Dear Editor,
One reason to stop caging responsible adult humans
for using the relatively safe God-given plant cannabis
(kaneh bosm/marijuana) that doesn’t get mentioned (“Is
medical marijuana a big deal?” Nov. 5, 2007) is because
it is biblically correct since Christ God Our Father, The
Ecologician, indicates he created all the seed-bearing
plants, saying they are all good, on literally the very first
page (see Genesis 1:11-12 and 29-30). The only Biblical
restriction placed on cannabis is that it is to be accepted
with thankfulness (see 1 Timothy 4:1-5).
Truthfully,
Stan White
Dillon, Colo.
I suggest a simpler law that would get back to basics.
Educational institutions should require their students to
do their homework before they write editorials.
The points missed in this case include the following:
1) The U.S. federal government already distributes
marijuana as a medicine to a number of people. They
do that because some of those patients went to court
and proved to a legal certainty that marijuana is the only
medicine suitable for their needs.
2) Statements about there not being enough research
are signs of abject ignorance. Every major government
commission report on drug policy in the last 100 years
has concluded that the marijuana laws were based on
racism, ignorance and nonsense. They all said the laws
should have been repealed long ago because they do more harm than good. You
can read them at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs
and Drug Policy.
3) The AMA takes the stance it does primarily because doctors have learned not
to cross the federal government on issues of reefer madness. This policy started
in 1925 when doctors were systematically attacked for prescribing opiates – after
the Federal Bureau of Narcotics had lost a major Supreme Court case saying it
had no business interfering in the practice of medicine. (See http://druglibrary.
org/special/king/king1/htm.) In more recent years, it has sought to pull the medical
licenses of doctors who even discuss pot with their patients.
4) Marijuana is in Schedule I, but the primary active ingredient is in Schedule
III. How does that make sense?
5) The problem is not that the research has not been well publicized. The
major government commission reports have been on the Internet for more than
10 years, with a dedicated team of people bringing these to the attention of
public officials. The problem is deliberate ignorance – the people who support
marijuana prohibition flatly refuse to read. Test it yourself. Tell some of these
drug warriors about the major studies on the Internet. They will give you every
excuse in the world why they won’t read – but they just won’t read. The problem
is really bigotry.
Clifford A. Schaffer
Director, Schaffer Library of Drug Policy
Agua Dulce, Calif.
Dear Editor,
Regarding the Nov. 5 editorial “Is medical marijuana a big deal?”, if health
outcomes determined drug laws instead of cultural norms, marijuana would be
legal. Unlike alcohol, marijuana has never been shown to cause an overdose death,
nor does it share the addictive properties of tobacco. Like any drug, marijuana
can be harmful if abused, but jail cells are inappropriate as health interventions
and ineffective as deterrents.
The first marijuana laws were enacted in response to Mexican immigration during
the early 1900s, despite opposition from the American Medical Association. Dire
warnings that marijuana inspires homicidal rages have been counterproductive at
best. White Americans did not even begin to smoke pot until a soon-to-be entrenched
government bureaucracy began funding reefer madness propaganda.
By raiding voter-approved medical marijuana providers in California, the very
same U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration that claims illicit drug use funds
terrorism is forcing cancer and AIDS patients into the hands of street dealers.
Apparently, marijuana prohibition is more important than protecting the country
from terrorism. Students who want to help end the intergenerational culture war
otherwise known as the war on some drugs should contact Students for Sensible
Drug Policy at www.SchoolsNotPrisons.com.
Sincerely,
Robert Sharpe, M.P.A.
Policy Analyst, Common Sense for Drug Policy
Washington, D.C.
To the Editor,
As the author of the recent publication, “Emerging Clinical Applications for
Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review of the Scientific Literature,” I am disappointed
that Rachel Vamenta’s Nov. 5 commentary makes no reference to the
substantial body of emerging science supporting the medical use of cannabis.
