News (Media Awareness Project) - US MD: PUB LTE: Hysterical Ranting |
Title: | US MD: PUB LTE: Hysterical Ranting |
Published On: | 2001-03-17 |
Source: | Frederick News Post (MD) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-26 21:22:37 |
HYSTERICAL RANTING
Christopher Petrella's in-your-face morality rant concerning medical
marijuana legislation ("No marijuana for sick people," Feb. 24) reeks
with hysteria, and, as is the case of most far-right leaners, he
fails to see that his viewpoint goes entirely against what the right
supposedly stands for: less government.
What could be more intrusive then the government denying sick and
dying people medicine that is proven to work? Countless cases of
marijuana use to combat a variety of illnesses have been
scientifically documented and yet ne'er-do-wells like our politically
aspiring Mr. Petrella would prefer arresting those seeking cure or
comfort from debilitating illness and pain.
What could be more paternalistic then the government telling us how
to treat, within reason, something as personal as illness, especially
a fatal one?
I am confused about his statement: "What is the benefit in this,
other than having the sick escape from reality?" Could this reality
possibly be intense, life-zapping pain? Did Mr. Petrella ever take an
aspirin? Escapism?
Just to prepare him for a possible campaign question in case he
decides to run and unseat Delegate Louise Snodgrass, would he deny a
family member this medicine, legal or illegal, if a medical doctor
told him it would alleviate pain and suffering? If he says yes, I say
he is completely immoral and I hope the same decision would be made
for him in his hour of need. What makes him think that he wouldn't at
least be curious as to how marijuana might benefit him if he were
facing such dire circumstances, and how dare he try to tell anyone
else how to deal with it.
The lame reference that this legislation would lead directly to
little Johnny becoming a crackhead reads, in its infantile logic,
like little Johnny wrote it himself. If this is his main argument on
this matter, and, no doubt, for the entire drug war itself, then
again it's a case of more government paternalism. ... Just what
Fredneck County needs: another self-righteous, narrow minded,
anti-progressive politician. Sadly enough, he'll probably go far.
S. RANEY MISS
Middletown
Christopher Petrella's in-your-face morality rant concerning medical
marijuana legislation ("No marijuana for sick people," Feb. 24) reeks
with hysteria, and, as is the case of most far-right leaners, he
fails to see that his viewpoint goes entirely against what the right
supposedly stands for: less government.
What could be more intrusive then the government denying sick and
dying people medicine that is proven to work? Countless cases of
marijuana use to combat a variety of illnesses have been
scientifically documented and yet ne'er-do-wells like our politically
aspiring Mr. Petrella would prefer arresting those seeking cure or
comfort from debilitating illness and pain.
What could be more paternalistic then the government telling us how
to treat, within reason, something as personal as illness, especially
a fatal one?
I am confused about his statement: "What is the benefit in this,
other than having the sick escape from reality?" Could this reality
possibly be intense, life-zapping pain? Did Mr. Petrella ever take an
aspirin? Escapism?
Just to prepare him for a possible campaign question in case he
decides to run and unseat Delegate Louise Snodgrass, would he deny a
family member this medicine, legal or illegal, if a medical doctor
told him it would alleviate pain and suffering? If he says yes, I say
he is completely immoral and I hope the same decision would be made
for him in his hour of need. What makes him think that he wouldn't at
least be curious as to how marijuana might benefit him if he were
facing such dire circumstances, and how dare he try to tell anyone
else how to deal with it.
The lame reference that this legislation would lead directly to
little Johnny becoming a crackhead reads, in its infantile logic,
like little Johnny wrote it himself. If this is his main argument on
this matter, and, no doubt, for the entire drug war itself, then
again it's a case of more government paternalism. ... Just what
Fredneck County needs: another self-righteous, narrow minded,
anti-progressive politician. Sadly enough, he'll probably go far.
S. RANEY MISS
Middletown
Member Comments |
No member comments available...