It is unclear what Torrance would gain from an ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensaries ("Torrance city council fails to block marijuana," Thursday). Do the mayor and council members really believe that patients suffering from cancer, multiple sclerosis or chronic pain are better off getting their medicine on the street? The courts have repeatedly made clear that state and local governments are not obligated to enforce federal laws -- and it's hard to imagine a federal law more wrongheaded than one that criminalizes patients fighting disabling, life-threatening illnesses for simply seeking relief. [continues 59 words]
Re: The real dope on marijuana, June 29. Thank you for your eminently sensible editorial noting the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the statements on marijuana in the new UN World Drug Report. As an American, I am disturbed to see my government's fact-challenged obsession with marijuana infecting international bodies, which should know better. The data are actually beyond question: Marijuana is not only less addictive than alcohol, it's far less toxic and in orders of magnitude less likely to provoke violence or aggression. When national and international policy on drugs is driven by ideology rather than science, everyone suffers. Bruce Mirken, Washington Marijuana policy project [end]
The White House's War on Drugs Is Off the Mark Last year, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy ran an ad in newspapers around the country, warning parents, "Quite a few people think that smoking pot is less likely to cause cancer than a regular cigarette. "You may even have heard some parents say they'd rather their kid smoked a little pot than get hooked on cigarettes. Wrong, and wrong again." The same message was included in a television spot aimed at young people, titled "Four Cigarettes." [continues 353 words]
I'd like to thank the Drug Enforcement Administration's Karen Tandy for illustrating the federal government's almost pathological dishonesty about marijuana ("War on marijuana does indeed save teens," letter, May 18). Virtually everything she wrote is incomplete, out of context, or plain false. Tandy pulls out the old canard about supposedly higher levels of carcinogens in marijuana smoke than in tobacco smoke. She fails to mention that repeated studies, often financed by the government, have consistently found that -- unlike tobacco -- marijuana smoking does not increase the risk of lung cancer. Indeed, marijuana's active components have well-documented anti-cancer effects. [continues 111 words]
Columnist Steve Chapman correctly pointed out the absurdity of U.S. fears that a mildly liberalized Mexican drug law would lead to an epidemic of drug use ("The false threat of liberal drug laws," Commentary, May 18), but he omitted a noteworthy fact about the Netherlands: By permitting sale of marijuana to adults through licensed merchants, the Dutch have broken the "gateway" between marijuana and hard drugs. Not only are Dutch marijuana use rates lower than in the U.S., Dutch use of hard drugs is just a tiny fraction of ours, according to official government surveys. [continues 79 words]
Nathan Riley did an excellent job of summing up the dishonest and overtly political nature of the Food and Drug Administration's recent statement on medical marijuana. ("Bushies Once Again Bury Science for Politics," Apr. 27-May 3). Among the many medical and public health organizations supporting laws to permit medical use of marijuana is the American Academy of HIV Medicine, which endorsed New York state medical marijuana legislation in 2003. AAHIVM wrote, "When appropriately prescribed and monitored, marijuana/cannabis can provide immeasurable benefits for the health and well-being of our patients." Since that statement, new data has shown that medical marijuana can help those experiencing nausea and vomiting from their anti-HIV drug cocktails to adhere to their medication regimens. [continues 89 words]
Editor, Your otherwise sensible editorial ("Blowing smoke at the White House," on Thursday) was incorrect in making fun of "pot for ... asthma?" Use of marijuana as a treatment for asthma attacks has been recorded in medical literature for thousands of years. In recent decades, lab studies and case reports have verified that cannabinoids (marijuana's active components) reduce asthmatic symptoms. Researcher Mitch Earleywine, Ph.D., of The State University of New York, reviewed the evidence in his 2002 book, "Understanding Marijuana." His summary: "Cannabinoids may make a nice addition to current asthma treatments." Bruce Mirken, director of communications, Marijuana Policy Project, Washington, D.C. [end]
Editor -- Edible forms of marijuana, such as the candies seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration in the East Bay, provide important benefits to medical-marijuana patients ("Bitter fight over sweet pot treats," March 18). Some patients prefer not to smoke, and many may need to medicate at times and places where smoking or using a vaporizer would be inappropriate or even impossible. If the feds object to parody candy labels that might be attractive to children, this is the sort of issue that could be easily addressed through regulation. But instead of working with states such as California to sensibly regulate medical marijuana, the federal government insists on pretending there is no such thing -- and treating those helping AIDS and cancer patients as if they were common drug dealers. This is crazy. It's time for California's congressional delegation to take a united stand against such a nonsensical waste of our federal tax dollars. Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington [end]
