Dear Editor: Regarding the medical marijuana bill recently proposed in Tennessee discussed in "Marijuana legislation proposed" in Wednesday's Beacon, it was not the FDA that put marijuana into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, labeling it as unsuitable for medical use. That was done by Congress, not by any medical or scientific body. The power to change this classification lies with either Congress or the Drug Enforcement Administration -- once again, not scientists or doctors. As for claims that there is no evidence of marijuana's medical value, a great many medical and public health organizations have reviewed the evidence and come to the opposite conclusion. Organizations supporting legal access to marijuana for medical use include the American Public Health Association, American Nurses Association, American Academy of HIV Medicine and the state medical societies of New York, California and Rhode Island, among many others. [continues 69 words]
As the month began, the worldwide press jumped all over a study in the March issue of the journal Addiction purporting to show a causal link between marijuana use and psychosis. "Drug Doubles Mental Health Risk," the BBC reported. "Marijuana Increases Risk of Psychosis," the Washington Times chimed in. Such purported links have lately become the darling of prohibitionists, but a close look at the new study reveals gaping holes unmentioned in those definitive-sounding headlines. Before we look at the study itself, let's consider some basics: If X causes Y, it's reasonable to expect a huge increase in X to cause at least a modest increase in Y, but this has not been the case with marijuana and psychosis. Private and government surveys have documented a massive increase in marijuana use, particularly by young people, during the 1960s and '70s, but no corresponding increase in psychosis was ever reported. This strongly suggests that if marijuana use plays any role in triggering psychosis, that effect is weak, rare, or both. [continues 706 words]
To the Editor: Andrea Barthwell is not telling the truth when she calls medical marijuana "snake oil" and claims that permitting medical use by seriously ill patients would subvert the FDA's drug-approval process. ("Expert rails against medical marijuana," Feb. 10). The Illinois Nurses Association's official policy, available at http://www.illinoisnurses.org, states: "There is almost a half-century of research that supports the safety and efficacy of cannabis (marijuana) for conditions such as reducing nausea and vomiting, stimulating appetite, controlling spasticity, decreasing the suffering from the experience of chronic pain and controlling seizures." [continues 128 words]
Your story ("Metro must accept pro-marijuana ads," Metropolitan, Friday) about the Justice Department declining to appeal a court decision overturning a congressional amendment, which barred public transit systems from accepting paid ads supporting reform of laws regarding marijuana and other drugs -- misstated one key point: The ads that reform groups such as ours have attempted to place are not "pro-marijuana." They do not advocate use of marijuana or any other drug. They simply advocate reconsideration of marijuana laws that manifestly cause far more suffering and injury than marijuana itself. [continues 82 words]
Space does not allow me to refute all the distortions, misstatements and flat-out lies spouted by Stuart Hoffman in his January 6 interview [Re: 3rd Degree], so I will confine myself to one: Regarding Marinol, the prescription THC pill, Hoffman says, "Your body can't tell the difference if you take it in that form or whether you smoke a joint." That is simply false. Marinol must be taken orally, and the medical journal The Lancet Neurology has noted, "Oral administration is probably the least satisfactory route for cannabis," due to slow and uneven absorption and the inability of patients to control dosing. The 1999 White House-commissioned Institute of Medicine report on medical marijuana made the same point. [continues 149 words]
A couple of clarifications regarding Peter Carlson's excellent profile of Keith Stroup: First, no state ballot initiative to legalize medical use of marijuana has ever been defeated at the polls. All have passed overwhelmingly - the most recent being in November in Montana, where medical marijuana received 62 percent support, outpolling George W. Bush by three percentage points in this quintessential "red state." Second, while the Marijuana Policy Project does receive considerable support from Peter Lewis, our more than 18,000 members are the foundation of our organization. The financial support and volunteer efforts of this army of ordinary Americans have made possible a variety of accomplishments, including passage of medical marijuana laws in Montana and Vermont last year. Bruce Mirken Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington [end]
Friday's story on the Supreme Court medical marijuana case, "The fate of medical marijuana," misstated one key point. This case will not decide "whether states have the right to adopt" medical marijuana laws. The federal government has never challenged the right of states to pass such laws, and their validity is not at issue now. The only question before the court is whether these laws also give patients protection from enforcement of federal marijuana laws. If this sounds like a narrow distinction, remember that the federal government makes only one percent of all marijuana arrests; 99 percent are made by state and local police acting under state law. While 99 percent protection from arrest isn't perfect, it's a huge step forward for seriously ill patients. There is no danger of state medical marijuana laws being overturned, and states considering similar proposals do not need to worry that the federal government can somehow invalidate them. Bruce Mirken, director of communications, Marijuana Policy Project, Washington, D.C. [end]
