Printed letters, March 25, 2012
I need to respond to Dr. James Schroeder’s passionate letter to the editor, published March 18. There are those of us who accept the reality that our personal liberties always have been and always will be restricted. I don’t know where this idealized place of glorified freedom ever existed. I believe it is a cherished fable.
The fact is, we will either lose our liberty to the government or to the corporations. I accept the government because I can, theoretically, throw the bums out with my vote. To change a corporate president, I would need to buy voting shares of stock in the company. That is oligarchy in its purest form. I prefer democracy.
To be specific, I am a cancer survivor who cannot qualify for any health insurance policy without ridiculous premiums and restrictions. This means I must stay with the company policy. I’m chained to it. This does not feel very liberated. I have already lost that precious gift.
When I have a medical problem, I must deal with a layer of bureaucracy that is tasked to earning the highest possible return for its shareholders rather than looking out for my interests. That is a travesty.
Dr. Schroeder speaks of ceding personal decision-making to the government. It was already ceded to the insurance companies, I want it back.
Civilized country should not kill unborn children
My, how far America has come as a civilized country. We have comic strips that make light of the abortion industry. “Doonesbury” certainly crossed the line as a comic strip.
Pro-abortion people carry on about unwanted children and potential abuse of said unwanted children. Abortion is the ultimate form of child abuse. The unborn child is fully human from day one, with a unique DNA, never seen before.
There are couples on waiting lists for adopting a child. Wake up, America. A nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope.
We should be grieving over the lost potential of over an estimated 55 million aborted humans.
Facts don’t support King’s comments or his legislation
I can’t agree with state Sen. Steve King in his Feb. 26 Daily Sentinel commentary: “Legislation is needed for driving while under the influence of pot.” Protection is needed for everyone involved, particularly patients legally using medical marijuana for treating approved diseases.
As a person afflicted with such an approved disease, I certainly can’t agree with King’s overzealous misleading statements. King spins cases to reinforce his beliefs, not facts. Why not finance studies to solve, rather than create more problems with a 1 percent surcharge on medical marijuana sales? 1 penny per dollar. Afraid of facts?
King cites cases and implies drivers are impaired, but his bill — Senate Bill 117 — doesn’t support his presumptions. He mentions two drivers with 4 nanograms, one with 5, involved in vehicular homicide or assault. King says one was found innocent of similar charges in 2009, apparently to prove how laws don’t work, when under his new bill, two of his three examples wouldn’t be guilty of DUI. He contradicts himself, 5 nanograms and above is under the influence in the bill King is pushing now.
That lack of facts, knowledge and consistency shows precisely why we need an honest scientific study to provide facts and evidence so a fair law can be written.
You don’t have to be under the influence to commit vehicular homicide or assault, and King’s examples prove only that the drivers had residual THC and broke that law. It doesn’t prove any drivers were impaired, only they had certain THC levels in their systems. THC stays in the system after impairment, but two drivers, in King’s example, wouldn’t be charged with DUI.
The only cases he found are from 2006, 2009 and 2010. Doesn’t seem as though there is such a pressing issue to hurry and pass laws based on suppositions and no facts.