Recently, local news outlets have reported that Rawlins-area radio stations KIQZ-FM and KRAL-AM banned public service announcements dealing with medical marijuana from their airwaves after complaints from, among others, Rawlins Chief of Police Mike Reed. Censorship of information about medical marijuana helps no one. The three PSAs were produced by my organization, the Marijuana Policy Project. They do not advocate use of marijuana or any drug. They simply offer information, and present three individuals talking about personal experiences with medical marijuana: Talk show host Montel Williams, who suffers from multiple sclerosis; recent U.S. Supreme Court plaintiff Angel Raich, who suffers from a brain tumor and several other painful conditions; and novelist Tom Robbins, whose mother went blind from glaucoma. [continues 528 words]
To the Editor: Monday's Northwest Herald editorial, "Medical pot has tough test," raises questions regarding how patients would obtain medical marijuana. This issue is carefully addressed in state Sen. John Cullerton's bill, which would set up a state-regulated system with strict rules. But while discussing the details of implementation, important as they might be, it is important not to lose sight of the central question: Should patients battling cancer, multiple sclerosis or AIDS using medical marijuana on the advice of their physicians face arrest and jail? The American Public Health Association, Illinois Nurses Association and the AIDS Foundation of Chicago, among many others, agree that such patients should not face arrest. Seeking relief from pain and nausea should not be a crime. Bruce Mirken Director of communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C. [end]
The bizarrely long prison sentence given to Weldon Angelos ["Mangled Sentence," Note From the Editor, Jan. 26, City Weekly] might make some sense if there were the slightest evidence that the federal war on marijuana was having its intended effect. There isn't. Despite a record 771,605 marijuana arrests in 2004--roughly equal to arresting every man, woman and child in the state of Wyoming, plus every man, woman and child in Salt Lake City and Provo combined--the latest U.S. Justice Department "Drug Threat Assessment" reports no evidence of decreased marijuana availability anywhere in the country. But doesn't prohibition keep marijuana away from kids? Well, no. According to the 2005 Monitoring the Future survey, released in December and funded by the U.S. government, 85.6 percent of high school seniors report that marijuana is "easy to get." Despite many millions of marijuana arrests, that figure is virtually unchanged from the first "Monitoring the Future" survey in 1975. It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If so, marijuana prohibition is a prime example. It's time to junk our failed experiment with prohibition and replace it with a common-sense system of regulation and control. Bruce Mirken, Marijuana Policy Project, San Francisco, Calif. [end]
To the editor: The Eagle-Tribune's editorial, "Pot bill needs careful review," of Jan. 12 ignored the growing evidence of marijuana's medical benefits. A brief filed in the U.S Supreme Court by a group of medical experts, including the Lymphoma Foundation of America and the HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, stated, "Marijuana has therapeutic properties not replicated by other currently available medications. ... For certain persons, the medical use of marijuana can literally mean the difference between life and death." While it would be ideal to have medical marijuana distributed through pharmacies, federal law, still stuck in the 1930s, makes that impossible at present. However, the experience of the 10 states that had medical marijuana laws prior to this year shows that allowing patients to grow their own medical marijuana has produced remarkably few law enforcement problems. [continues 83 words]
San Diego County supervisors who claim to distrust new poll results showing that county voters strongly support Proposition 215 need to do their homework ("Marijuana group's survey says voters oppose supervisors' lawsuit," Jan. 10). This new Evans/McDonough poll, commissioned by the Marijuana Policy Project, is absolutely consistent with state and national polling on medical marijuana going back two decades. For example, in January 2004, the statewide Field Poll reported that 74 percent of California voters supported Prop. 215, a large increase since the measure passed in 1996. Field's official summary of the poll noted, "Voter support for the implementation of Prop. 215 cuts across all partisan, ideological and age subgroups of the state." The next wake-up call the supervisors get may come at the ballot box. Director of communications Marijuana Policy Project, San Francisco [end]
