REASON AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Congratulations on your honest and level-headed Dec. 16 editorial, "Allow
medical marijuana." Unlike some hypocritical politicians and bureaucrats,
you have built an argument based on historical and scientific fact, rather
than on innuendo. Please allow me, however, to correct some errors.

You write that "THC is the active ingredient in marijuana."

True, THC is the major cannabinoid, but it is just one of dozens of related
compounds that occur naturally only in cannabis. Their effects vary: Some
are therapeutic, some are euphoric, some are both, and some are neither, so
far as we know. Therefore, it is wrong to say that a THC pill is the
refined, clean, safe (and patented and expensive) equivalent of raw
cannabis. For better or worse, the two will always differ. Your description
of the pill as "ersatz" is indeed accurate.

"It [cannabis] is a known toxin, and extended use can endanger the lungs,
the reproductive system and the immune system. These are among the reasons
it was declared illegal in 1937."

Your assumption is arguable, depending on method, dosage and duration of
use, but your conclusion is simply not supported by the historical record.
The byproducts of combustion of any plant matter make frequent, long-term,
high-dose smoking of dubious safety, but this is hardly relevant to people
who are desperately and/or terminally ill. In any case, alternative methods
exist, such as cooking and eating in food. Pure, nonburned cannabis has no
known substantial toxicity, making it safer than many common foods, and
vastly safer than almost all drugs, both prescription and over the counter.

The 1937 law was preceded by brief congressional testimony and debate, in
which no credible evidence emerged to justify such a law. In fact, no such
evidence existed.

Quite to the contrary, the law's primary advocates were self-interested
heads of law-enforcement bureaucracies, anxious to create long-term funding
and employment for themselves, following the collapse of the alcohol
prohibition debacle. In addition, cannabis prohibition served the interests
of several powerful industries: alcohol, tobacco, drug, chemical and paper
pulp (today, we would add civil forfeiture, prisons, urine-testing and
court-ordered rehab to this list). To read the congressional transcripts is
to realize that most members of Congress were utterly ignorant of the law's
subject matter.

With the testimony of fraudulent paid "experts", and with the help of
hysterical voices in the media (W.R. Hearst especially), popular sentiments
of racial, ethnic, sexual and cultural bigotry were both inflamed and cited
as justification for a punitive new law.

In short, the purity of our white Anglo-Saxon culture (in particular our
women) was allegedly threatened by dope-smoking Mexicans,
African-Americans, jazzmen, and other characters seen as suspect by
mainstream America.

David J. Casassa

Pittsburgh