Letters To The Editor

IDAHO VIEWPOINTS

Governor should off the `snuff bill’

Re: “Snuff bill allowing firearms in schools,” (March 24). Ridiculous, absurd, preposterous, ludicrous are just a few adjectives to describe such a bill. It clearly shows the ignorance of the legislators who voted for this bill and clearly overshadows President Clinton’s ignorant shenanigans.

I have two questions for the senators and representatives who voted for the bill. Do you have children and/or grandchildren in school? Will you send them to school “packing a pistol” for protection?

If such a bill is not vetoed by the governor, will future teachers have to take a firearms course before they receive their teaching certificate? This is a facetious question. Or is it?

Gov. Kempthorne, stand up and use your veto power. C.M. Cameron Spirit Lake

Lawmakers make time for idiocy

Does anybody wonder why our Idaho Legislature cannot get anything worthwhile, on the subject of school funding, out of committee, but can somehow garner the will and momentum to put forth to the governor an idiotic law making it easier to take weapons to school?

If junior wants to hunt after school, I don’t believe it’s too much of an imposition, that he should have to go home to get his weapon. This is not gun control, it is plain common sense! Ron and Kristy Johnson Post Falls

Opposition to mine overstated

Re: Mary Mitchell’s statement about opposition to the Asarco Rock Creek Mine, (Handle, March 18) that “Opposition to the mine is 99 percent in Sandpoint and Bonner County.”

First, we don’t remember Mitchell being appointed as our spokesperson. Second, we don’t believe you could get 99 percent of the people in Sandpoint and Bonner County to agree on any subject.

Third, while Mitchell may have the support of some of the people or even many of the people of the county, that’s not in and of itself a majority of the people in the county. Fourth, don’t rely on petitions to get a count. We have personally seen people who were from Seattle sign those petitions when they didn’t know where the mine was or what was proposed. We can’t speak for them and know they don’t speak for us.

It would be much more accurate, but not nearly as dramatic, to say that there is widespread support that the mine should only be allowed if it can be shown to the agencies involved and people in general that it will be safe in the short term, long term and very long term. Richard and Donna Hutter Sandpoint

HEALTH AND SAFETY

Reasons for immunization sound

Dawn Winkler (Letters, March 22) asks, “Why immunize kids for hepatitis A?

The answer is that there is a safe, effective vaccine against hepatitis A that will prevent the disease when the kids reach young adulthood, which is when most of the infections are diagnosed in Washington state.

While rarely fatal, the symptoms are serious and prolonged. Hepatitis A takes an economic toll on affected individuals and communities as well.

Hepatitis A is three times more common in Washington than the national average. It occurs in communitywide epidemics such as what Spokane experienced last year. We can prevent Spokane’s next epidemic if we start vaccinating children now.

School-entry vaccine requirements are a sound public health policy to help parents ensure that their children are fully immunized. Most parents are anxious to protect their children from the infections that caused so much disease and death in earlier times.

As with much public health policy, the strategies for accomplishing school-entry vaccination rely on education and persuasion. Parents can opt out with waivers.

The children of Washington and all of us will benefit when hepatitis A is added to the school-entry vaccine requirements. Kim Marie Thorburn, M.D., MPH health officer, Spokane Regional Health District

MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Urge support for House resolution

On March 2, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., introduced HR912 which, if enacted, would allow states to determine their own medical marijuana policies without federal interference. I encourage readers to ask Rep. George Nethercutt to co-sponsor this important legislation.

Voters in Alaska, Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington have passed initiatives that permit the medical use of marijuana by seriously ill people. A similar measure in the District of Columbia is tied up in court. Another measure in Colorado passed but was prevented from taking effect because of litigation on the initiative’s signature count.

While patients who have their doctor’s approval no longer face jail time for marijuana use in the aforementioned six states, they still face up to one year in jail on the federal level for possessing any amount of marijuana - even one marijuana cigarette.

HR912 would remove these federal penalties in those states where medicinal marijuana initiatives have already passed. These voters’ wishes should be respected. HR912 deserves to pass. James M. Tretheway Spokane

Study report hardly an endorsement

As one of the final reviewers of the Institute of Medicine evaluation of marijuana, and as a physician who has studied this issue for over 20 years, I am aggravated by the inaccurate portrayal of marijuana the media have generally set forth.

The IOM summary should be seen as a victory for opponents of smoked marijuana. It supported research into naturally occurring or synthetic cannabinoids but not the smoking of marijuana.

The body of the study evaluated the health risks of marijuana in depth. It highlighted the effects on motor coordination, the respiratory system, the immune system and addiction. With regard to the use of smoked marijuana, the final recommendations speak for themselves:

Short-term use of smoked marijuana (less than six months) for patients with debilitating symptoms (such as intractable pain or vomiting) must meet the following conditions:

Failure of all approved medications to provide relief has been documented.

The symptoms can reasonably be expected to be relieved by rapid-onset cannabinoid drugs.

Such treatment is administered under medical supervision in a manner that allows for assessment of treatment effectiveness.

Involves an oversight strategy comparable to an institutional review board process that could provide guidance within 24 hours of a submission by a physician to provide marijuana to a patient for a specified use.

The IOM findings are consistent with previous evaluations by the American Medical Association and the National Institutes of Health. They are a long way from wide support for the use of marijuana.

If anything, the headlines should say, “Smoked marijuana as a medicine is dead.” Eric A. Voth, M.D., FACP chairman, International Drug Strategy Institute, Topeka, Kansas