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 Americans. These diseases must be treated with optimal attention and care. 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 insignificant. [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. Roger Agamaite Ocala [end]
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 split-second decisions. Public safety is the issue, and Amendment 2 as written is unacceptable. Stephen Burchett, Seffner [end]
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]
