Kokomo Tribune; Kokomo, Indiana

December 4, 2013

Letters to the Editor: Dec. 4, 2013

War on drugs is dehumanizing

We as a nation continue to engage in a war on drugs, which is predominately focused on arrests for marijuana, that violates our basic civil rights.  

In New Mexico, David Eckert was subject to digital anal penetration in order to search for drugs  in his body. All from a common traffic stop and a drug sniffing dog supposedly smelling drugs on/in him. In the end he got a huge medical bill when not found with any drugs.

Also in  New Mexico, a woman experienced (with a vaginal search thrown in) the same dehumanizing procedure off of a drug dog search.

In South Carolina, a police chief threatened to arrest someone who wrote on Facebook that the police should be focused upon arresting murders and not marijuana smokers. The chief responded that the police will now be working to find him.

This remark shows the disdain and contempt exhibited by drug war warriors for our freedom of speech and the right to petition our own government. I have proudly supported DRCnet and  the Marijuana Policy Project because I am sick to death of these constant violations of our civil rights.

Jerome McCollom, Kokomo


Kokomo sign needed on new bypass split

I’m happy the new bypass is finished. I’m sure it will be a time saver for many travelers.

However, I do have a complaint. Over the holidays, we had some out-of-town guests who didn’t know about the new road. Both of them were coming from the south and both took the 31 exit instead of the new 931. I think it would help those trying to get to the city if there were a sign indicating which road to take. Perhaps it could read “Kokomo” with an arrow next to the 931 sign. That would alleviate the confusion. It would be interesting to know if others have had the same thing happen.

Thank you for considering this letter.

Nancy Richmond, Kokomo


Let’s not put another Clinton in White House

As time passes, we see and hear more of “Hillary Clinton for President.” I say “bad idea” and I say it for a good reason. If Hillary Clinton were to be elected president, her husband, former President Bill Clinton would have a legal right to occupy the White House. I, for one, do not ever want to see Bill Clinton back in the White House under ANY circumstances.

“So why,” you ask, “do you feel so strongly against Bill Clinton?” My aversion to our former chief executive dates back to 1999, when he repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. The Glass-Steagall Act was part and parcel of the Banking Protection Act of 1933. By repealing the Banking Protection Act, Mr. Clinton effectively paved the way for the banking fiasco soon to follow.

Which brings up yet another point. Congress should consider the possible reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, as well as criminal prosecution of those instrumental in and for the banking fiasco.

Kenneth Crockett, Kokomo