While writing this booklet, I reviewed more than 150 clinical and preclinical
studies assessing the therapeutic value of cannabis and its active compounds to
treat symptoms – and in some cases, moderate disease progressions – in a variety
of illnesses, including multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, osteoporosis, diabetes and
Lou Gehrig’s disease. Nearly all of the studies cited in my work were published
within the past six years.
Additional scientific studies are being published in peer-reviewed journals
everyday. For example, a recent review by investigators at the National Institutes of
Health (“The endocannabinoid system as an emerging target of pharmacotherapy,”
Pharmacology Today) reported that compounds in pot “hold therapeutic promise
in a wide range of disparate diseases and pathological conditions,” including
movement disorders, mental disorders and cardiovascular disorders.
This February, investigators at San Francisco General Hospital and the University
of California’s Pain Clinical Research Center assessed the efficacy of inhaled cannabis
as a treatment for HIV-associated sensory neuropathy. Writing in the journal
Neurology, researchers reported that patients who smoked low-grade cannabis
three times daily experienced, on average, a 34 percent reduction in pain.
Investigators at Columbia University in New York published clinical trial data
in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes this summer that concluded,
“Smoked marijuana has a clear medical benefit in HIV-positive (patients)
by increasing food intake and improving mood and objective and subjective sleep
measures.” Researchers in the study compared the efficacy of inhaled cannabis
to the Marinol a synthetic form of THC, but reported that the prescription pill
was far less effective. In fact, patients in the study required eight times the daily
recommended dose of Marinol to achieve the same therapeutic benefits provided
by just a few puffs of weed, researchers reported.
Finally, last month an investigative team at Trinity College in Ireland proclaimed
in the British Journal of Pharmacology that pot-based therapies may offer greater
hopes for staving off Alzheimer’s disease than do existing pharmaceutical therapies
(“Alzheimer’s disease: Taking the edge off with cannabinoids?”). Researchers wrote,
“Cannabinoids offer a multifaceted approach for the treatment of Alzheimer’s
disease by providing neurotrophin expression and enhancing neurogenesis (the
formation of new brain cells).” Can somebody please name another plant with
the power to achieve all this?
Finally, unlike Ms. Vamenta, I frequently interact with medical marijuana
patients. Many of them write to me daily, as do their physicians. Often they tell
me stories like this:
“I was recently diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor inside the left temporal
lobe of my brain. I had surgery, and I’ve just started chemotherapy and radiation.
The surgeon actually apologized for the fact that he could not write me a
prescription for marijuana, but he told me it was safe to smoke. My prescriptions
make me very dizzy and nauseous, and I have ever-present headaches that top
any of the worst hangover headaches anyone could possibly have. My brain is
still so badly swollen. The swelling has actually gotten worse and is exacerbated
by the radiation. Marijuana is saving my life right now; it has helped to kill my
seizures, nausea, dizziness and calm my headaches.
If marijuana can help me with all my other problems in addition to possibly
reducing the size of my tumor and extending my life, then why on earth would
our government not allow me to have it?”
Why indeed? Perhaps we should ask the Times’ opinion editor.
Paul Armentano
Senior Policy Analyst, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana
Laws
Washington, D.C.
To the Editor,
As a retired police officer and student of history, I would ask Ms. Vamenta to
do some research on the topic of marijuana prohibition. It has been the unwritten
policy of the federal government to allow no research to prove that marijuana
is an effective, low side-effect, low-cost medicine. They know from reading the
medical journals prior to 1937 and overwhelming anecdotal evidence that God
didn’t make no junk. When the Texas Legislature in 1919 prohibited the sale of
cannabis, they made an exception for both human and animal use. Ms. Vamenta
should learn that when cannabis is legal for medical reasons, the pharmaceutical
industry will lose between 1 and 5 percent of its $640 billion gross sales. Follow
the money, Ms. Vamenta, follow the money.
Officer Howard J. Wooldridge
Education Specialist, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Washington, D.C.