Letters to the Editors

Drug war dangerously erodes rights

© St. Petersburg Times, published March 12, 2000

Re: Letting police search without suspicion erodes freedoms, by Robyn E. Blumner.
--
Robyn E. Blumner's March 5 column repeats our forefathers' warnings. As Benjamin Franklin eloquently told us: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
And as we continue giving up more of our precious liberties in search of more safety, we are losing both liberty and safety. Proof of this can be found by looking at the recent history of the drug war.
In the name of keeping our children safe from dangerous drugs, we have waged a 30-year war on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and American citizens. Nothing in written history has ever eroded the Constitution or the Bill of Rights more than the drug war. In more ways than one, it has been the costliest war that this country has ever waged.
Politicians and the people whose livelihoods depend on this war will quote various statistics to try to prove that we are winning this war and tell us that for the sake of our children, giving up a few of our precious liberties is only a small price to pay.
Of course, these same people will not tell you that the drug war has brought us cheaper, purer and more readily available drugs than there were 10, 20 or 30 years ago. And they do not want you to know that there are no drug-free high schools or middle schools in America or that we are incarcerating nonviolent people at an exponential rate, and for every college that we build we are also building 10 or more prisons.
Yes, I agree. Illegal drugs are a major problem of our society. Because they are not regulated, they are easier for a teenager to obtain than alcohol or tobacco. They have corrupted police officers, prosecutors and even a few judges. History has proven that prohibition does not work, and giving up our liberties is no way to fight any problem. For without liberty, there will never be any order.
Rick L. Meredith, Tampa

Not the first time

Re: Don't join the oppressors, editorial, March 5.

While I agree with your position opposing the Flag Desecration Amendment, you are wrong when you say that its passage would be the first time the Bill of Rights has been amended in more than 200 years. As columnist George Will recently pointed out, the Ninth Amendment (rights of the people) and the 10th Amendment (limiting the federal government to the powers enumerated in the Constitution) were effectively repealed during the Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson administrations, with the acquiescence of the Supreme Court.

The Fifth Amendment's prohibition of double jeopardy has been negated by the subterfuge -- not found in the Constitution -- that it does not apply to different levels of government: A person acquitted by a state court can be tried again for the same offense in federal court. Now efforts are under way to repeal the Second Amendment (right to bear arms) by legislation, lawsuits and judicial interpretation and to restrict the First Amendment's freedom of speech provision in the name of "campaign reform."

So the Flag Desecration Amendment is not the only attack on the Bill of Rights in progress, and its passage certainly would not be the first time the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have been diminished. It would, however, be the first time it was done with the consent of the people through the process provided for doing so in the Constitution.
-- Tod H. Markin, St. Petersburg

Don't leave out women

Re: Marchers bring Bush a message, March 8.

The closing paragraph of the story about the Tallahassee march quotes Gov. Jeb Bush in part: ". . . at the end, when they see there's more opportunities being given to African-Americans and Hispanics, little by little, they'll give me the benefit of the doubt for standing on principle."

Aside from the fact that we don't know when "the end" is going to be, and aside from the fact that maybe we don't want it "little by little," please notice: Once again, he has shown that half the population is invisible to him. Happy International Women's Day! What is the old saying about "a woman scorned?"

Let's check our arithmetic. If all the women and all the African-Americans and all the Hispanics were to get out and vote, couldn't we win any election?
-- Roberta L. Dees, St. Petersburg

Under assault

It is with some amusement that I note on the bottom of the editorial page: "The policy of our paper is very simple -- merely to tell the truth." There is good reason why this is in such small print.

As a Scientologist, I am continually amazed by the facility of the Times to create its "own truth." Even though the church has been vindicated on the cause of death of Lisa McPherson, the March 3 editorial A cry for justice is nothing but another assault on our religious community, attempting to create suspicion and hate.

The Times, which holds itself out as a progressive paper, needs to realize that there is also a freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment that it holds so dear.
-- T.C. Applebaum, Clearwater

A slippery tax slope

Re: E-Tax foes exhibit squishy thinking, by Robert J. Samuelson, March 4.

As if to demonstrate the power of squishy thinking, Robert J. Samuelson caps off his observations with the fact that telecommunication service taxes are making it harder for low income families to connect to the Internet. The obligatory buzz words "digital divide between rich and poor" are of course included. When compared to the "rich," do the poor have it easier buying other things? Samuelson's solution to this dilemma is to reduce the communication taxes while imposing a new e-sales tax. How this can help any family or individual is beyond me. Save a few bucks connecting to the Internet and then get whacked with a new sales tax forever.

Samuelson also conveniently ignores the problem of who gets to collect the e-tax. Would it be the state of the purchaser, the seller, the shipper, or the Internet provider? Maybe all of the above just to keep it "fair." Maybe none of the above, but instead we'll let the federal government impose the tax. Talk about slippery slopes! Talk about squishy thinking!
-- Bill Brower, Seminole

Valuing life

Many thanks for sharing the series on the life and death of Marilyn Myers, and the story of Amina Williams ("She's part of us," March 7). As a Catholic Christian and a member of the pro-life camp, I often find myself defined by what I am against: abortion, women's rights, euthanasia and so forth, rather than by what I am for: the intrinsic value of life "from womb to tomb."

Marilyn's ability to snatch joy and meaning out of what for many would seem dismal circumstances shines a bright light on a very dark spot in our nation's culture of death.

The love and joy found in the home shared by Amina and her mother Carla and this child's caregivers showed me powerfully the hope that can be found when life is embraced on its own terms.

As we head down the slippery slope begun by capital punishment and abortion and heading toward euthanasia and economy-based health care, I hope that these two stories will be remembered as powerful examples of the goodness and value of life at any cost.
-- Patrick Kirchman, Brooksville

Grateful readers

Thanks to the St. Petersburg Times for the wonderful eight-part series on Marilyn Myers (Dancing in the twilight).

Thank you also to the person who was moved to the point of donating $5-million dollars on her behalf to create a healing center.

Thanks most of all to Marilyn Myers and her family for giving us such a personal and poignant insight into her preparation for her inevitable journey. Our condolences to the family.

Marilyn, may your ride be a long and peaceful one.
-- Kenneth and Marcialee Kennedy, Palmetto

Art and insight

Thank you for your March 5 article, In the master's footsteps, and congratulations to the writer, Jeff Klinkenberg. His story is replete with insights into nature, art, history and even family values as shown in the picture of the painter Christopher Still reading a bedtime story to his two young daughters.

Still has contracted with the state of Florida to paint eight murals depicting the history of Florida. The murals are to be finished and on view in the state Capitol in 18 months. I hope in 2002 we can all see them in Tallahassee.

Good luck to Christopher Still.
-- Clara Cartwright, Pinellas Park

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.