The Inquirer is to be commended for its eminently sane examination of Dutch marijuana policies ("Dutch take sober look at pot laws," Jan. 1). The simple fact is that U.S.-style marijuana prohibition has failed in every conceivable way. First, prohibition has utterly failed to curb marijuana use, as shown by use rates that remain far higher in the United States than in the Netherlands, despite an all-time record of 771,605 marijuana arrests in 2004. Worse, it has given a monopoly on marijuana sales to unlicensed, unregulated criminals. [continues 83 words]
The Beloit Daily News is right to support AB 740, which would allow seriously ill patients to use marijuana to relieve pain and nausea without fear of arrest. But it is important to understand that the evidence demonstrating marijuana's safety and efficacy is not merely "anecdotal." In fact, controlled trials dating back to the 1970s - many sponsored by state governments - demonstrated that marijuana relieves nausea in cancer chemotherapy patients. More recent studies have demonstrated relief of pain in a number of circumstances, including multiple sclerosis - evidence convincing enough that the journal The Lancet Neurology wrote two years ago that marijuana could become "the aspirin of the 21st century." [continues 104 words]
The letter 'Planners suckered by compassion' (Nov. 29) misstated several key facts about medical marijuana and about the Marijuana Policy Project. Our purpose is not 'to legalize all drugs.' We have no position on any substance other than marijuana. Smoking a marijuana cigarette is not 'the same as smoking 10 tobacco cigarettes.' Unlike tobacco, marijuana has never been shown to increase rates of lung cancer or emphysema or to increase one's risk of death. Indeed, in a 60,000-patient study done at Kaiser Permanente, marijuana smokers who didn't smoke tobacco had a lower rate of lung cancer than nonsmokers. Marijuana is a medicine, with 5,000 years of safe, effective use documented in medical literature. That's why the California Medical Association, American Public Health Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association and dozens of other medical and public health organizations have stated that marijuana can have therapeutic value when used under medical supervision. As for the 'message to young people,' use of marijuana by California teens has dropped dramatically since Proposition 215 passed in 1996. What kind of message do we send to our kids by depriving the sick and suffering of relief? director of communications, Marijuana Policy Project San Francisco [end]
Julie Isen makes a number of important points in her column supporting legal access to medical marijuana ("Medical marijuana hits Legislature," Dec. 6). Unfortunately, she seems unclear regarding some of the provisions of Rep. Gregg Underheim's bill, AB 740. Isen is incorrect when she states that the bill "merely provides a defense" for patients who get caught, while leaving the law against marijuana possession intact. Under Rep. Underheim's legislation, legally qualified patients would be allowed to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana and would not be subject to arrest. [continues 181 words]
Whatever one thinks of SAFER's campaign tactics -- and they were controversial even among those who favor an end to marijuana prohibition -- the simple fact is that Mason Tvert's message was true ("Going to Pot," November 24). By any objective standard, marijuana is safer than alcohol. Toxicity? Alcohol overdoses kill Americans every year, while no fatal marijuana overdose has ever been documented. Addiction? Of those who ever take a drink, 15 percent get hooked on booze, compared to 9 percent for marijuana. Violence? Alcohol is well-documented to be a major cause of aggression and violence, while marijuana almost universally reduces aggression in users. Just ask any cop if he'd rather arrest a drunk or someone who's high on marijuana. Denver voters did the right thing. Bruce Mirken Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C. [end]
Bravo to Joe Eskenazi for his thorough Nov. 11 j. examination of the medical marijuana issue, "Marijuana: Just what the doctor ordered?" Sadly, the U.S. government continues to ignore the growing mass of data supporting marijuana's safety and efficacy as a medicine, simply because that data doesn't fit with the prevailing ideology. The Institute of Medicine, in a 1999 report commissioned by the White House, found that "nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting and all can be mitigated by marijuana" - with side effects within the range that is normally tolerated for other medicines. Since then, much more data - including landmark studies involving HIV/AIDS patients conducted at San Francisco General Hospital - have only bolstered this conclusion. [continues 54 words]
Bravo to Ryan Grim for clearly laying out the culpability of Congress in the tragic, completely needless death of quadriplegic Jonathan Magbie ("Congressional Malpractice," 11/4). While there is plenty of blame to go around for this legally sanctioned murder (and no, that is not too strong a term), the bottom line is simple: Magbie's use of marijuana to relieve his spasms should not have been a crime. The District's citizens voted overwhelmingly to make medical use of marijuana legal. Had Congress not intervened to block the voters' decision, Jonathan Magbie would never have been sentenced to jail for marijuana possession and almost certainly would be alive today. All who had a hand in this, from former Congressman Bob Barr to Judge Retchin to the jail authorities, should be forever ashamed. And Congress must get rid of the Barr Amendment before it causes another pointless death. Bruce Mirken Director of communications Marijuana Policy Project [end]
