Your recent editorial (Sept.17) about the new safe injection site in
Vancouver was full of specious arguments designed, apparently, to
perpetuate this racist, ineffective "War on [Some] Drugs".
The editorial said, "This is like setting up a place to give crooks a
buffet of things, but before they go we'll give them a pamphlet saying
why it is wrong to steal and give them a card of a counselor."
This is a ridiculous comparison, but one used far too often. The
difference is drug users only damage themselves and thieves take from
[continues 77 words]
Editor, The Record:
As a cannabis smoker, I would like to agree whole-heartedly with the opinion
written on June 26, 2003.
Responsible cannabis smokers should not force their choices on others, the
same as any other smoker. Just because I choose to smoke cannabis, does not
mean I feel I can smoke it anywhere, at any time.
To allow smoking indoors, I feel there should be adequate ventilation such
that my smoking won't adversely affect those not smoking. If such
ventilation is not available, then the smoking must be moved to a separate
smoking area or outdoors.
[continues 66 words]
Cynthia Gamble, in her recently published letter ('Pot Test Needed'
(June 21 edition), made some very popular but incorrect assumptions
If personal use is currently being "encouraged" because of lack of
"legal intervention ... fines, and court appearances," then we must be
encouraging tobacco smoking, and alcohol drinking too!
Never mind the quite obvious warnings on the cigarette pack (why
aren't they on beer bottles, or liquor bottles? That's another question).
Never mind all the anti-drinking and anti-smoking literature that's
available, even though those actions are legal. Legal does not mean
encouraged, it simply means that there's another choice for the
informed, consenting adult.
[continues 342 words]
Marijuana Doesn't Cause Harmful Effects That Were Claimed By Another Letter
Editor: Mr. Sterle's recent letter (Pot can be harmful, Burnaby NOW, May
17, 2003) points to the facts that cannabis can worsen schizophrenia in
those patients who already have it.
The rest of his assertions are questionable, but as Mr. Sterle never
mentions what this other "permanent damage" is, I can't comment either way.
It's interesting, however, at the very end of his letter he reverts to the
[continues 182 words]
RICHARD DISHAN'S April 9 letter says the claim that "no one has died from
marijuana" is specious.
Given that there has never been a reported death from cannabis use, ever,
it would seem that it is, in fact, Dishan's argument that is specious.
Can he point to a study, or even a single reported case of lung cancer or
death from cannabis use?
Dishan also mentions the "real addictive qualities" of modern, high-THC
content cannabis, as opposed lower levels in the past. There have been
numerous studies to demonstrate that cannabis is, at most, as addictive as
caffeine. So if we are using "real addictive qualities" as reasons for
prohibition, we should look at caffeine in the same light we look at
cannabis, and caffeine is something that most of us regularly allow our
children to consume!
(Don't come for my coffee or I'm going to be really upset.)