Prop. 215 and U.S. Drug Policy

Your position on Prop. 215 (editorial, Oct. 23) is wrong. Who do you think you are to tell me what range of treatment my doctor and I decide on for any condition I may have?

Yes, smoking is bad for you. But hemp does not have to be smoked. It can be baked into brownies, for example, and eaten. In any case, the dangers of smoking hemp pale in comparison with the dangers of legal drugs like alcohol and various man-made pharmaceutical concoctions.

JOHN BALTIC

Topanga

* Prop. 215 is something that has long been needed. Historically, defeated propositions rarely resurface. Marijuana may have side effects, but for glaucoma suffers, like myself, its side effects are not as bad as those of alternative medicines.

If it has flaws, as your editorial claims, we need to pass it now to ease people’s suffering and fix any flaws later.

PAUL D. BLUMSTEIN

Rancho Palos Verdes

* Re the Column Left by Robert Scheer, Oct. 22: Thank you for a fact-based argument on the lunacy of the current U.S. drug policy. If only this information could be inserted into the heads of all Americans. Unfortunately, our political system rewards hype and sound bites instead of sound, logical thought. Hopefully, Prop. 215 is a step in the direction of ending this insanity.

ROBERT SOMERS

Newport Beach

* It’s a myth that treatment will cure drug addiction and Scheer should be ashamed of promoting this approach.

Since the 1960s, millions of dollars have been spent on drug treatment, rehabilitation and detoxification. And few addicts have been “cured.”

JENNIFER MARKS

Irvine