MARIJUANA EDITORIAL HELD NO LOGIC

Dear editor:

In response to your editorial, "Legalize marijuana? No way man", I would
have to say that I fail to see any logic in the author's argument. On the
one hand the author of this piece argues the prohibition of alcohol was an
absolute disaster -- which it was. On the other hand they appear to argue
for the prohibition of marijuana despite the disastrous consequences of
such prohibition.

Marijuana is a substance which, by many accounts, is no more harmful than
alcohol and tobacco. However, by the very nature of its illegality we
thrust a multitude of negative consequences upon its users and society.
Exposing marijuana users to dealers of other drugs, feeding billions of
dollars into the hands of organized criminals / bike gangs, increased
violence from dealers fighting turf wars, handing out criminal records to
otherwise law-abiding citizens, denying the right to travel / employment as
a result of marijuana convictions -- these are the consequences of our
current prohibitionist policies.

I admit the use of marijuana does not come without consequence --but surely
if you weigh these consequences against the consequences of prohibition you
would have to admit the prohibition of marijuana is also an "absolute
disaster".

I would also argue the author's points against allowing marijuana to be
used by the sick are illogical. The author admits marijuana provides "a
measure of compassionate relief" but goes on to say "because marijuana
cultivation, marijuana possession, and marijuana use continue to be illegal
in Canada, we'd best be very cautious in administering its sanctioned use".

I would point to such drugs as heroin and morphine. Both are illegal
substances -- both highly addictive and used by addicts --which, however,
can be prescribed by a physician. The legal use of heroin or morphine has
no relation to the illicit use of these substances nor would the legal
prescribing of marijuana to AIDS, MS and glaucoma patients have any impact
on the recreational use of this drug.

I would say the author's argument seems based on what is known as a
circular argument -- you better not legalize marijuana -- for medical or
any other use -- because marijuana is illegal. I would also say, as a
medium of information regarding such an important topic your newspaper has
a responsibility to provide much better thought out perspectives to the public.

Richard Dow, Toronto

BENEFITS OF HERBS AREN'T STUDIED BECAUSE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

Dear editor:

In your editorial on Sept. 20 about marijuana, you says, "But we just don't
know. Through our ignorance and unwillingness to think beyond conventional
terms, we've managed as a society to relegate too many useful herbs and
plants to the trash heap of potential."

I would argue that it is not "we" who are unwilling to study these herbs,
but Health Canada, which has deliberately forced any studies of marijuana
to focus on the negative effects, by refusing to provide cannabis to any
study which could find politically "incorrect" results.

The Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Agency in the US
have also refused in this manner to allow positive studies to take place.

Is it any wonder then that "we" don't know of many officially sanctioned
studies to show the benefits of cannabis or, for that matter, many other
herbs, extracts, and natural products such as stevia, melatonin, etc.?

Jason Lalancette, Saanich, BC