The statement of Rep. Mark E. Souder, "If proponents of 'medical' marijuana truly believed that smoking the drug was safe and effective, they would have submitted their data to the FDA," is simply false. For the FDA to approve marijuana as a prescription medicine, the sponsoring company would have to do clinical trials using quality-controlled marijuana obtained from the same source that would provide it for sale should approval be granted. Federal rules make that impossible. Clinical research on marijuana must be done using marijuana obtained from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a notoriously low-quality crop that is not available for commercial sale. Bruce Mirken Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C. [end]
Your article on the Supreme Court medical marijuana case, Ashcroft vs. Raich ("Medicinal marijuana case before high court," Page A-7, Nov. 26), misstated one key point: This case will not decide "whether states have the right to adopt" medical marijuana laws. The federal government has never challenged the right of states to pass such laws, and their validity is not at issue now. The only question before the court is whether these laws also give patients protection from enforcement of federal marijuana laws. [continues 109 words]
Your story on the Supreme Court medical marijuana case, Ashcroft v. Raich ("High Court to decide fate of Hawaii's medical-pot laws," Nov. 26), misstated one key point: This case will not decide "whether states have the right to adopt" medical marijuana laws. The federal government has never challenged the right of states to pass such laws, and their validity is not at issue now. The only question before the court is whether these laws also give patients protection from enforcement of federal marijuana laws. [continues 99 words]
The writer is director of communications, Marijuana Policy Project. The Supreme Court medical marijuana case will not decide "whether states have the right to adopt" medical marijuana laws. The federal government has never challenged the right of states to pass such laws. The only question before the court is whether these laws also give patients protection from enforcement of federal marijuana laws. If this sounds like a narrow, technical distinction, remember that the federal government makes only 1 percent of all marijuana arrests; 99 percent are made by state and local police acting under state law. While 99 percent protection from arrest isn't perfect, it's a huge step forward for seriously ill patients. Bruce Mirken, Washington, D.C. [end]
Re "Cruel and irrational: A 55-year sentence for selling a few joints' worth?" (editorial, Nov. 19): "Cruel and irrational" is apt description of the 55-year sentence given to Weldon Angelos for selling two small packets of marijuana to an undercover officer. It is time to rethink the failed policy -- marijuana prohibition -- that produces punishments that make no rational sense. As director of communications, Marijuana Policy Project, I ask why, exactly, do we jail people who choose to unwind at the end of a day with a joint rather than a martini? Marijuana is well documented to be less addictive and less physically harmful than alcohol. Unlike liquor, marijuana has never been documented to cause a fatal overdose. [continues 67 words]
Seriously ill patients across America are celebrating the resignation of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Under his supervision, the Drug Enforcement Administration conducted a cruel and pointless war against patients with cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other terrible illnesses who found relief from medical marijuana when conventional medicines failed. It made no difference to Ashcroft that these patients were obeying the laws of their states, or that their use of medical marijuana was with the recommendation and guidance of their physicians. [continues 77 words]
Seriously ill patients across America are celebrating the resignation of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft ("Ashcroft, Evans quit Bush Cabinet," Page 1, yesterday). Under his supervision, the Drug Enforcement Administration conducted a cruel and pointless war against patients with cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other terrible illnesses who found relief from medical marijuana when conventional medicines failed. It made no difference to Mr. Ashcroft that these patients were obeying the laws of their states, or that their use of medical marijuana was with the recommendation and guidance of their physicians. During one particularly gruesome raid in September 2002, five DEA agents pointed automatic rifles at the head of a disabled woman, Suzanne Pfeil, then handcuffed her while they proceeded to ransack the medical-marijuana co-op where she was a patient. The departure of Mr. Ashcroft gives President Bush an opportunity to reconsider this war on medical-marijuana patients -- a war that has been rejected again and again by voters, most recently in Montana. Bruce Mirken Director of communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington [end]
