In Pete Wallstrom's guest opinion (March 23) he identifies himself as part of the "environmental community," yet he acknowledges his ironic stance as an avid skier.

In Pete Wallstrom's guest opinion (March 23) he identifies himself as part of the "environmental community," yet he acknowledges his ironic stance as an avid skier.

As such, he is willing to drive up the mountain in his fossil fuel- consuming vehicle, and also to take advantage of ski lifts that literally guzzle fossil fuels (indirectly through huge amounts of electricity, which is generated by burning fossil fuels). I don't fault him for his love of skiing; on the other hand, forgive me for pointing out the obvious. The air this winter was a little cleaner because he and others didn't make the drive up the mountain. — Maureen Stewart, Medford

Corporations, as state-chartered (birthed) property, are primarily organized to make money. However, a misguided Supreme Court, misinterpreting the First, Fourth, Fifth, 14th and 15th Constitutional Amendments, has given corporations legal rights that were meant for humans, essentially saying, as a recent also-misguided and (thankfully) unsuccessful Republican presidential candidate often stated, "corporations are people." This must be changed! — Don Chapin, Talent

Please help me understand why the federal government for the most part prohibits selective logging after a forest fire or a beetle kill.

From what the experts say there is only a limited time after an event that the timber has commercial value. One does not have to drive too far in Oregon to see the aftermath of a fire or the dead trees ravaged by bark beetles.

I would much rather see the effects of a planned thinning project and removal of dried tinder from the forests or an eradication of beetles rather than the barren, denuded lands where emerald green forests once stood. The Gearhart Wilderness area east of Klamath Falls is a perfect example. At the very least we should be able to remove the dead timber before it is no longer usable.

Would some informed government employee provide me with logical answers to my concerns? — Chuck Gates, Medford

Whereas, the State of Oregon has seen fit to accord its citizens the opportunity to establish dispensaries to accommodate the needs of medical marijuana patients, and

Whereas, certain local authorities, acting for their own purposes and against the needs of the populace, have taken steps to deny the citizenry the opportunity accorded by the state,

Therefore, it is proposed that the following be adopted by the citizens of the State of Oregon as an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Oregon:

Section 1: The right of the people to cultivate, grow, harvest, buy, sell, and consume marijuana shall not be infringed;

Section 2: The right above recognized is just that, a right, and not a privilege, and as such cannot be licensed, taxed, or regulated in any fashion by the state of Oregon nor any political subdivision thereof. — Jim Andrews, Medford