DOGMATIC YELLOW JOURNALISM

I COULDN'T help but notice a parenthetical remark by the editor about
medical marijuana that said "Until there is valid proof of marijuana's
medical value, we remain skeptical." I hate to point out the obvious,
but the U.S. Institute of Medicine released a study last year that
clearly showed the potential for medical marijuana.

The government's scheduling of drugs such as Marinol and Cesamet for
bona fide medical conditions also supports the therapeutic value. Both
the IOM report and the two drugs' approval were sanctioned by national
governments. Just what standard of proof does your editor require? Is
it a higher standard than that adopted by the U.S. FDA, DEA or Health
Canada? It seems that this is purely dogmatic yellow journalism.

R. Earing

(There's a difference between prescribing drugs containing synthetic
THC and lighting up a joint in a hospital bed.)