On “Wrapped in the Flag and Carrying a Cross” Erica Rucker, In your September 10 column, you wrote about the history of current developments in the Republican party. I agree with most of what you wrote. However, you made one statement that drives me crazy because so many others make the same equivalence. You say, “Nixon originally attempted to appeal to the white evangelical community but Reagan solidified the relationship. This embedded both racist whites and white Christians together in the party ...“ In the first sentence, you correctly identified white evangelicals as the target audience for the Republican party. In the second, you lumped all white Christians together. I am a white Presbyterian (female) pastor. I am a white Christian. I am NOT evangelical, and no evangelical would be any happier to be lumped together with me than I am to be lumped together with them. Some evangelical Christians may consider themselves the only “true” Christians, but a whole lot of other Christians disagree with them. Please do not use the word “Christian,” without qualification, to mean “evangelical Protestant.” Thank you. —Rev. Carrie Mook Bridgman, Sept. 23
On “The Big o ... malley” Yes, in the time of Black Lives Matter, a presidential candidate whose time as mayor is marked by the use of questionable police tactics would be the perfect choice to energize the base. —Rob Codey, Sept. 23
On “The politics and economics of medical marijuana” Not going to happen in Kentucky. You have 119 counties and then Louisville, can’t even get a casino up in here, near the bottom in healthcare and education. Outside of Louisville it’s all like Rowan County. “I’m from Louisville, not Kentucky.” —Mike E. McCubbins, Sept. 24
on “The politics and economics of medical marijuana” Getting the Christians invovled with medicinal cannabis would be a great benefit to the sick, poor and/or disabled of Kentucky ... The Bible is full of cannabis use for healing and Christians turn their heads when I point this out to them ... This is the part I am heart broken over ... To love Christ and yet refuse the healing ability of kaneh bosm ... —Mark Steven Gamble, Sept. 23
on “The politics and economics of medical marijuana” In 1972 the DEA funded the University of Virginia (UV) to research THC to see if it caused cancer. UV discovered that THC in fact treated cancer. With that bit of information the DEA withdrew its funding to UV. Shortly after, the Controlled Substances Act was passed listing THC as a Schedule I drug with no medical benefits. To date, no one in Congress will introduce legislation to remove THC from the CSA. There are other smaller studies from foreign universities getting similar results from both THC and CBD. Kentucky’s politicians should at least investigate economic impact of legalizing all things hemp and getting Congress to pass legislation to remove THC from the CSA and transfer it to the Agriculture Department. A toke, a sublingual dose, a brownie with THC a day does not an addict make. THC is no more harmful than coffee. But as everyone should know any substance can be harmful if done in excess. To single out THC as an exception to the rule is just government BS. CBD cream can be used as a topical pain reliever. Aspercream can be used similarly, but nobody is saying that it is addictive. Elected officials need to be asked, “Why are you supporting government BS when you have no proof?” And, “Why won’t Congress let American universities research cannabis to see if earlier and smaller studies can be replicated?” These questions need to be asked of politicians. —David Dunn, Sept. 23
