Some help, please
Re “The Pot Issue” (Feature story, Nov. 5):
Open letter to the northern Nevada medical community:
I am a 50-year-old disabled veteran. Because of injuries I sustained
in the United States Army, I suffer from chronic pain. I consume 90
hydrocodone, 180 naproxin/acetaminophen, and approximately 120
aspirin/Tylenol per month. I have grave concerns over the long-lasting
effects of this drug use on my body.
With the recent dialogue and state legalization of medical
marijuana, I thought this might be my answer. I contacted the state
agency in charge of this program only to find that they wouldn’t
recommend a physician or tell me how to find one with some knowledge in
this area of treatment. My Veterans Administration doctor is a federal
employee and unable to prescribe a medicine that is still federally
illegal. After going to the yellow pages and calling numerous
physicians, it became apparent that despite its Nevada legality there
are no Northern Nevada physicians with the courage to explore this
option.
I am aware of the doctors to whom I can send my records and be
approved, but oddly enough, I actually want a real exam and discussion
about possible downsides to this treatment. I am not a stoner or an
opportunist; I just want to try another method of controlling my pain.
If there is a physician in the Reno area for whom the Hippocratic Oath
still has some meaning, I invite your commentary at <script type=”text/javascript” language=”javascript”>{ document.write(String.fromCharCode(60,97,32,104,114,101,102,61,34,109,97,105,108,116,111,58,115,109,105,116,104,112,119,120,64,103,109,97,105,108,46,99,111,109,34,62,115,109,105,116,104,112,119,120,64,103,109,97,105,108,46,99,111,109,60,47,97,62))
}
</script>.
Patrick Smith
via email
Help the mission
Re “My idea of patriotism” (East of Eden, Nov. 12):
How many schools did the Taliban government build when it was in
power? How many girls were allowed to attend school? For that matter,
how many women were allowed to work and participate in any manner in
the political and economic life of Afghanistan?
Ms. Huntley quotes Nicholas Kristof’s column stating that
“for the price of a single additional soldier stationed in
Afghanistan we could build roughly 20 schools there.” By Mr.
Kristof’s own admission, it’s hard to calculate the costs
precisely, yet he makes claims that can’t be supported.
No one would disagree with the premise that schooling would improve
the life of the people of Afghanistan, yet Ms. Huntley fails to
understand that without security, education is impossible. Mr. Kristof
gave several examples of schools built by private organizations that
have successfully existed for some time, yet no mention is made of the
fact that they exist because of the security provided by our troops.
Without them, I doubt that they would be allowed to exist for very long
under a Taliban government. Have no doubt that without our troops, the
Taliban would be back in power, and education would not be a
priority.
Ms. Huntley, to her credit, does in a very brief sentence
acknowledge the fact that girls were not allowed to attend school under
the Taliban government. I do question how she sees the future of
Afghanistan if our troops are not successful in their mission. She does
not call for the troops to come home, only that we should not send more
in order to successfully complete our mission.
I would suggest that she and all the other columnists who object to
increasing the troop levels speak with the troops that are serving our
country in these difficult times. I believe she would find that these
men and women want to succeed and then come home, not give up the fight
to see people live in a society that is free to follow their dreams. No
matter who people are or where they live, all human beings long for
freedom to provide a better life for their children. All except
fanatics who only lust for power!
We are the most powerful nation on Earth, and with power comes
responsibility. We are there, and we must finish the mission we
started. That includes building schools, but it also includes
successfully completing the mission for which many Americans have died.
Let us never forget that simple point.
Fred Speckmann
Sparks
Help desk
Re “Harry Reid’s big secret” (Feature story, Nov.
26):
The essay by Dennis Myers was the most well-reasoned study
I’ve ever read that destroys the basis for the un-democratic and
un-republican use of the filibuster. Since the Supreme Court ruling on
apportionment, I still can’t fathom why something as regressive
as a filibuster (not in the Constitution) is allowed to
function. The construction of the Senate is technically undemocratic as
well. But let that slide; it is constitutional. However, with
nonsense like this, the only consistent policy is to outlaw the
filibuster, the composition of the Senate, and the Electoral
College. Then, and only then, will the United States actually approach
some form of government that reflects representative (republican)
democracy.
B.F. Krueger
New York City, N.Y.
Get some help
Re “Nevada vet faults new GI Bill” (Upfront, Nov.
19):
Although the new GI Bill is not perfect by any stretch of the
imagination, the Reserve and Guard components have their own programs.
The 9/11 GI Bill is for anyone, including activated Reserve and
Guard members, and their benefit is allocated based on how much active
time they’ve completed. I’m a veteran, I’m a
reservist, and I’m using the new GI Bill. My complaints are with
the bureaucracy. If Specialist Chrystal isn’t pleased,
that’s unfortunate. If he needs more information, he should see
an advisor at any of the veterans’ offices on the local college
campuses. They are fantastic resources for any veteran who has
questions.
Donald Stockton
Reno
Cry for help
Re “More lawmaking by ballot” (News, Nov. 25):
These GOP apparatchiks don’t like personhood because it is not
a big tent, and God forbid, it may make all of them put their money
where their mouths are. Personhood is the best strategy to end
abortion, and the Colorado Supreme Court found it to be “not
vague” by a unanimous vote. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have
sued to stop it. I wonder why they would do such a thing if it is so
wrongheaded and pointless? Maybe because it is not, and the pro-life
GOP groups are wrong as they have been for 35 years.
William Wilberforce
Washington, D.C.
Editor’s note: As our report made clear, the language of
the Colorado and Nevada initiatives are very different.