READERS HAVE THE LAST WORD ON THE PROS AND CONS OF POT USE

Dr. John A. Howard, senior fellow at The Howard Center for Family,
Religion & Society in Rockford, was a member of the National
Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse from 1971 to 1973.

Ever since he served on that commission he has gathered material on
marijuana, and he's in the process of writing a book. He sent me a
draft of a chapter that he thought would work well in my wrap-up
about marijuana use.

For the last two weeks I've quoted letters mostly from people who
support legalizing, or at least decriminalizing, marijuana. Writers
were reacting to an Oct. 3 letter by Thomas J. Keinz of Cherry Valley
headlined "Marijuana is dangerous."

Howard is one of the few who sent information to support Keinz's assertion.

"It would be wishful thinking to suppose that the movement toward
legalized marijuana can be stopped and neutralized by factual
information and persuasive rhetoric, " Howard wrote in the 30-page
draft. "What is involved is a mind-set that is cultural and emotional
and virtually impervious to rational persuasion. What will be
required is a larger general realization of what America was like
before the advent of the 'me generation' and the do-your-own-thing ethos."

In a handwritten note accompanying the draft, Howard said, "My only
concern is to get the facts spread as widely as possible."

But marijuana supporters say the facts are on their side. More than
one writer sent me a link to a HealthDay News story about a study
that will appear in the November issue of the Journal of Clinical
Investigation. The study, conducted by the neuropsychiatry research
unit in the department of psychiatry at the University of
Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, said pot causes brain cells to
grow in rats. Scientists pointed out that the brains of humans and
the brains of rats are different, but the results could indicate
marijuana use can benefit humans.

Other writers had different observations. Stephen Heath is public
relations director for the Drug Policy Forum of Florida and works
with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

"While the use of marijuana is clearly not without risk, it's clear
that its illegal status assures that virtually all commercial
distribution will be controlled by unidentified and unregulated
dealers behind closed doors right in our residential neighborhoods,"
Heath wrote. "We need to remove commercial distribution from the
uncontrolled illegal market and take it off the streets.

"Legal drug dealers do not present undue danger to police or to our
neighborhoods. These dealers make their presence known to police and
regulators. They do not knowingly sell to or recruit minors to sell
their products. They do not resolve business disputes with violence
in our neighborhoods against customers and rival dealers.

"We did not legalize the distribution of alcohol in 1934 because
anyone was confused about the very real risks of using alcohol. We
did it to move sales off the streets and into a licensed, regulated setting.

"It's time for an equally sensible change in the 21st century. It's
time to legalize marijuana for responsible adult use."

Allan Erickson is with the Drug Policy Forum of Oregon. "The
prohibition of cannabis wrongly assaults one of the few agricultural
products capable of generating food, industrial fiber and medicine
while maintaining a prominent place in global history," Erickson wrote.

"Far from harmful, the plant is ripe with medicinal qualities, just
now being studied for their potential as pharmaceuticals and, of
course, profit.

"As an industrial product the hemp strains of cannabis provide a
fiber that when used in composite products is 2 to 3 times stronger
in all categories than the same products made from wood fiber.

"As a crop cannabis requires no or minimal pesticides and no
herbicides, especially when grown in rotation with nitrogen-fixing
crops like legumes."

I leave the last word for Remy Kissel of Seattle, Wash., who rightly
pointed out a grammar error in my first column.

"The second paragraph reads: 'Keinz's letter has received attention
from coast to coast, thanks to the Register Star's Web site,
www.rrstar.com (http://www.rrstar.com). Most of the letter writers,
some of whom's syntax, grammar and spelling made me wonder what they
were smoking as they were typing, dispute Keinz's claim that
marijuana is a gateway drug.

"Given that you seem to base the merit of your letter writers'
arguments on their syntax, grammar and spelling, I should point out
to you that the correct word is WHOSE, not WHOM'S. And for the
record, I believe (as do many others, I'm sure) that your 'made me
wonder what they were smoking as they were typing' shtick is neither
appropriate nor funny.

"Moreover, such a statement suggests an obvious disregard for
objectivity. If you personally feel that marijuana is a dangerous
drug, by all means write a column about it and own up to your
prejudices. Slipping little 'gee, stoners are so dumb' innuendo into
what should be a balanced look at readers' views on the subject,
however, is unbecoming of a respectable journalist.

"Tempting though it might be for you to make light of the marijuana
issue with cliched pigeonholing, I implore you to treat the
contributions of all your letter writers with more respect."