Letters for September 29, 2016

Haters, exposed

Re “Less hate, please” by Barbara Rohrer (Letters for September 15, 2016):

I was also curious as to why SN&R would feature a letter written by a white supremacist and loaded with misinformation, ignorance and hate. My logic is that the purpose of featuring such a misinformed, ignorant, hateful letter is to shed light on and show a thumbnail view of the mind-boggling, delusional mentality that we are facing in this country. It is apparent that racism and bigotry are alive and sick as ever, as evidenced by the popularity of tea party politics and Donald Trump. So I say expose these haters and be alert to the fact that this toxic mentality is permeating our society.

Bill Markson

Sacramento

Pot and profit

Re “Up in smoke” by David Downs (SN&R Feature, September 15):

The California marijuana crop is more valuable than tomatoes, almonds and lettuce combined. As legalization continues, before long the feds will implement a system to replace the patchwork of state laws. Isn’t it better to legalize before that happens, and help to shape the national policy? Listening to pot growers speak on the burdens of legalization frankly sounds like Newt Gingrich going on about the virtue of self-regulation and the tyranny of the USDA. The medical marijuana experiment was an innovative way to get the ball rolling. It would be a shame if California were to forfeit its natural role as the leader in drug law reform in order to protect the selfish economic interests of a relatively small number of growers, smugglers, dealers and launderers of money.

Brett Pike

Davis

Real science

Re “Bio-engineered news” by Alastair Bland (SN&R News, September 22):

I strongly disapprove of U.S. Right To Know’s Freedom of Information Act requests to universities for emails between scientists and corporations. Far from being in the “public interest,” the requests simply serve only to consume limited university resources and distract scientists from their jobs of teaching and conducting research.

As a contributor to GMO Answers, I strongly object to the implication that anyone who contributes to GMO Answers is paid for those contributions, or that such contributions are done to promote any company or product. Such allegations are totally false. The scientists, farmers and other professionals who contribute to GMO Answers gain nothing except the satisfaction of having made an effort to explain the technology to those who wish to know more about one of the most important scientific and technological advances of the last 50 years.

Roy Williams

Hanover, New Hampshire