In response to Dr. Mike's Jordan's guest column opposing legalizing
medical grade marijuana:
How naive, as a medical practitioner, to downplay serious medical
ailments such as "back pain, headaches, and anxiety."
Are you not obligated to patients to find the best, most authentic
cure for any of their conditions?
Yes, cancer and seizures are devastatingly painful for millions of
These diseases must be treated with optimal attention and
We must keep fighting for cures, and in the meantime, afflicted
individuals should receive appropriate pain treatment.
[continues 233 words]
In 1936, the film "Reefer Madness," described by the Internet Movie
Database as "a fictionalized and highly exaggerated take on the use of
marijuana," was released.
On Sunday, Star-Banner readers were treated to our own Reefer Madness
courtesy of State Attorney Brad King. Like the 1936 film, King's
version was, at the very least, "highly exaggerated."
King's statistics from Colorado give us few baseline numbers. Let's
take just one example: From 2007 to 2012, King tells us, fatal car
crashes involving marijuana went up 100 percent. Of course, if there
was one marijuana-related fatal crash before 2007 and two since,
that's a 100 percent increase. It sounds scary, but it's actually
[continues 145 words]
Congratulations for the prominence you gave to State Attorney Brad
King's input on Amendment 2.
My conclusion is that approval of this amendment would be a case of
"mob rule." To me, this means that a crowd of people take the sales
opinion of "snake oil salesmen" instead of that of qualified persons,
such as the American Medical Association and official law enforcement
agencies. This is based upon the facts that current effective federal
laws state that marijuana is a dangerous and illegal drug and that a
prescription of it without FDA approval would be at least unethical.
From what I have read from responsible sources, this drug is being
sold by organizations of questionable character, with a variety of
"flavors." There is no dependable guarantee that some could not be
harmful or even fatal.
Regarding 'Science wins' (Your Views, Oct. 20): It would seem retired
Navy Lt. Commander Al Byrne is a bit biased, being the CEO of Veterans
for Compassionate Care. Medical cannabis has been available in pill
form for quite some time.
I urge everyone to vote 'no' on Amendment 2 because it has serious
flaws. I do not want to be on the road next to someone driving under
the influence of cannabis. Being a veteran of the Vietnam War, I have
seen in a tactical situation how marijuana affects the ability to make
Public safety is the issue, and Amendment 2 as written is
Stephen Burchett, Seffner
Regarding 'Science wins:' Al Byrne uses the work of Melanie Dreher to
support his view that marijuana is harmless, indeed even helpful, to
pregnant women and their babies. Unfortunately, this work is only one
work carried out on a very small sample of 33 users and 27 non-users
in the early 1980s. Although this work is important, subsequent
studies have disproved much of her work.
In addition, today's marijuana is not your mother's marijuana. It is a
much more potent form.
[continues 257 words]
It's about time the Ontario government beefed up legislation to
include new penalties for drug-impaired drivers.
As the use of narcotics, both prescribed and illegal, becomes more
prevalent, their use is having an impact on our roads. Ontario must
deal with drugs and driving in the same fashion as with drinking and
driving-with tough laws.
And so the government's announcement Tuesday is appropriate. It is
proposing amendments to its distracted driving bill that would include
new penalties for drug-impaired drivers.
[continues 278 words]