A small clarification is required regarding The Sun's story on Rob Kampia's talk at the University of Florida ("Pro-pot group pushes marijuana reforms," Oct. 19). The Marijuana Policy Project is not "pro-pot," as your headline indicated. We do not advocate or encourage the use of any drug, including marijuana. We simply believe that criminal prohibition has completely failed as a means of reducing the harm associated with marijuana, and in fact causes far more harm than it prevents. [continues 80 words]
There's a substantial body of evidence showing that marijuana's active components -- cannabinoids -- protect brain and nerve cells from many types of damage (Study Turns Pot Wisdom On Its Head -- front page, Oct. 14). A recent study in the Journal of Neuroscience, for example, reported that cannabinoids can protect against some of the brain damage seen in Alzheimer's disease. Other studies have documented that these marijuana components protect nerve cells from the degeneration seen in a variety of conditions, including multiple sclerosis. [continues 66 words]
On October 6, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider legislation to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries. The LGBT community needs to make clear to our representatives that we support responsible regulation, but will not tolerate arbitrary, unnecessary rules that limit patient access to a vitally important medicine. Fortunately, a new poll shows that the majority of San Franciscans agree. Many of us have watched medical marijuana (cannabis, to use the scientific term) help friends and loved ones with AIDS cope with the nausea and loss of appetite often caused by harsh anti-HIV drugs. That's one of the reasons Prop. 215 passed with 78 percent of the vote in San Francisco and an astonishing 91 percent in the Castro. [continues 723 words]
Bravo to Colbert I. King for continuing to shine a light on the needless death of 27-year-old quadriplegic Jonathan Magbie in the D.C. jail ["Justice for a 'Death of Neglect,' " op-ed, Sept. 17]. I hope his family will receive compensation for what appears to have been criminally negligent stupidity by those entrusted with Mr. Magbie's care. Mr. Magbie, who used marijuana to ease pain from the childhood injury that left him disabled, need not have gone to jail in the first place. Had Congress allowed the medical marijuana initiative passed by District voters in 1998 to take effect, he probably would be alive today. If the District's jailers have blood on their hands, so do the members of Congress who conspired to treat Mr. Magbie and patients like him as criminals. Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington [end]
The Monitor's Sept. 23 AP story on our efforts to organize in support of taxing and regulating marijuana incorrectly referred to the Marijuana Policy Project as a "pro-marijuana group." We are not pro-marijuana any more than the mothers who struggled for repeal of alcohol prohibition 75 years ago were pro-booze. Like them, we simply recognize that prohibition is a costly, destructive failure. We do not promote or encourage the use of marijuana or any drug. Having looked at the evidence, we believe that current policies cause much more harm than they prevent. San Francisco (The writer is director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project.) [end]
A few thoughts on Nathan Riley's commentary, "Marijuana and the Law" (Jul. 21-27). First, the Supreme Court's ruling and the push by some California cities to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries hardly constitute a "one-two punch" to the medical marijuana movement. The high court for the first time declared unconditionally, "Marijuana has valid therapeutic purposes"--a historic milestone that is arguably much more important than the technical effect of the ruling, which simply maintained the status quo. State medical marijuana laws remain valid and fully in force, but do not confer immunity from federal prosecution. That's the situation patients have lived with for years. [continues 134 words]
RE: "CANADA vs. U.S. in rope-a-dope," by Mindelle Jacobs, Aug 6. Bravo to Jacobs for being a voice of sanity in the discussion over the attempt by the U.S. government to extradite Marc Emery. We can no more "eradicate" marijuana than we could eradicate drinking during America's disastrous experiment with Prohibition in the 1920s. By taxing and regulating marijuana, we can exert reasonable controls and stop wasting police resources on the pointless persecution of responsible citizens whose social relaxant of choice is a joint rather than a martini. Bruce Mirken (We're shaken, not stirred.) [end]
