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