Clearing the air on medical marijuana

EDITOR,

In keeping with a newspaper’s commitment to accuracy, I want to point out errors and oversights in articles published in many newspapers across the country regarding the federal government’s recent guidelines on medical marijuana users.

First and foremost, newspapers have incorrectly stated that California became the first state to make it legal to sell marijuana to people with a doctor’s prescription. That is incorrect. No state in the U.S. allows a doctor to prescribe marijuana. People are getting a doctor’s “recommendation,” and they are coming from doctors who do not require physical exams or any future follow-up care. Simply pay the fee, no questions asked.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced that it would no longer be a “priority” for the federal government to prosecute patients with serious illnesses. But that has never been a priority of federal law enforcement, which has been focused on people engaged in trafficking and growing operations of significant quantities of illegal drugs.

Holder’s memo itself is internally conflicted to the point of incoherence. While irresponsibly encouraging prosecutors to defer to state and local laws on marijuana, it also recognizes that federal interest can still allow the feds, at their discretion, to step in and prosecute. In fact, federal law remains completely unchanged.

The memo specifically states that the new policy should not be interpreted to mean that medical marijuana has been legalized and that it does not provide a legal defense against federal prosecution. Moreover, it states that even if an individual complies with state laws, they still may be subject to federal prosecution.

The gap between newspaper headlines and reality can only lead to further confusion. California municipalities are struggling with an explosion of storefront pot shops and grow operations. A newspaper’s incomplete reporting of the new guidelines only adds to the confusion and excuses drug traffickers and growers who have been abusing the “medical” label for years.

Linda Taylor, Turlock

Patterson needs Walmart

EDITOR,

Patterson leaders need to realize what are they actually trying to do? Are we trying to grow our community or not?

Our economy is so dry, and we are in need of funds. Look around us — abandoned houses, people with no work, kids running the street with no future in sight. Jobs in our district are nowhere to be found.

We need to secure the future of our kids. Bringing in a Walmart will do wonders for our community and bring jobs closer to our community. We need action now and not later. Kids today in our neighborhood have nothing better to do than run the streets.

There are no jobs here. There are people who don’t have a means of transportation and are relying on us to bring in jobs. One of my neighbors told me that the schools didn’t even have enough money to plan a trip to get pumpkins. Come on, people. That’s ridiculous!

Bring Walmart in! If you don’t want to shop there, don’t. You build a town, but you don’t expect it to grow? Our housing market is slowly dropping. Don’t you think it’s time to act? Walmart’s not going to keep the offer on the table long.

Jack Phongpool, Patterson

Eyes on the skies, hot shot

EDITOR,

My disdain for the cell phone is recognized by many. But I do have other technological dislikes.

For instance, when flying, I prefer the pilots not be distracted by the use of laptop computers.

Ron Swift, Patterson