To the Daily: Your story, A2 Voters Pass Initiative to Legalize Medical Marijuana (11/03/04), misstated the medical marijuana case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, Ashcroft v. Raich. That case cannot overturn Ann Arbor's new medical marijuana law, nor the 10 existing state medical marijuana laws. The right of states and cities to protect medical patients from arrest under their local laws has not been contested by the federal government and is not an issue in this case. While the court could give the federal government permission to resume enforcing federal marijuana laws against patients, it is important to remember that 99 percent of all marijuana arrests are made by state and local authorities under local laws. Even if the government prevails in Ashcroft v. Raich, overwhelming protection for patients will remain in place. Bruce Mirken The letter writer is the Director of Communications for the Marijuana Policy Project. [end]
Your otherwise excellent story last week about Proposition 2 ("If voters plant it, will it grow?") incorrectly characterized the Marijuana Policy Project as "a national pro-pot group." We are not "pro-pot." We do not recommend or advocate the use of any drug, including marijuana. Being against marijuana prohibition is not the same thing as being "pro-pot," just like the mothers who organized to repeal prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s were not "pro-booze." They simply recognized that prohibition was a deadly, destructive failure that increased the threat to their kids rather than reducing it. Three quarters of a century later, the same is true of marijuana prohibition. Bruce Mirken, communications director Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C. [end]
To the Daily: Prof. Lloyd Johnston's statements about medical marijuana laws are simply false (Medicinal pot use on A2 ballot, 09/23/04). Johnston asserts, "There has never been a real implementation of laws (to legalize medical marijuana) because the federal law always trumps the state laws, and state laws in turn trump local laws." In fact, not only are nine state medical marijuana laws in force and being implemented every day -- protecting tens and probably hundreds of thousands of patients from arrest by state and local police -- but federal courts have put severe limits on federal government attempts to undermine such laws. [continues 197 words]
Sen. Barbara Boxer's "record of votes and bills supporting just about every progressive cause" has one glaring gap: medical marijuana ["Looking for a Fight," Sept. 16]. In California, medical marijuana is a nonpartisan issue, supported by 74 percent of voters according to a January 2004 Field poll -- as well as every major candidate in last year's gubernatorial recall election, from Tom McClintock on the right to Peter Camejo on the left. But Barbara Boxer has been missing in action. [continues 176 words]
Nation's Drug Policies Are Misguided, Failing The Sept. 6 story, "City teens use pot more than U.S. peers" failed to note the proverbial elephant in the living room: If the goal is to discourage teen use of marijuana, our current policies have utterly failed. The same report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention referenced in the article also includes this alarming statistic: Nationwide, more teens are current smokers of marijuana than of cigarettes. At first, this seems astonishing: A substance that is completely banned is more widely used than one that is allowed - but regulated - for adults. [continues 85 words]
Despite the Feds' Positive Spin, a National Survey Shows That Drug Use Remains at Near-Record Levels. In a Sept. 9 press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson cheerfully trumpeted the "encouraging news that more American youths are getting the message that drugs are dangerous, including marijuana." Headlined "Nation's Youth Turning Away From Marijuana," the statement announced the results of the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). Thompson gave credit to President Bush, saying that stepped-up anti-drug efforts are "a cornerstone of his compassionate agenda." White House drug czar John Walters chimed in, declaring, "Young people are getting the message," particularly about marijuana. [continues 681 words]
House Speaker Dennis Hastert's recent claim that George Soros might be getting his fortune from drug cartels reveals his profound misunderstanding of the illegal drug market ("Soros blasts Hastert over drug allegation," Aug. 31). Did Al Capone campaign to end Prohibition? Of course not. Prohibition of alcohol is what made the bootleg liquor trade -- and its enormous profits for organized crime -- possible. Replacement of Prohibition with the current system of alcohol regulation put the bootleggers out of business, wiping out a huge source of wealth for gangsters and criminals. [continues 89 words]
A Report by Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse Ties Teen Sexual Behavior With Substance Abuse - a Conclusion Based Entirely On Sensationalism. While the war on drugs is primarily a government enterprise, federal drug warriors have plenty of allies at private think tanks. Perhaps the most prominent of these is Joseph Califano's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), located at Columbia University. CASA's latest report, issued Aug.19, is a profoundly strange document. More importantly, it is profoundly dishonest. [continues 744 words]
