HEMP CAN HEAL

Asa Hutchinson will have some difficulty enforcing federal drug laws
pertaining to medical marijuana. Juries in states that have approved
medical marijuana are not overly enthusiastic about convicting patients or
providers. Even juries in federal cases must be convened from local
communities that may have voted for medical marijuana by a wide margin
("New DEA head stands firm," Aug. 24).

Your editorial states that "while marijuana is no better than codeine as a
pain reliever, it has serious side effects." Codeine is a very effective
pain reliever. If marijuana is no better than codeine it still must be
rather effective. Most of marijuana's "serious side effects" are a result
of smoking. These side effects can be avoided if the marijuana is baked
into food or made into an herbal tea.

Why should the government punish people for using a drug that may or may
not be appropriate for a particular medical condition?

Phin MacDonald, Medford, MA

LET PATIENTS DECIDE

The polemic editorial ("New DEA head stands firm," Aug. 24) places the
Herald firmly beyond the bounds of science, reasoning and public opinion --
even apparently sympathy for those suffering from debilitating and
life-threatening disease.

The Institute of Medicine, the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine
and the Merck Manual all agree that marijuana has medical application with
lower side effects. Even the DEA's own chief administrative law judge ruled
that "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically
active substances known to man and the overwhelming preponderance of the
evidence shows it has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S."

The real issue is whether patients should be arrested and imprisoned for
choosing a helpful therapy. This year, in all 19 cities and towns where
Massachusetts citizens were allowed to vote on the topic, two-thirds said
we should change these brutal laws.

Jon Holmes, Cambridge, MA