Letters

I just finished reading the July 6–12 “This
Is Your Country on Drugs” issue cover to cover, and I am both stunned and
delighted. The state of drug prohibition is a very hot topic these days, yet
it’s one that the mass media are reluctant to handle. I’m glad to see that the
L.A. Weekly isn’t afraid to step forward and give this issue the time
it deserves.

—Adam Wiggins
Pasadena

DEAR EDITOR:

Re: Michael Simmons’ “One
Toke Over the Line.” Thanks for taking some bull’s-eye shots at America’s
lunatic drug war. Prohibition poses as a moral crusade, but it is based on lies,
dissembling and noxious propaganda. It is a destructive policy serving no useful
purpose. When drugs were legal, addicts held regular employment, raised decent
families and were indistinguishable from their teetotaling neighbors. When addicts
used cheap, pure Bayer Heroin, overdoses were virtually unheard-of.

Thanks for exposing our moronic prohibitionists.

—Redford Givens
San Francisco

DEAR EDITOR:

Re: Jerry Stahl’s “Confessions
of a Celebrity Dope Fiend.” I rather enjoyed this sarcastic, ironic, sadistic
article. It’s nice to see an article that does such a good job of giving an
inside look at the path to self-destruction.

—Angela Hancock
Los Angeles

DEAR EDITOR:

The Dean Kuipers story “Less
Than Zero” is amazing! I agree with his observations completely. Life has
become far more complex, and people do not have the time — or make time — to
think about what would truly benefit society as a whole. We have become more
and more selfish and self-righteous, succumbing to easy “solutions” to our “problems.”
I am referring to the “shits,” of course, and rooting for the “Johnsons”!

—Irma Martinez
West Covina

DEAR EDITOR:

What a wonderfully perverse way to commemorate Independence Day: by celebrating
the 1960s narcissistic revolution. It was a fascinating read to see how the
rich and upper-middle-class recreational-drug users are piqued by society’s
refusal to legalize drugs. But what about those lower down the ladder, especially
poor minorities? The ’60s cultural revolution, led by rich white bohemians,
told the world to reject the old-fashioned, unhip Protestant work ethic as oppressive.
Unfortunately, a lot of the poor and minorities bought into it. But what the
hell, at least the underclass have the crocodile tears of the left to comfort
them. I bet not one of the writers for this issue has ever set aside two seconds
to think their selfishness might have consequences.

But then again, that’s what narcissism is all about. A great follow-up would
be an issue devoted to that other pillar of ’60s narcissism, the sexual revolution.
It would make a great Christmas issue. You could have writers celebrating the
destruction of the family (33 percent illegitimacy rates nationwide, 69 percent
among blacks, children raising children, etc.). And I’d get to write another
letter to the editor.

—Michael LeFlore
Manhattan Beach

DEAR EDITOR:

Congratulations on your decision to devote your Independence Day issue to
the drug war as a way of twitting Americans for their hypocrisy. I have only
one minor correction to your introductory editorial: The drug war didn’t start
with Ronald Reagan; it was originally declared, in 1972, by Richard Nixon as
a way to punish his multiple and varied political enemies; the pertinent history
is documented in Dan Baum’s carefully researched Smoke and Mirrors (Little
Brown, 1996). Because the distractions of Watergate intruded, Nixon was never
able to really use his creation; Ford and Carter were indifferent to it. You
are correct in the sense that Reagan rediscovered it, but the concept, design
and weaponry for the drug war had all been created for him by the first Nixon
administration, more than 10 years earlier.

—Tom O’Connell, M.D.
San Mateo

DEMONS INDEED

DEAR EDITOR:

I want to compliment Joseph Treviño on his story “Demons
on Broadway” [June 29–July 5]. I don’t recall any other media outlet in
Southern California willing to deal with the issue of La Iglesia Universal del
Reino de Dios. Neither La Opinión nor the Los Angeles Times. Your
exposé will help a lot of people to stay away from those demons and their business
of playing with the faith of the people. Hopefully, authorities one day will
look into their way of operating and stop their religious charade.

—Francisco Rivera
Los Angeles

DEAR EDITOR:

My parents go to this church. They are in their 70s. I went once â with them,
and it was all about intimidation. My dad, who has a problem with his prostate
but refuses to do anything about it because he believes the “oil brought back
from the Holy Land” will cure him of his problem, still has to go every 15 minutes
to the bathroom, and he sees nothing wrong with that. He just goes and spends
hours on the weekends in that church, a church that preys on people’s emotions,
their guilt, their shame, their poverty, their depression. I don’t know what
to do. Please stop these con artists.

—Ana
Granada Hills

REVERBERATIONS

DEAR EDITOR:

Three cheers for S.L. Duff’s article “Is
the Corpse Smelly Yet?” [June 22–28]. Not since Steve Albini’s genius manifesto
“The Trouble With Music” or Courtney Love’s online Napster letter has anybody
struck the nail on the head with such spot-on accuracy. For struggling musicians
blindsided and dazed by the recent upheaval and morphing of the music industry
(a good thing?), it’s hard to know which way is up these days. Duff’s article
cuts to the quick, dealing with so many subjects at once that have, for many
years now, made me want to “rip my own head off and throw it out the window.”
Everyone has known for some time how much the industry sucks ass; it’s just
nice to have it sized up in such an acerbic, focused and articulate manner.
Good job!

—Eric Skodis
Los Angeles

DEAR EDITOR:

Mr. Duff’s article on independent labels is perhaps the best thing I have
ever read on this subject. Thank you for having the courage to share this with
your readers.

—William Graves
Los Angeles

OF SUPER-TOYS, SADISTS AND SYCOPHANTS

DEAR EDITOR:

Manohla Dargis’ review of A.I.
[“Clash of the Titans,” June 29–July 5] missed a rather important plot point
concerning the film’s conclusion. The writer refers to “space aliens” in the
muddled final reel. The critic obviously missed the fact that these were not
aliens, but instead, the next evolution in man-made robots, as the interior
circuitry visible through the thin, membranelike skin clearly revealed.

One can only wonder what else Dargis didn’t get.

—Joe Palladino
Waterbury, Connecticut

DEAR EDITOR:

Regarding Manohla Dargis on A.I.: Great review. Weird movie. Would
love to know exactly what she meant by “Time and again with Spielberg, sentimentality
is nothing other than a polite form of sadism.”

Smells true.

—Lisa Scheffer
Richmond, Virginia

DEAR EDITOR:

What a brilliant article! When I read Manohla Dargis’ review, my heart was
jumping for joy. Then came the capsule review. I cannot believe someone was
able to sum up Mr. Spielberg’s shameless artistic atrocities in a few words
and in such a correct and to-the-point manner. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Thank you sooo much!

—Gerhardt Kleindl
Los Angeles

Advertising disclosure: We may receive compensation for some of the links in our stories. Thank you for supporting LA Weekly and our advertisers.