To clarify one point in Philip Dawdy's otherwise excellent piece "Mental Marijuana" [The Drug Issue, Aug. 18]: Despite federal government claims, marijuana need not have any respiratory side effects at all. Smoking has respiratory side effects, whether you're smoking tobacco, marijuana, or grass clippings--though marijuana, unlike tobacco, has never been shown to cause lung cancer. But marijuana need not be smoked to be used as medicine. It can be eaten, of course, but patients can obtain the fast action that makes smoking attractive by using relatively simple devices called vaporizers. Vaporizers allow the inhalation of the active components, called cannabinoids, with nearly none of the irritants in smoke. After much teeth-gnashing, the federal government has finally allowed one small vaporizer study to go forward, but a second proposed trial remains in bureaucratic purgatory. A cynic might think the feds didn't want to encourage development of safer ways of using medical marijuana. Bruce Mirken Director of Communications, Marijuana Policy Project Washington, DC [end]
Thank you for your eminently sensible editorial on marijuana laws. Indeed, the scientific data clearly show -- despite the hype from federal officials addicted to the drug war -- that marijuana is markedly less toxic and less addictive than alcohol. Still, any intoxicating substance can be harmful when used recklessly, and all agree that use by children should be discouraged. So what do we do? A strong case can be made that replacing the current policy of prohibition with regulation of adult use makes the most sense. While we are told that marijuana prohibition is necessary to "protect kids," recent figures from the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that more teens currently smoke marijuana than smoke cigarettes. At least in part, that's because regulated tobacco merchants can be fined or shut down if they sell to kids. Under prohibition, we have no such control over marijuana dealers. Bruce Mirken director of communications, Marijuana Policy Project San Francisco, Calif. [end]
Recently, the media have repeated dire warnings about alleged "super pot." In an attempt to frighten parents who may have dabbled in their day, our government claims that new strains of potent marijuana are far more dangerous than the innocuous grass of the 1960s or '70s. Many media reports repeat these claims uncritically. For example, a July 19 Reuters story warned, "Pot is no longer the gentle weed of the 1960s and may pose a greater threat than cocaine or even heroin." [continues 587 words]
The Drug Czar's New Anti-Drug Parenting Tips Blot Out the Truth With A Heavy Dose of Fear. From time to time, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (aka the drug czar's office) sends out friendly emails called "Anti-Drug Parenting Tips." The latest, sent July 14, urges parents to talk to their kids about drugs and includes a link to a set of guidelines for "making a case against pot." Apparently, our government believes that the way to keep teens off drugs is to lie to them. If parents stick to the White House script ( http://www.theantidrug.com/SchoolsOut/case_against.asp ) what they will teach their kids is that they can't trust a thing adults tell them. Let's examine a few of the White House's talking points: [continues 742 words]
Marshall Frankis column about the failure of drug prohibition made a number of important points ('Time to wake up and decriminalize drugs,' June 30). Here is one simple fact that illustrates the futility of current policies: According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more U.S. teens now smoke marijuana than smoke cigarettes. And while teen cigarette smoking is well below the level of a decade ago, teen marijuana use is up, and teens are reporting that cigarettes are becoming harder for underage kids to buy at stores or gas stations. [continues 55 words]
It is encouraging that Gov. George Pataki's spokesman indicates that the governor will review any medical marijuana legislation that reaches his desk with an open mind ("Medical marijuana bills gain support," June 17). As he does so, Pataki should consider the large and growing body of scientific evidence indicating that Marinol, the prescription pill containing THC, one of marijuana's active components, is not an adequate substitute for many patients. First, it is well documented that THC is not solely responsible for marijuana's medicinal benefits. Second, the fact that Marinol is only available in pill form is a major drawback. In a report commissioned by the White House, the Institute of Medicine noted, "It is well recognized that Marinol's oral route of administration hampers its effectiveness because of slow absorption and patients' desire for more control over dosing." Groups like the Medical Society of the State of New York support medical marijuana legislation because they understand that for many patients, marijuana is the best alternative. Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project San Francisco, Calif. [end]
To the Editor: The story of Rhonda O'Donnell's battle with multiple sclerosis and for legal access to medical marijuana was inspiring ("In pain, RN seeks legal relief from marijuana," June 17). The evidence that marijuana provides meaningful relief from the suffering caused by MS continues to grow. Last December, a British study showed that a marijuana extract provided relief from MS-related pain and muscle spasticity. A survey of Canadian MS patients reported in this month's issue of the journal "Neurology" found that one out of seven used marijuana for treatment of symptoms. Patients reported relief of pain, muscle spasms, stiffness and sleep disturbances. [continues 72 words]
