in promoting the “disease-victim” theory, this country cannot continue to excuse destructive behavior.

PETE SNETSINGER

Irvine