Pubdate: Sun, 17 Sep 2000
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2000 The Denver Post
Contact:  1560 Broadway, Denver, CO 80202
Fax: (303) 820.1502
Website: http://www.denverpost.com/
Forum: http://www.denverpost.com/voice/voice.htm
Author: Karla Miller, John Wenzel, Peter Bridge, Debra Busse, Carol
Smith, Frederick Schilling

MEDICAL MARIJUANA
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TREAT IT LIKE MEDICINE

The primary drawback of Amendment 20 is the spawning of a new bureaucracy 
for drug regulation. The idea of regulating distribution of marijuana more 
stringently than the distribution of morphine is preposterous. Surely a 
system that can handle the distribution of a dangerous, highly addictive 
drug like morphine is already adequate to deal with marijuana. If it's 
medicine, treat it like medicine. I'm baffled that a society so eager to 
drug its children with Ritalin and Prozac could possibly object to this 
medical use.

KARLA MILLER Lafayette
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OVERUSED RHETORIC

I am a new resident to the state, so I have not seen the advertisements for 
or against Amendment 20.

However, I feel that, from a logical standpoint, Martin Chilcutt and Chris 
Ott's "pro" argument was far more compelling than Michael J. Norton's 
"con." Norton fails to provide any details as to why medicinal use of 
marijuana actually will be physically harmful. The argument that it hurts 
the immune system of those with already low immune systems would seem a 
cost far outweighed by the benefits.

He stands behind the vague, overused rhetoric that it is a threat to the 
"children" and "families" of Colorado. How? In the "pro" argument, it's 
stated that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (specifically the 
Institute of Medicine) concluded that marijuana is "neither addictive nor a 
gateway drug." If that is so, how is it any more of a threat than 
legalized, culturally sanctioned drugs like nicotine and alcohol?

Finally, I find it irresponsible of Norton to assert that "California-based 
promarijuana backers" just want to legalize all drugs in Colorado ( 
"marijuana, cocaine, the rest''). Where is his evidence for that? If he 
weren't so well spoken, I'd almost guess he was using scare tactics. There 
is no logical connection between legalized medicinal marijuana and the 
legalization of cocaine, or "the rest" of the currently illegal drugs.

I, for one, am going to vote for Amendment 20 in November, and not because 
I want to see marijuana legalized everywhere. I see no drawbacks to its 
medicinal use. Indeed, how is it any more harmful (as Chilcutt noted) than 
already prescribed, incredibly addictive drugs like morphine? I think 
Norton would have a hard time answering this. His vague rhetoric and scare 
tactics just don't stand up to Chilcutt's inarguable facts.

JOHN WENZEL Littleton
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEST FOR PATIENTS

I continue to be astonished that any controversy exists regarding the 
matter of medical marijuana.

Michael J. Norton's disingenuous arguments in opposition consistently 
failed, almost all for the same reason: He could make the identical 
arguments to oppose the distribution of virtually all prescription 
medications. Medically prescribed marijuana sends "a dangerous message to 
our children," that "good medicine must be OK for kids, too''? I trust and 
assume that Norton does not apply this standard to the "good medicines," 
including commonly prescribed narcotics, many of which, by the way, offer a 
significant danger of abuse and addiction if not responsibly administered. 
I don't think that anyone argues that if those substances are good 
medicine, then they must be good for children! Medical marijuana presents a 
danger in the work place? Then I am sure, Mr. Norton, that you wish to make 
immediately illegal and unavailable the myriad of prescription drugs which 
carry a warning label regarding the operation of vehicles or heavy machinery.

One issue of legitimate concern was raised by Norton: Patients who have 
been prescribed marijuana by their treating physicians most certainly 
should not have to seek out illegal sources for its purchase.

Perhaps I am naive or old-fashioned, but I still believe that physicians 
are obligated to have the best interests of their patients in mind when 
prescribing a course of medical treatment. In any given situation, one 
physician might prescribe one medication and another might prescribe 
another. Professional judgment is applied. If a trained, competent, 
licensed medical doctor feels that prescription marijuana is the 
appropriate course of treatment for a given affliction, who does Norton 
think he is to question that professional conclusion, or to block the 
availability of the medication?

PETER BRIDGE Thornton
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OTHER "DRUG' ABUSES

I guess the first suggestion would be to listen to the patients, and not 
just the ones that make the local news. I mean patients from all over and 
family members of these patients. They will tell you that, in some cases, 
the people they love cannot eat due to radiation therapy and the loss of 
weight is dangerous. Marijuana increases appetite for these individuals, 
and relieves pain in the process. It strikes me as disgusting that we will 
allow fetuses to be dissected for experimental purposes to help with 
diseases, but something that is grown naturally and has been around forever 
cannot seem to get funding for testing and Federal Drug Administration 
approval. We already know it does help some; why not investigate further 
why it does help?

Some of our best drugs are derivatives from other forms of herbs, so why 
not this one?

Of course the American Medical Association and others wouldn't go for this 
testing. Why? Because of the almighty dollar. Pressure from drug companies 
would be enormous - think of the money they will lose on all the different 
drugs they sell if marijuana was proven to have great healing qualities.

You talk of our children and how they will think this is OK. Well, what of 
alcohol abuse in this country? Our children manage to find it, even though 
it's only legal for those 21 and over.

This is all about money - who will lose it and who will gain. God forbid 
that any of us have a family member who is dying and is in pain and we have 
to find out for ourselves what helps them and does not.

DEBRA BUSSE Aurora
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOME NEED THE HELP

Michael Norton's article is very distressing. His is just another voice 
telling the state that disabled people are "less" than everyone else. Also, 
I have a problem with Norton telling me that he should have the right to 
govern how I manage my multiple sclerosis.

I believe that the people of Colorado are simply asking for another option 
when it comes to managing their illnesses. Norton implies that our symptoms 
are purely imagined. I suffer every day, but I do it smiling. There are so 
many people who are not as strong as I am. If medical marijuana can help 
them, then they should have the right to use it.

Mr. Norton, serious illness is very difficult. Some of us are heroes, and 
some of us need more help. Who are you to decide?

CAROL SMITH Pueblo
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MONEY VS. MORALS

I am not a pot smoker, yet couldn't agree with Michael Norton's point at 
all. There are people who exist in this nation who do not want to put 
pharmaceuticals into their bodies, and I am one of these people. Doctors 
may say there are more effective drugs, yet what are the side effects? I've 
witnessed drug companies come to hospitals to "sell" their wonder drugs, 
complete with catered lunches and perks. So of course the physicians will 
push the pills, especially if they're receiving "kickbacks" from these drug 
companies.

Money speaks louder than morals in this society. And the pharmaceutical 
companies are screaming the loudest!

FREDERICK SCHILLING Boulder
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart