Online only letters

Smoky organs

A hypocrisy oath: Marijuana denies liver transplant

Editor, The Times:

Regarding "Medical marijuana user dies for lack of liver transplant" [Local News, May 2], This is in reference to The Times article about the a seriously ill man who smoked medical marijuana and for that reason he was denied placement on the organ transplant list by the UW review board: This person recently has died.

It seemed clear to me in the article the UW review board denies all smokers in general. In other words, people who smoke marijuana or tobacco are given a sure death sentence.

I wonder if the review board denies obese people because they have a habit of overeating? Doesn't overeating show the person is a habitual personality person too? I have read in a local newspaper that researchers found obese people have the same level of risk of to medical complications as . smoker. If so, should obese people should be denied placement on the organ transplant list also?

Last I checked, they have no problem taking organ donations from smokers. It's OK to take an organ from a smoker so a non-smoking person can live! What a hypocrisy! Are people who smoke are undeserving of a the same life-saving transplant?

As a smoker, I appreciate the Seattle Times information about the organ-donor review board's policy to reject all smokers. I now have officially changed my mind to donate my organs due to the transplant review board's policy against smokers. I have also informed my family that under no circumstances are my organs to be donated. I will make sure to inform all the smokers I know and meet about this hypocritical, prejudicial policy against smokers who need life-saving transplants.

— Connie Abraham, Edmonds

A death sentence from a prescribed drug

I was very disappointed to read "Is medical-marijuana use reason to deny someone an organ transplant?"[ Times, Health and Family, May 3], about a patient who was denied a liver transplant because of his legal use of medical marijuana. This makes no sense. How could the University of Washington Medical Center be so heartless?

The treatment was prescribed by a doctor who was trying to provide relief to a suffering patient. According to UWMC's standards, this well-meaning doctor unwittingly prescribed a "death sentence" to his patient by legally prescribing this treatment.

Please reconsider these policies so that doctors can work with patients to make sure they can get the most-effective pain control and are still eligible for life-saving treatments.

— Tamie Callahan

Prohibition problems

It's time to legalize marijuana.

I've never once used marijuana, but I see the negative effects of criminalization. Any time something is outlawed, a black market rises up to provide it. If people want it, they'll find a way to get it -- marijuana, cocaine, prostitutes, and now online gambling (of all things) -- and the black market forces prices through the roof while sacrificing safety.

By legalizing something, are we saying it's a good thing that everyone should do? Of course not. After all, smoking two packs a day, never exercising, cheating on your spouse, and drinking too much are all legal, albeit stupid. Marijuana might not be something we people using, but criminalizing it has jailed ordinary, nonviolent citizens, sometimes for decades, for nothing more than growing a plant.

Remember, at one point, our country amended its Constitution to criminalize alcohol, which spawned the rise of organized crime. Prohibition created such a problem that we finally decided to "surrender" in the war on booze. Sure, we have alcoholics, winos, alcohol poisoning, drunk drivers, and other alcohol-related problems. But with alcohol, we focus on treating the afflicted, not imprisoning them. Why can't we afford the same to marijuana?

— Eric Pilon, Bothell

Smoke away the science

I am writing out of concern for a patient who was recently denied a liver transplant by the University of Washington Medical Center partly because he had used marijuana to treat hepatitis C even though he was prescribed it under Washington's medical marijuana law.

Many patients report that they can better cope with the debilitating effects of this disease when using cannabis. I would like to know under what scientific-based evidence was this decision made in regards to liver function and marijuana use?

It seems that this unfortunate person was denied an opportunity to live based solely on political motive rather than empirical rationale. Are the requirements for organ transplants easily accessible to individuals and their physicians? I would hope that a progressive institution such as UW Medical Center would rise above the draconian misinformation prevalent in the war on drugs, and base life-threatening decisions on sound and replicable scientific evidence.

— Kevin Weyer, Seattle

Legalize that bong!

America has got to know the benefits of hemp marijuana. Though no proposed law does mention personal use, I feel an amendment for it would greatly [benefit] those suffering from not having its healing properties at hand.

Most statistics that concern marijuana use have always targeted people under the age of 21. Why not allow responsible taxpayers at this age to use marijuana for personal use? Crime cannot go up any more than it already has.

