LETTERS: Logic dictates legalizing recreational marijuana

Legalizing marijuana

There was nothing new in your most recent editorial about the federal government's war on drugs ("DEA whitewash," Monday Review-Journal). The logic for legalization of recreational drugs has been common knowledge for many decades, yet the reasons for government resistance have never been forensically addressed.

Law enforcement relies heavily upon informants, lots of government-laundered money and citizens who fear and respect the institution. The results of prohibition have been Whitey Bulgers, Drug Enforcement Administration parties and a rebellious population, all of which contribute to rotting the very soul of our once-great republic by undermining the national will.

Those who argue that we need to "save the children" do not take into consideration the fact that whoever wants marijuana can already get all they want, lionizing the slime who sell marijuana and who encourage the use of harder drugs. The street dealer is the final link in a chain that intimidates governments around the globe and addicts them to payoff money they would otherwise have gotten through legalization of marijuana. Legalization would be a major step in eradicating street gangs and the violence they perpetrate.

Like alcohol, legalization of marijuana will not keep it out of the hands of children, and both are issues that need to be forcefully addressed. But we can begin the process by admitting what is common knowledge: marijuana prohibition began with lies fed to a trusting and gullible public. This is no longer the case, and those who persist in pressing the issue are insulting their own intelligence.

Fred Bilello

Laughlin

Oregon shooting

The community college shooting in Oregon has once again opened the discussion on our national nightmare — gun control. Once again, we are hearing the same old arguments for and against gun control. And once again, nothing will be done.

We have become the greatest country in the world at doing nothing. Federal law currently prohibits the purchase of firearms by people who fall within certain categories, such as convicted felons, domestic abusers and people with specific kinds of mental health histories. Any person who calls himself a responsible gun owner sees the need for this law.

But while we have a law that prohibits these kinds of people from purchasing guns, we have no law against selling guns to these people. Outside of gun stores, there is no law that requires people to even make a good-faith attempt to determine if they are selling their gun to a prohibited person.

The Second Amendment guarantees a person's right to own a gun. It does not guarantee you the right to sell it to anybody you want. Laws that restrict the types of people who you can sell your gun to are not only constitutional, they are responsible laws that every responsible gun owner should support.

Yes, I know the tired old cliche that this will not stop all gun violence, but if this would stop even one child from dying from a gunshot (especially if that child is yours), then it is worth it. If it is not worth it, we should stop treating gun violence as news, because it has become as routine as the sun rising in the morning.

Richard Pratt

Las Vegas

Paying for NV Energy

The front-page headline in Tuesday's Review-Journal ("Customers would pay for plant") makes it sound like a surprise that the new natural gas power plant being proposed by NV Energy will end up being paid for by ratepayers. But it shouldn't require a study by an outside agency to understand that an investment that can't pay for itself must be borne by a business's customers.

This kind of analysis applied to solar power would reveal that its cost to ratepayers and the Nevada economy is going to be many times the $1 billion this plant will cost.

Tom Keller

Henderson

Clinton cartoon

I have subscribed to the Review-Journal for 45 years, and while I have not agreed with everything in it, I have been satisfied with its content most of the time. However, the Steve Kelley editorial cartoon on the Clintons (Monday Review-Journal) made me as angry as I've ever been with your paper.

This is yellow journalism, and if it wasn't for the fact that I could not get the Sun (I'm an independent voter), I would have canceled your paper. The cartoon was disgusting and in bad taste, to say the least. Shame on you.

Jerry S. Willick

Las Vegas