Forgivable To the Editor: I read Dave Itzkoff's article about the new Showtime series "Weeds" ["Mommy, What's That in Your Purse?," last Sunday] with some interest, but the characterization of the main character's decision to sell marijuana as "unforgivable" was puzzling. Given that she is described as having sufficient scruples not to sell to kids, there is no indication of anything unforgivable in her actions, unless one believes that marijuana itself is horribly dangerous. In fact, research has consistently found marijuana to be far less toxic and addictive than alcohol or tobacco. Bruce Mirken San Francisco The writer is a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, a nonprofit group opposed to the prohibition of marijuana. [end]
A survey from the National Association of Counties reported that local law enforcement agencies think the federal government has its anti- drug priorities backward, putting too much emphasis on marijuana and not enough on truly lethal drugs like methamphetamine. Now a new report suggests that even the federal government's top drug cops - -- the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration -- know something is very wrong. They'll never say it explicitly, of course -- executive branch agencies don't openly criticize White House policies. But the message in the DEA's 2005 "National Drug Threat Assessment" -- prepared in February but released with no publicity last month -- is unmistakable: The war on marijuana is a failure, and cops overwhelmingly see meth as a greater threat. [continues 520 words]
On June 15, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to continue federal arrests of medical marijuana patients, even when those patients are acting legally under the law of their state and with their physician's recommendation. Rep. Mary Bono, R-Palm Springs, supported a similar amendment last year, but this year she was among those voting to continue arresting the sick. We hope you will consider an editorial addressing this. Rep. Bono's vote was a surprise, given her support last year. Her vote ignored pleas from the United Methodist Church, American Nurses Association, National Association of People With AIDS and many others. [continues 65 words]
The case of Richard Paey ("Drug War Offers Bitter Pill," Other Views, July 21) is a heartbreaking example of how suffering patients become needless casualties in the war on drugs. But the situation is even worse than columnist John Tierney describes. While harassing and punishing doctors who prescribe narcotic pain relievers, our government is aggressively campaigning against a far safer and virtually nonaddictive alternative: medical marijuana. Abundant scientific evidence has demonstrated that marijuana can relieve certain types of pain - including the pain experienced by many multiple sclerosis patients - that don't respond well to conventional drugs. [continues 83 words]
Ronald Fraser makes a number of worthwhile points about our government's fruitless war on marijuana ["Time for a marijuana sales tax," July 20]. In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice has effectively acknowledged that this war has failed. In its just-released "Drug Threat Assessment 2005," the department notes that despite the eradication of 3.5 million marijuana plants last year, it could find "no reports of a trend toward decreased availability" of marijuana anywhere in the country. "Indeed," the report continues, "reporting from some areas has suggested that marijuana is easier for youths to obtain than alcohol or cigarettes." [continues 65 words]
Earlier this month, a survey from the National Association of Counties reported that local law enforcement agencies think the federal government has its anti-drug priorities backward, putting too much emphasis on marijuana and not enough on truly lethal drugs like methamphetamine. Now a new report suggests that even the federal government's top drug cops - the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration - - know something is very wrong. They'll never say it explicitly, of course. Executive branch agencies don't openly criticize White House policies. But the message in the DEA's 2005 "National Drug Threat Assessment" - prepared in February but released with no publicity this month - is unmistakable: The war on marijuana is a failure, and cops overwhelmingly see meth as a greater threat. [continues 350 words]
Two things stand out about the recent Supreme Court decision on the medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich. First, the court did not strike down any state medical marijuana laws or take away any of the protections these laws provide to patients. It did, however, leave those patients vulnerable to federal prosecution. Second, the court explicitly recognized that "marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes," and went out of its way to note that Congress can change federal law to address this reality. [continues 72 words]
Hawaii's medical marijuana program is absolutely not "essentially dead," and neither is that of any other state ("State's medical marijuana program 'essentially dead,' " June 7). Last week's Supreme Court ruling did not overturn any state medical marijuana laws or take away any of the protections these laws provide. It simply maintained the status quo, under which patients protected under state law still remain vulnerable to federal prosecution. That's an imperfect situation, but it's precisely the way things stood on June 5. Nothing has changed. [continues 72 words]