To the Editor: Your story, "Marijuana more addictive than many believe" (June 9, Northwest Herald), failed to give readers the full picture. In particular, it failed to note scientific doubts about the Journal of the American Medical Association article purporting to show an increase in marijuana abuse or dependence caused by increased "potency." The article notes that people can be classified as "abusers" if they experience "legal problems related to marijuana use." FBI arrest data shows that during the period of the study, marijuana arrests skyrocketed from fewer than 300,000 in 1991 to well more than 700,000 in 2001. [continues 125 words]
Apparently, congressman Dennis Cardoza is even more out of touch than we thought. Cardoza's spokesman said, "Like most Americans ... Congressman Cardoza does not believe the use of marijuana for 'medicinal' purposes should be legal." We're not sure what planet Mr. Cardoza inhabits, but here on Earth, support for medical marijuana is overwhelming. A national CNN/Time poll taken in October 2002 found 80 percent public support for allowing adults to legally use marijuana for medical purposes. This January, a California Field poll found 74 percent support -- a sharp increase from the 56 percent who voted for Proposition 215 in 1996. Both of these polls -- and many others showing strong public support for medical marijuana -- have been widely publicized. Perhaps Rep. Cardoza just doesn't care what his constituents think. Bruce Mirken Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project [end]
Apparently, congressman Dennis Cardoza is even more out of touch than we thought. Cardoza's spokesman said, "Like most Americans ... Congressman Cardoza does not believe the use of marijuana for 'medicinal' purposes should be legal." We're not sure what planet Mr. Cardoza inhabits, but here on Earth, support for medical marijuana is overwhelming. A national CNN/Time poll taken in October 2002 found 80 percent public support for allowing adults to legally use marijuana for medical purposes. This January, a California Field poll found 74 percent support -- a sharp increase from the 56 percent who voted for Proposition 215 in 1996. Both of these polls -- and many others showing strong public support for medical marijuana -- have been widely publicized. Perhaps Rep. Cardoza just doesn't care what his constituents think. Bruce Mirken Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project San Francisco [end]
We always love to get a mention in the Mercury and hate to complain, but it really is not accurate to refer to the Marijuana Policy Project as "pro-pot" [Quick and Dirty, "Pro-pot Forces Have Eye on Court Ruling," May 6]. We are not pro-pot; we're anti-jail. They are not the same thing. We don't endorse or encourage the use of any drug, period. We just don't think that adults who choose to use marijuana in a way that doesn't harm others should risk arrest and jail. We approach the issue much like the moms who rallied to repeal Prohibition in the 1920s. They were not "pro-booze," they simply saw that prohibition was a destructive failure that put their kids in danger. [continues 161 words]
It is disappointing that The Post chose to make an editorial point about an important issue -- gerrymandering and noncompetitive elections -- by seeming to trivialize another important issue ("The Court Punts," May 1). "If medical marijuana can be made into a national cause using state ballot initiatives, surely democracy itself could muster a few votes," the editorial said, implying that medical marijuana is not of the same level of concern. That may seem to be the case within the cloistered confines of the Beltway. But out in the real world, we hear every day from real patients in real pain -- people fighting for their lives against cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis or other terrible illnesses and facing arrest and jail for simply trying to survive and relieve a little bit of their suffering. We think those people deserve to be heard. Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington [end]
On May 5, newspapers and news broadcasts around the country carried alarming stories about a new study of marijuana, published in that day's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. "Stronger marijuana makes more addicted," screamed the Los Angeles Daily News. "Abuse and dependence rise as pot becomes more potent," headlined the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Rising marijuana potency, the stories claimed, was leading more Americans to become addicted to the devil weed. Small problem: The theory that pot that is more potent is getting people hooked is almost certainly wrong. But none of the newspaper stories gave the slightest hint that might be the case. [continues 506 words]
The claim in your editorial that the medical benefits of marijuana are "purely speculative" is incorrect ("Marijuana too risky for pediatric care," CT, April 21). In a 1999 study commissioned by the White House, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences concluded, "Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana." Dozens of scientific studies document that marijuana and its active components, called cannabinoids, can relieve nausea, muscle spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis and pain from a variety of causes - -- including pain that is refractory to standard treatments. In an April 2003 review of the data, The Lancet Neurology noted, "Cannabinoids inhibit pain in virtually every experimental pain paradigm." [continues 115 words]
