THE POLITICS OF POT

Upon reading the article touting the medicinal properties of
marijuana, I must say that I am slightly disappointed. Your article
was well-written, but it was surprisingly lacking when it came to research.

In 1998, there was an international medical conference held at the New
York University School of Medicine. It was thought that the active
ingredient in marijuana, THC, could have possible clinical
applications. At the end of the conference it was determined that
marijuana was an unacceptable form for ingesting THC. An oral
medication was approved by the FDA, thus eliminating the need for
marijuana as a therapeutic vehicle, but it was found that THC was not
as effective as other medications.

To argue that marijuana is a medical necessity is nothing short of
ludicrous. It is common knowledge that marijuana smoke is 10 times
worse than tobacco smoke. The case study that was cited in your
article, concerning the man with chronic seizures, said that he found
smoking marijuana decreased the incidences of seizures.

Is his case so severe that he is willing to trade one problem for
another? Where is the logic in this argument?

THC has been proven to not be as effective as pre-existing drugs. Some
may argue that these drugs have untoward side effects, but then, so
does THC. It has been proven that prolonged use of THC negatively
affects consciousness, memory, coordination, and the immune system.
THC is known to be gametoxic and fetotoxic. How are these side-effects
any less grave?

Jennifer Lyle

Abbotsford