MEDICAL MARIJUANA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TREAT IT LIKE MEDICINE

The primary drawback of Amendment 20 is the spawning of a new bureaucracy
for drug regulation. The idea of regulating distribution of marijuana more
stringently than the distribution of morphine is preposterous. Surely a
system that can handle the distribution of a dangerous, highly addictive
drug like morphine is already adequate to deal with marijuana. If it's
medicine, treat it like medicine. I'm baffled that a society so eager to
drug its children with Ritalin and Prozac could possibly object to this
medical use.

KARLA MILLER Lafayette
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OVERUSED RHETORIC

I am a new resident to the state, so I have not seen the advertisements for
or against Amendment 20.

However, I feel that, from a logical standpoint, Martin Chilcutt and Chris
Ott's "pro" argument was far more compelling than Michael J. Norton's
"con." Norton fails to provide any details as to why medicinal use of
marijuana actually will be physically harmful. The argument that it hurts
the immune system of those with already low immune systems would seem a
cost far outweighed by the benefits.

He stands behind the vague, overused rhetoric that it is a threat to the
"children" and "families" of Colorado. How? In the "pro" argument, it's
stated that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (specifically the
Institute of Medicine) concluded that marijuana is "neither addictive nor a
gateway drug." If that is so, how is it any more of a threat than
legalized, culturally sanctioned drugs like nicotine and alcohol?

Finally, I find it irresponsible of Norton to assert that "California-based
promarijuana backers" just want to legalize all drugs in Colorado (
"marijuana, cocaine, the rest''). Where is his evidence for that? If he
weren't so well spoken, I'd almost guess he was using scare tactics. There
is no logical connection between legalized medicinal marijuana and the
legalization of cocaine, or "the rest" of the currently illegal drugs.

I, for one, am going to vote for Amendment 20 in November, and not because
I want to see marijuana legalized everywhere. I see no drawbacks to its
medicinal use. Indeed, how is it any more harmful (as Chilcutt noted) than
already prescribed, incredibly addictive drugs like morphine? I think
Norton would have a hard time answering this. His vague rhetoric and scare
tactics just don't stand up to Chilcutt's inarguable facts.

JOHN WENZEL Littleton
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEST FOR PATIENTS

I continue to be astonished that any controversy exists regarding the
matter of medical marijuana.

Michael J. Norton's disingenuous arguments in opposition consistently
failed, almost all for the same reason: He could make the identical
arguments to oppose the distribution of virtually all prescription
medications. Medically prescribed marijuana sends "a dangerous message to
our children," that "good medicine must be OK for kids, too''? I trust and
assume that Norton does not apply this standard to the "good medicines,"
including commonly prescribed narcotics, many of which, by the way, offer a
significant danger of abuse and addiction if not responsibly administered.
I don't think that anyone argues that if those substances are good
medicine, then they must be good for children! Medical marijuana presents a
danger in the work place? Then I am sure, Mr. Norton, that you wish to make
immediately illegal and unavailable the myriad of prescription drugs which
carry a warning label regarding the operation of vehicles or heavy machinery.

One issue of legitimate concern was raised by Norton: Patients who have
been prescribed marijuana by their treating physicians most certainly
should not have to seek out illegal sources for its purchase.

Perhaps I am naive or old-fashioned, but I still believe that physicians
are obligated to have the best interests of their patients in mind when
prescribing a course of medical treatment. In any given situation, one
physician might prescribe one medication and another might prescribe
another. Professional judgment is applied. If a trained, competent,
licensed medical doctor feels that prescription marijuana is the
appropriate course of treatment for a given affliction, who does Norton
think he is to question that professional conclusion, or to block the
availability of the medication?

PETER BRIDGE Thornton
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OTHER "DRUG' ABUSES

I guess the first suggestion would be to listen to the patients, and not
just the ones that make the local news. I mean patients from all over and
family members of these patients. They will tell you that, in some cases,
the people they love cannot eat due to radiation therapy and the loss of
weight is dangerous. Marijuana increases appetite for these individuals,
and relieves pain in the process. It strikes me as disgusting that we will
allow fetuses to be dissected for experimental purposes to help with
diseases, but something that is grown naturally and has been around forever
cannot seem to get funding for testing and Federal Drug Administration
approval. We already know it does help some; why not investigate further
why it does help?

Some of our best drugs are derivatives from other forms of herbs, so why
not this one?

Of course the American Medical Association and others wouldn't go for this
testing. Why? Because of the almighty dollar. Pressure from drug companies
would be enormous - think of the money they will lose on all the different
drugs they sell if marijuana was proven to have great healing qualities.

You talk of our children and how they will think this is OK. Well, what of
alcohol abuse in this country? Our children manage to find it, even though
it's only legal for those 21 and over.

This is all about money - who will lose it and who will gain. God forbid
that any of us have a family member who is dying and is in pain and we have
to find out for ourselves what helps them and does not.

DEBRA BUSSE Aurora
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOME NEED THE HELP

Michael Norton's article is very distressing. His is just another voice
telling the state that disabled people are "less" than everyone else. Also,
I have a problem with Norton telling me that he should have the right to
govern how I manage my multiple sclerosis.

I believe that the people of Colorado are simply asking for another option
when it comes to managing their illnesses. Norton implies that our symptoms
are purely imagined. I suffer every day, but I do it smiling. There are so
many people who are not as strong as I am. If medical marijuana can help
them, then they should have the right to use it.

Mr. Norton, serious illness is very difficult. Some of us are heroes, and
some of us need more help. Who are you to decide?

CAROL SMITH Pueblo
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MONEY VS. MORALS

I am not a pot smoker, yet couldn't agree with Michael Norton's point at
all. There are people who exist in this nation who do not want to put
pharmaceuticals into their bodies, and I am one of these people. Doctors
may say there are more effective drugs, yet what are the side effects? I've
witnessed drug companies come to hospitals to "sell" their wonder drugs,
complete with catered lunches and perks. So of course the physicians will
push the pills, especially if they're receiving "kickbacks" from these drug
companies.

Money speaks louder than morals in this society. And the pharmaceutical
companies are screaming the loudest!

FREDERICK SCHILLING Boulder