Someone spank these kids
(Re: “Skatepark skullduggery,” News, June 23.) FYI, my kid had his board stolen from this park on about June 12.
He also said he saw kids that had guns with them. Never have we seen such thugs in Boulder County, and especially in a skatepark.
Two teens said some comment to me as we passed and I shrugged it off, even though someone should spank these children. Their parents are obviously guilty of having no clue in life.
(Re: “Dumpster-diving for the poor,” News, June 23.) So, FNB [Food Not Bombs] is wondering why Boulder restaurants won’t donate the food that they throw away.
Seems to me that while they’re Dumpster-diving for food to feed people, they’re kinda missing one thing. It’s food in the garbage! Restaurants are required by Boulder County health codes to discard all food that is bad.
See, there’s this thing called foodborne illness. Restaurants don’t just throw away food willy-nilly. That’s money going right out the door. Same as grocery stores. It’s not about not wanting to help, it’s about protecting the public from food that may not be safe for consumption. That’s it. If a grocery store or a restaurant throws away food, it’s because they’ve deemed that it’s no longer safe to eat. So why would they be OK with giving away said un-safe food to feed others? Where the hell is the Boulder health depart ment?
Why are they not talking to FNB!?
Anthony Speidel/via Internet
Circumcision film at BJCC
(Re: “To cut or not to cut?” Uncensored, June 23.) Thank you for your thorough coverage of the circumcision debate, which has become a very contentious issue on many levels.
Your article made reference to the film Cut: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision that will be shown in Boulder on Oct. 18 with the director, Eiyahu Ungar-Sargon, in person. The article failed to mention that the film will be shown at the Boulder Jewish Community Center, at 7 p.m., with a panel discussion following the film that will discuss all sides of the issue.
The screening is open to the public; tickets are $10 at the door.
Kathryn Bernheimer, BJCC cultural arts program director/Boulder
City takes on corporations
(Re: “We the corporations,” cover story, May 19.) Resolved: Corporations are not people. Money is not speech.
When the Supreme Court decided that political spending by incorporated entities is protected by the First Amendment and money is equivalent to speech, the nation took another step towards government by money (plutocracy), and away from government by the people (democracy). Ordinary people across the country are demanding a correction, whether by constitutional amendment, changing the membership of the Supreme Court, or other means.
On July 19, Boulder City Council will consider putting the following resolution on the November ballot: “Resolved, the People of the City of Boulder, Colorado, call for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of undue corporate influence by amending the U.S. Constitution to establish that:
1. Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”
Much ado about puffing
Police worries about highway fatalities involving marijuana show ignorance of the fact that marijuana users are rarely responsible for highway accidents and deaths. Car accidents involving marijuana users are almost always caused by drunks or careless driving by the other driver.
Notions about lunatic behavior by pot smokers behind the wheel first appeared in the movie Reefer Madness. Like every other accusation in this scurrilous film, the idea that cannabis causes reckless driving is a lie!
It is a scientifically verified fact that marijuana users are safer drivers than teetotalers. The Drugs and Accident Risk in Fatally Injured Drivers study concluded that marijuana has a “negative risk factor” for fatal highway accidents: Cannabis Odds Ratio 0.6 (0.3-1.0) P-value 0.065. By contrast, the odds ratio for alcohol was 7.6.
“Drivers in whom only opiates were detected had an odds ratio of 2.4, whilst marijuana cases provided a relative risk of 0.6. Drivers in whom stimulants were detected gave an odds ratio of 1.4, whilst benzodiazepines gave an odds ratio of 1.0. By contrast the odds ratio for alcohol was 6.8.”
“It was of some interest that cannabis tended to show a negative effect on relative risk when other drug groups showed an increase. This phenomenon has also been seen elsewhere [Terhune et al, 1992; Williams et al, 1985]. The most likely reason probably relates to the over-compensation of marijuana-using drivers on their driving skills. Over-compensation may be caused simply by slowing down and avoiding adverse driving situations. These observations do not seem to be related to whether delta-9-THC or 11-carboxy-THC are measured in blood [Terhune et al, 1992; Williams et al, 1985].”
A “negative risk factor” means that pot smokers have a lower accident rate than teetotalers.
Several other on-road driving studies funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation prove that marijuana smokers are safer drivers than teetotalers. “The THC-only drivers had [an accident] responsibility rate below that of the drug-free drivers, as was found previously by Williams and colleagues (1986).”
All of the accusations made against marijuana, including reckless driving, are nothing more than lies dreamed up by Harry Anslinger in his insane crusade to keep marijuana illegal.
Redford Givens, Schaffer Library of Drug Policy/San Francisco
Boulder Weekly welcomes your e-mail correspondence. Letters must not exceed 400 words and should include your name, address and telephone number for verification. Addresses will not be published. We do not publish anonymous letters or those signed with pseudonyms. Letters become the property of Boulder Weekly and will be published on our website. Send letters to: firstname.lastname@example.org. Look for Boulder Weekly on the World Wide Web at: www.boulderweekly. com.