Letters: Cannabis won’t kill children

Cannabis can’t kill kids

“Pot brownies can kill toddlers. It’s time for childproof cannabis packaging law” (sacbee.com, Feb. 8): In this op-ed, doctors Lena Rothstein and Lauren Gambill outline a nightmare: needless harm coming to an innocent child after he ingested a cannabis-infused brownie carelessly left out in his parent’s home. Contrary to the headline, the only way that a cannabis-infused edible could have killed any child would have been if he had choked on it. Cannabis, in and of itself, is not lethal. No one wants our kids to ingest cannabis. Fortunately, it won’t kill them.

A kangaroo court

“Stephon Clark: He was still an unarmed man killed for breaking windows” (sacbee.com, March 02): Marcos Bretón must not have been paying attention to the information Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Schubert presented. It was repeated time and time again that the details she described would have been submitted to a jury in a court of law. Unfortunately, the extremely biased Bretón likes to hold sway over the court of public opinion. That court tends to ignore the law or require facts which only support their so-called opinions. Without proper, lawful procedures, the court of public opinion can quickly turn into a kangaroo court.

Listen to survive

“Sacramento police officers won’t be charged in shooting of Stephon Clark, DA says” (sacbee.com, March 02): It makes me angry when white cops shoot unarmed black suspects needlessly and get away with it. But, in the case of Stephon Clark, I side with the police. Evidence points to the idea that he may have had “suicide by cop” in mind. Put yourself in the police’s shoes. It was dark, they were chasing a suspect who wouldn’t surrender, perceiving a gun in his hands with just seconds to react. Clark set the stage for his own death. The overriding lesson is this: Whatever your race, you must follow an officer’s instructions - your life depends on it.

Community policing

“Sacramento mayor: DA’s Stephon Clark decision highlights need for better police training” (sacbee.com, March 02): Most police, in their careers, never get involved in crime prevention in their communities. Leaders like Mayor Darrell Steinberg should demand that our city’s police perform “community service” to others as well as be willing to give their lives to serve and protect. Our police supported by our tax dollars also need to learn how to properly respond in situations with people, many of whom are either mentally ill or disabled. The police’s training on community policing should continue throughout their career. We all should, of course, resist the militarization of our community police force, which has led to the deaths of non-violent unarmed suspects.

Non-lethal force

“Sacramento police officers won’t be charged in shooting of Stephon Clark, DA says” (sacbee.com, March 02): While I understand the reasons for the District Attorney’s decision, it raised other questions in my mind. Not only about this shooting, but many other similar ones that have occurred across the country. The question is this: Why weren’t non-lethal weapons considered first before using lethal means? Throughout the extensive coverage, I’ve heard nothing about this important alternative. If we are to start resolving these issues, I believe law enforcement should be required to first consider using non-lethal means before resorting to lethal force. Subduing the suspect rather than shooting should be the first priority. There may be circumstances when lethal force is appropriate, but alternate means should be at least considered.