Dear Editor:

I believe Mr. Thaler totally missed the point and the message that Mr.Johnson was making regarding the issues surrounding the death of John McCusker. Mr. Johnson is one of the first leaders in our community to step up and start discussing the negative effects crystal meth has had on the community. He was talking about this issue when no one else would.

At no time has Mr. Johnson ever said that crystal meth or other drug use to be a positive thing that we should embrace. What he has encouraged is dialogue about the issue so those using did not have to hide anymore and could start reaching out for support without shame or judgment.

It is crucial that as a community we continue talking about this issue and allow safe environments for those who are using to start addressing their use and the negative effects it is having on their life.

It really saddens me when I read words such as those by Mr. Thaler. It is this type of judgment and criticism that actually keeps people from seeking help in the first place. The first step to recovery is being open with others about drug use. No one will be open about their use if they are going to be shamed and put down in the process.

Every gay man and woman has experienced shame, judgment and criticism by the larger culture which has only caused pain and hurt. In order to get people off of crystal meth and leading a healthier lifestyle we as a community can not fill them with shame and judgment. We need to embrace them with love, understanding and compassion in order for them to feel supported to make the changes needed.

Live today with compassion.

Tom Wall

Dear Editor:

It always amazes me that people are continually searching for some biological cause of gayness, when we don’t even know the biological cause of heterosexuality.

We do know, however, the ENVIRONMENTAL causes of heterosexuality, such as the enormous effort that societies put into shaping children from birth to be “gender appropriate” and heterosexual. From day one, and every day after, there are familial pressures and institutionalized shaping all around to make us all be in one of two discrete categories: a straight feminine female or a straight masculine male. If heterosexuality is so normal and automatic that we need to find a “gay gene” to account for aberrations, why do we need to put so much effort into shaping people to look and act “appropriately”? But one thing is sure: such environmental influences represent a huge, uncontrolled variable in this biological research.

Besides assuming that environment plays no role in our sexual orientations, the search for a biological cause of gayness, by examining only self-acknowledged and publicly “out” gays, assumes that all people with this supposed gene actively express the gene. And yet, we know that sexuality is on a continuum; most people aren’t 100% gay or straight, but fall somewhere in between, even if they only act on socially approved attractions. Should the scientists ever identify this gene, it will doubtless also be found in many bisexuals and heterosexuals - especially since it’s heterosexuals who pass on this supposed gene.

So there are many people on the “sexuality continuum” who never act on their feelings. They may feel some same-gender attractions but they repress them. Because they don’t act on their desires, they won’t be in the “gay” sample chosen for study. There are also very closeted gay people who would not ordinarily be noticed and therefore would never be included in this type of study.

Therefore, a study which only examines self-acknowledged and publicly “out” gays is using a sample which is not representative of the whole “community”. Any conclusions drawn could not be deemed representative of “gays” in general. The conclusions would have to apply just to gays who are “out” to the public and to themselves; rather than being a generalization about gays in general, the conclusions would refer to people who publicly act on same-gender attractions as opposed to those who don’t.

So maybe the question should be reframed - instead of asking “what biological variables cause one to be gay?”, we should be asking “what biological variables cause one to have the inner strength to explore their own sexuality and resist continual societal shaping?” It seems a much more accurate and positive way to frame the situation.

Carol Scherbaum

Dear Editor:

I thank Nicole for his apparently insightful thoughts on District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis in his social column. But the the truth is she violating her oath of office when she refuses to bring charges against the miscreants at the old San Diego Data Processing Corporation.

She is covering up Council Member Madaffer’s involvement in scams that cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars. The data are there and it’s time the DA acted as a prosecutor.

Ian Trowbridge

Dear Editor:

Dead men can’t defend themselves! Yes, last weeks cover popped butt your lead article (J. McCusker’s Autopsy) pooped!

Your over indulgent article is not news. It is words and numbers that together insight viscous innuendo. Informs, NO. Titalate, YES.

I mean, who really cares? Oh yeah I forgot about those small minded snippy sinister sisters that every gay community has. (RE. Tom Gary’s letter to the editor)

This gentleman (J. McCusker), whom I have never met, had drugs in his system, so what! Good god he ran a nightclub. Those in the nose know drugs are an occupation hazard (I can bet you a quarter right now an employee at the Hotel Del just did a line!!)

He had multiple drugs without a prescription and proper containers. Hey who doesn’t when they go on trips?

Your article reminds me of that “20-20” news magazine newscast about Matthew Shepard. It claimed he knew he was HIV Positive, had a death wish and set in motion his demise by setting up those murderers to kill him.

My point is these revelations aren’t newsworthy butt are only for purposes of sinsationalism.

Dead gentlemen cannot defend themselves. Shame on you!!

D. Tourtellotte