‘Letters to the Editor’ allow alternative and often opposing view to be expressed and most editors welcome them.
But the question arises to what standards should the letter writers be held?
Below is a case in point from the May 28th New York Times posted under a general heading “A Time When Marijuana Is Legal” :
“To the Editor:
“Bill Keller gets it right: the question is no longer whether marijuana should be legalized, since whatever system emerges is going to put children at risk.
“Pot is high risk for children because the part of the brain that censors dumb and dangerous behavior is not yet developed, while the pleasure-seeking part is fully functional.
“So teenagers will do risky things, like driving while high. They’re also far more likely than adults to become addicted.
“Pot smoking changes brain anatomy, retards maturation and impairs learning, memory and judgment. At the programs of Phoenix House, the overwhelming majority of adolescents we have treated used no drug more potent than marijuana.
“So once the legislators are through, it will be up to parents to protect children, convincing them that legal does not mean “safe” despite what government allows.
“Somehow Mr. Keller did not add the greatest dilemma to his list, which is just how any system of legalization can help parents to do this.
“MITCHELL S. ROSENTHAL
“New York, May 20, 2013
“The writer, a child and addiction psychiatrist, is the founder of Phoenix House.”
The article referenced is “How to Legalize Pot”
Dr. Rosenthal has hijacked the Keller article to further the reactionary policies of Phoenix House, long discredited by the vast majority of the drug policy community. He disingenuously states: “Bill Keller gets it right: the question is no longer whether marijuana should be legalized, since whatever system emerges is going to put children at risk.”
Keller was not suggesting allowing teenagers to purchase marijuana. He was proposing an alcohol model, per Colorado, Oregon and the Netherlands that prohibits the sale to minors.
Most high school students will vouch that marijuana can be readily purchased at or near school campuses. But once marijuana is ‘taxed, regulated and controlled’ as is alcohol and cigarettes, it is no more likely that there will be a business of selling ‘pot’ at schools then than there is selling alcohol beverages and cigarettes at or near campus now.
So what does an editor do with such a letter that criticizes what doesn’t appear in an article? The New York Times published it. We would not have. We welcome opposing views. But they must be based on facts …not propaganda.