Thank you for urging Congress to take action to protect medical marijuana patients ("Doctor or No, Cannabis Is Out," June 7 editorial). However, the Supreme Court did not "strike down" state laws allowing medical use of marijuana. All the court did was maintain the status quo: Patients protected under state law are not free from the possibility of arrest by federal authorities. However, Congress can change that as soon as this week, when the House considers the Justice Department's appropriations bill. Representatives Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) will propose an amendment barring federal attacks on patients in states where medical use of marijuana is legal. This humane, commonsense proposal deserves immediate passage. Bruce Mirken Director of communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C. [end]
Although some media reports have been unclear, two things stand out about Monday's Supreme Court decision on the medical marijuana case. First, the court did not strike down any state medical marijuana laws or take away any of the protections these laws provide to patients. It did, however, leave those patients vulnerable to federal prosecution. Second, the court explicitly recognized that "marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes," and went out of its way to note that Congress can change federal law to address this reality. [continues 79 words]
This week, over 500 leading economists, led by conservative icon Dr. Milton Friedman, called for a national debate about whether prohibition of marijuana is worth the cost. The occasion was a new report by Harvard University economist Dr. Jeffrey Miron estimating - probably conservatively - that replacing prohibition with a system of common-sense regulation could mean $10 billion to $14 billion per year in reduced government spending and new revenues. "We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods," Friedman and colleagues wrote. "At a minimum, this debate will force advocates of current policy to show that prohibition has benefits sufficient to justify the cost to taxpayers, foregone tax revenues, and numerous ancillary consequences that result from marijuana prohibition." [continues 567 words]
Although some media reports have been unclear, two things stand out about Monday's Supreme Court decision on the medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich. First, the court did not strike down any state medical marijuana laws or take away any of the protections these laws provide to patients. It did, however, leave those patients vulnerable to federal prosecution. Second, the court explicitly recognized that "marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes," and went out of its way to note that Congress can change federal law to address this reality. [continues 74 words]
Although some media reports have been unclear, two things stand out about Monday's Supreme Court decision on the medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich: First, the court did not strike down any state medical marijuana laws or take away any of the protections these laws provide to patients. It did, however, leave those patients vulnerable to federal prosecution. Second, the court explicitly recognized that "marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes," and went out of its way to note that Congress can change federal law to address this reality. [continues 74 words]
Although some media reports have been unclear, two things stand out about Monday's Supreme Court decision on the medical marijuana case, Gonzales vs. Raich. First, the court did not strike down any state medical marijuana laws or take away any of the protections these laws provide to patients. It did, however, leave those patients vulnerable to federal prosecution. Second, the court explicitly recognized that "marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes," and went out of its way to note Congress can change federal law to address this reality. [continues 76 words]
Your story "Drug Czar Plays Defense" [4/23/05, p. 1233] focused almost entirely on criticisms of White House drug czar John Walters by the drug-war hawks like Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., while paying little attention to other, equally valid criticisms of Walters. Under Walters's directions, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy--and indeed, the entire federal anti-drug establishment--has focused almost obsessively on marijuana, an approach that conservative columnist Deroy Murdock has called "uniquely idiotic." Walters actually claimed in a recent Cincinnati appearance that marijuana is "as potent as cocaine and methamphetamine." [continues 165 words]
As Henry Barmeier notes, abuse of prescription drugs by teens is a serious problem ( op-ed, May 31 ). We may be making the problem worse in the messages we send to young people. Advertising bombards young and old alike with messages saying a pill can solve any problem, from depression to erectile dysfunction. Meanwhile, the White House's anti-drug ad campaign has focused almost entirely on marijuana -- often with wildly exaggerated claims regarding alleged dangers. In effect, we're encouraging kids to think of potentially lethal prescription drugs as safer than marijuana. Scientifically, that's wrong. Anti-drug campaigns that ignore this reality are a threat to the lives of our young people. Sincerely, Bruce Mirken Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C., San Francisco [end]