Calvin Trent of the Partnership for a Drug-Free Detroit appears to be deeply confused about medical marijuana ("Pot, Pain and Politics," Metro Times, April 7). He says his reason for opposing the medical marijuana initiative is that "we're against smoking," but surely an expert on drug abuse knows that marijuana need not be smoked to be used as medicine. Simple devices called vaporizers give patients the fast action and dose control they need (and which are major advantages of smoking as opposed to oral ingestion of either marijuana or Marinol) while eliminating nearly all of the irritants in the smoke. [continues 94 words]
Re: Censoring The Truth In The War On Drugs, Jonathan Kay, April 2. As an American, I can only wish that my country's political leaders were capable of the sort of sober, factual assessment of the "War on Drugs" that Mr. Kay offered in his column. But it is important to know that a growing number of U.S. conservatives do question current policies, particularly in regards to marijuana. Conservative icons like William F. Buckley Jr. and economist Milton Friedman have long questioned the wisdom of arresting and jailing responsible, adult marijuana users, especially seriously ill patients who use the drug for relief of pain or nausea. A number of other prominent conservatives, like former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, Republican U.S. Representative Ron Paul of Texas and columnist Deroy Murdock, have expressed similar views. These and many other principled conservatives recognize that prohibition has caused great damage to civil liberties and states' autonomy while miserably failing to curb marijuana use. Alas, their views remain unrepresented within the Bush administration. Bruce Mirken, director of communications, Marijuana Policy Project, Washington, D.C. [end]
For a long time many of us have puzzled over why overwhelming public support for legal access to medical marijuana has not translated into legislative action. A new Zogby poll conducted in Vermont and Rhode Island, released March 29, may have solved the mystery. Every time medical marijuana has been on a state or local ballot it has passed overwhelmingly - most recently by 83 percent to 17 percent in Burlington, Vermont this March 2. State and national polls consistently show support levels ranging from 60 percent up to 80 percent or higher. This support comes from virtually all segments of the electorate: Young and old, liberal, and conservative, rich and poor, Republican, Democrat or independent. [continues 422 words]
From Bruce Mirken, director of communications, Marijuana Policy Project: Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) spokesman Tom Riley gets points for chutzpah, if nothing else, for saying it is "an absurd notion that the federal government is turning a blind eye to [marijuana-derived medicines]" ("New drug could affect debate on medical pot," Feb. 24). In the February issue of Fast Company magazine, ONDCP Deputy Director Andrea Barthwell is quoted as saying that marijuana-based medicines like GW Pharmaceuticals' Sativex are not "a serious line of research. . Marijuana is a crude plant product that is definitely not a medicine." [continues 123 words]
Regarding "Parents Are Still The Best Antidrug" (Our Opinion, Feb. 22): Parents should talk honestly with their teenagers about drugs. The key word here is "honestly," and sadly, the White House ad campaign referred to in your editorial distorts and exaggerates the dangers of marijuana. "Smoking pot can affect the brain," the ad warns darkly. So can drinking coffee or Coca- Cola, both of which contain a central nervous system stimulant - caffeine. And, the evidence shows little or no long-term harm to the brain from smoking marijuana. You would never know that from these ads. [continues 66 words]
There is an important distinction between the Democratic presidential candidates not mentioned in your endorsement piece ["Endorsements," 2/18/04]: The Bush Justice Department has conducted a series of raids that have terrorized medical marijuana patients and caregivers throughout California. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has said it would be "irresponsible" to end these raids, apparently seeing no problem with Drug Enforcement Administration agents pointing automatic rifles at sick and dying people. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has pledged to end the raids, and at least indicated an open mind toward changing federal law to permit medical use of marijuana -- not as strong a stand as some of us might like, but a vast improvement over the policies of George W. Bush, or of President Clinton before him. Ohio representative Dennis Kucinich has gone even further, saying he supports medical marijuana "without reservation" and would immediately act to end the federal war on the sick. A full guide to the candidates' positions on medical marijuana (including candidates who have now dropped out) is available at www.mpp.org/candidates/home. Bruce Mirken, Director of communications Marijuana Policy Project San Francisco [end]
Andrea Barthwell of the White House Drug Czar's office continues to spread misinformation about marijuana. Barthwell's biggest whopper: "The people that have this [medical marijuana] as an agenda are not concerned for the sick or dying." Barthwell knows full well that legal access to medical marijuana is supported by the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Academy of HIV Medicine and hundreds of other medical and public health organizations. To claim that these groups don't care about the sick and dying is a reprehensible lie. [continues 75 words]