Aside from just hemp, marijuana helps mood, anxiety, appetite, relaxation etc. Why the criminalization for using the drug in our own privacy? How much better is this great America since the war on drugs started with Nancy Reagan? Not much, because at my place employment, there are young adults getting hired who admit to selling weed . Let's put marijuana in the mainstream so the black market will be shut down abruptly.

Please legalize!

— Chris Landreth

Distancing from the reverend

Obama's deliberate deception

If as he says, Sen. Barack Obama had no knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's political viewpoints after a self-admitted, 20-year relationship with the pastor, that alone speaks volumes about the man who would be president. He is either being untruthful about his knowledge of the pastor, or is the most naive congregant at his church.

Rev. Wright didn't become, overnight, what we are now seeing. His history of bashing his own country and making unsupportable claims against his government is well-documented, calculated to build his movement; and well-documented by the videos and DVDs containing these same rants, which he sold at his own church.

Obama's distancing from the reverend is political expediency ["Obama: Wright's' 'rants' cause rift," News, April 30]. Nothing has changed other than the fact that the pastor is now negatively impacting Obama's chance at the presidency, pure and simple.

In most people's minds, Obama is being deceptive on the Rev. Wright issue. Obama's parsing of words is very deliberate and it will come back to him in the general election.

— Art Francis, Issaquah

Middle East

Self-defense is a right for all countries

A comparison begs to be made between two recent articles paper.

In "U.S. airstrike kills al-Qaida ally in Somalia" [News, May 2] we read, "U.S. missiles destroyed the house of reputed al-Qaida leader Aden Hashi Ayro in the central town of Dusamareeb. The attack killed 24 other people, five in the targeted house and the others in nearby homes "

In "Israeli army blames militants for deaths of 5 Palestinians" [News, May 2] we read, "The Israeli army blamed militants for the deaths of a Palestinian woman and her four young children, saying Friday that they died in secondary blasts when the Hamas fighters' ammunition detonated in an Israeli airstrike"

Israel has the right to defend itself, just as America and Somalia do. Israel takes precautions to limit collateral damage, but given the tactics of the Palestinian extremists, it is not always possible to limit all collateral damage.

The fact that Palestinian extremists use Palestinian women and children as human shields is disgusting and deserves worldwide condemnation.

— Barry Leonard Werner, Lake Forest Park

Illegal immigration

Go, go, go away

It's interesting to witness the convoluted reasoning that some people use to justify why this country should simply scrap our immigration laws. Chris Mobley compares demonstrations by illegal aliens to the sit-ins of the civil-rights demonstrations of the 1960s ["Thousands march for immigrant rights," Local News, May 2]. He conveniently ignores the fact that civil-rights demonstrators were already U.S. citizens opposing local laws that were clearly at odds with constitutional guarantees. They were not people who entered this country by violating our laws in the first place.

I wonder how many of those supporting illegal immigration are remotely aware of the restrictions and prohibitions that are placed on United States citizens who want to buy property, work, become a citizen and vote and start a business in Mexico. For all practical purposes, it ain't gonna happen, either because of Mexican laws that flatly prohibit it, or legal requirements that are so restrictive as to make it practically impossible.

Imagine how far several thousand gringos would get if they made similar demands and demonstrated while waving American flags down the Paseo de La Reforma in Mexico City. I doubt the polícia or federales would be quite as accommodating and cooperative as the Seattle Police Department.

Certainly, this nation was created and built by immigrants. The term "immigrant" denotes those who migrated and arrived here legally. I grew up in a neighborhood of immigrants. Without exception, they came here to assimilate into the American culture as quickly as possible: to become "Americans" in every sense of the word. They did not expect, and certainly did not "demand," special accommodation be made to them.

I welcome all legal immigrants regardless of origin, and support and applaud their efforts to become Americans. Conversely, those who sneak into this country, and then try to convince me they are somehow doing me a favor with their presence, earn nothing but my disgust.

Nations have the sovereign right to protect and guarantee the security of their borders, and to determine requirements for residency and/or citizenship. Those choosing to violate or ignore those rights do not deserve special status or prerogatives, and have no justification to demand their "rights."

— Lee Fowble, Edmonds