LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Who is deplorable?; Make laws harsher; Medical marijuana

Who is deplorable?

In Mr. Fred Sawyer's letter about Fox News, he stated that Mrs. Clinton did not identify who the "deplorables" were, and then went on to presume she meant Trump voters. Mrs. Clinton was very clear.

She said: "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic ..."

Three things come to my mind. First is "generalistic," which means to me as more often than not. Second is that she suggests that only half of Trump supporters are deplorable, and then she goes so far to give her parameters as to what a deplorable is. She leaves it up to the Trump supporter to self-identify as to which half he or she belongs in. The amazing thing is that thousands of his supporters jumped on that bandwagon and proudly identified themselves as deplorable.

Third thing is Mr. Sawyer seems to get his news from Fox, so it is understandable as to why he apparently was not fully informed as to what Mrs. Clinton said.

STEVE COWAN

Benton

Make laws harsher

All the back and forth in Congress about gun control and Second Amendment rights seems to be going nowhere. How about, instead, changing the laws governing punishment for crimes committed with guns, making them harsh enough that one would be less likely to use a gun in a crime? Part of the program could be to eliminate all appeals following conviction.

Maybe if the punishment is severe enough, that would reduce gun crimes while protecting the Second Amendment.

HENRY BRUNE

Russellville

Medical marijuana

I continue to be troubled and unconvinced. If there are insufficient studies to show the effectiveness of marijuana as a medicine; if medical schools, pharmacy schools, and nursing schools have not taught it; if it's not in the database doctors use for prescribing it; if it is not regulated on the manufacturing side and the dosing side; if a few medical institutions have declined to embrace its medicinal use; if it has only the approval of voters rather than the imprimatur of the Federal Drug Administration--should it be considered safe for medicinal use?

On the other hand, if it is by law to be considered a medicine, why is it not dispensed through pharmacies as other prescribed medications are--even controlled substances? Why did we need to create an entirely new industry?

What am I missing here?

YVONNE SAMONS

Little Rock

Editorial on 09/20/2019

Upcoming Events