It is disheartening to think that Canadian authorities could become a party to what might literally be a death sentence for Steve Kubby (NOW, January 29-February 4). However, there are small glimmers of hope on the southern side of the U.S.-Canada border. Most encouraging is the fact that U.S. courts are increasingly making it clear that U.S. drug czar John Walters and his colleagues in the Bush administration have no authority to "nullify" state medical marijuana laws. [continues 104 words]
The sensible criticisms leveled by John Hieger against the D.A.R.E. program ("Get Real: Misguided drug policies ignore common sense," NEXT, Feb. 7) can also be leveled against the billion-dollar boondoggle that is the White House's "anti-drug media campaign." These TV and print ads, produced by the White House drug czar's office, have put heavy emphasis on marijuana, often wildly exaggerating the risks of a drug that has never, ever caused a fatal overdose. These ads have said little or nothing about the risks of far more toxic and addictive substances, such as cocaine, methamphetamine and alcohol. Kids could easily draw the impression from these ads that marijuana is more dangerous than these other drugs -- and be misled into a fatal mistake. We owe our kids the truth. Nothing else is good enough. Bruce Mirken , director of communications Marijuana Policy Project, Washington, D.C. [end]
Philip Terzian is right to be concerned about the federal government's zealous prosecution of physicians who treat pain ("The War on Drugs hurts," column, Dec. 31). Unfortunately, the targeting of doctors who prescribe OxyContin is just one facet of this misguided policy. Another is the irrational federal war on medical marijuana. Last April, The Lancet Neurology noted that marijuana's active components have been shown to be effective against pain in virtually every experimental test of pain relief that scientists have devised. Medical organizations and journals such as the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association and The New England Journal of Medicine have called for a change in federal policy. [continues 69 words]
Re: "A war on drugs or a war on healing?" by Philip Terzian (syndicated column, Jan. 5). Terzian is right to be concerned about the federal government's zealous prosecutions of physicians who treat pain. Unfortunately, the targeting of doctors who prescribe OxyContin is just one facet of this misguided policy. Another is the irrational federal war on medical marijuana. Marijuana's active components have been shown to be effective against pain in virtually every experimental test of pain relief scientists have devised. Medical organizations and journals such as the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association and the New England Journal of Medicine have called for a change in federal policy. [continues 62 words]
Re: Softer Marijuana Law Worries Partsmakers, Dec. 11. Windsor-based auto parts makers fearing they will be subject to some sort of draconian quarantine should Canada soften its marijuana laws might assuage their fears with a four-hour drive to the east. There, they will find the state of New York, which for well over two decades has had marijuana laws considerably more liberal than the law proposed by the Canadian government. New York stopped jailing marijuana users in the 1970s, and maintains fines for marijuana possession lower than those now being contemplated in Canada. And yet New York's borders are not sealed off for fear that some New York cannabis will be smuggled into Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont -- or Ontario, for that matter. Indeed, New York actually has lower rates of youth and adult marijuana use than nearly all of its neighbouring U.S. states. U.S. government officials, desperate not to be the last regime fighting a futile war against marijuana users, are spreading fear and misinformation as rapidly as they can. Do what sensible Americans do: ignore them. Bruce Mirken Director of Communications, Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C. [end]
Howard Dean, who as Vermont governor killed a medical marijuana bill modeled on the successful laws of eight states, continues to put out misleading spin on the issue ("Candidate Howard Dean Campaigns at Sidetrack," Dec. 10). Dean said he wants the FDA and NIH to "review the studies that have already been done" to "make sure [marijuana] works." But just such a review was commissioned by the White House six years ago and published by the Institute of Medicine in 1999. The IOM's report concluded, "Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety ... all can be mitigated by marijuana." [continues 116 words]
Two weeks ago, Judge A. Howard Matz demonstrated justice and compassion in refusing to send Los Angeles medical marijuana defendant Scott Imler to jail for helping the sick. But most such acts of mercy could soon be illegal. ["Street," Dec. 4.] U.S. Rep. Mark Souder (D-In.), chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees drug policy, is now seeking co-sponsors for the "Drug Sentencing Reform Act." This bill would sharply limit the ability of judges like Matz to show mercy to defendants in drug cases, including medical marijuana cases. Indeed, the measure would treat medical marijuana providers like Imler as worse than child molesters under federal law. [continues 92 words]
