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