This week, over 500 leading economists, led by conservative icon Dr. Milton Friedman, called for a national debate about whether prohibition of marijuana is worth the cost. The occasion was a new report by Harvard University economist Dr. Jeffrey Miron estimating - - probably conservatively -- that replacing prohibition with a system of common-sense regulation could mean $10 billion to $14 billion per year in reduced government spending and new revenues. "We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods," Friedman and colleagues wrote. "At a minimum, this debate will force advocates of current policy to show that prohibition has benefits sufficient to justify the cost to taxpayers, foregone tax revenues, and numerous ancillary consequences that result from marijuana prohibition." [continues 568 words]
Bill Weinman of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration calls medical marijuana "a scam" because "you don't smoke your medicine" ("High Court to examine medical marijuana," May 29). He'll be relieved to know that medical marijuana need not be smoked. Medical marijuana can be eaten or made into various sorts of teas and tinctures, and some patients prefer to use it that way. For those who need the fast action and precise dose control of inhalation, simple devices called vaporizers make this possible without the noxious contaminants in smoke. Smoking is not the issue, and it never has been. Bruce Mirken Washington The writer is director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project. [end]
Don't Fall for Assertions USA TODAY is correct in questioning America's failed war on marijuana. But it is a mistake to blindly accept federal government assertions that "today's more potent marijuana carries substantial health and social risks." More objective inquiries have come to precisely the opposite conclusion. Independent reviews by the Australian government and the European Union have found that potency increases have been wildly exaggerated and pose little or no danger. A review of the literature by Oxford University pharmacologist Leslie Iversen, in the February issue of Current Opinion in Pharmacology, concluded that "by comparison with other drugs used for 'recreational' purposes, cannabis (marijuana) could be rated to be a relatively safe drug." [continues 73 words]
Dear Editor, Bravo to Irv Rosenfeld for his continuing efforts to help other seriously ill patients get what he has had for 22 years: the right to use medical marijuana to relieve pain and suffering without fear of arrest. ( "Medical marijuana user promotes 'exemption' bill," Apr. 30 ). Eight years ago, an editorial in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine called the federal ban on medical use of marijuana, "misguided, heavy-handed and inhumane ... based more on reflexive ideology and political correctness than on compassion." Since then, much more scientific evidence of marijuana's safety and efficacy has been published, but our government remains stuck in 1937. Someday, the existence of laws against medical use of marijuana will seem bizarre, even funny. But today, for millions of Americans battling cancer, MS, AIDS and other terrible illnesses, it's still a tragedy. Bruce Mirken Director of Communications Marijuana Policy Project [end]
Much of the confusion reflected in "The medical marijuana muddle: A clear decision, a hazy outcome" (March 27) stems from simple misunderstandings. Although federal law stands in the way of a perfect distribution system for medical marijuana, registered Montana patients cannot be arrested for obtaining their medicine. They have the option of cultivating their medicine themselves, having a caregiver cultivate it or continuing to purchase it on the illegal market. While common drug dealers' conduct is clearly illegal, the patients' "acquisition" of marijuana is explicitly allowed. [continues 152 words]
Officer Tom Hanshaw appears to be spreading myths about marijuana rather than dispelling them. "Myths, Truths about Drug Use," in the March 18 issue of the Amesbury News. He writes Myth No. 6: "Weed isn't that harmful. The Truth: Marijuana has been linked to mental illness. Linked is a weasel-word designed to cover the fact that marijuana has never been proven to cause mental illness, and that there was no increase mental illness in time periods when marijuana use soared, such as the 1960s and 1970s. [continues 75 words]
Editor, the Tribune: No one can argue with Tony Messenger's desire for "a fair fight," should Columbia police officers succeed in qualifying a ballot measure to reinstitute harsh penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana. But Messenger mistakenly equates the use of private, voluntary donations with the coercive use of tax dollars to tell local voters what to do. Local organizers such as supporters of Columbia's recent reforms start out at a huge disadvantage: They have to raise voluntary donations, while the federal government uses its unlimited supply of tax dollars - - including $1 billion worth of TV ads in the past five years - to frighten people into opposing common-sense reforms. To treat the Marijuana Policy Project's small efforts to level the playing field through grants to local activist groups as if they are equivalent to this massive, tax-funded juggernaut is absurd. [continues 67 words]
