MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Thank you, John Diaz , for a most comprehensive article in Sunday's
Insight section regarding medical marijuana ("Lost in the haze of
law," Oct. 23).

I am a pharmacist, and I agree with everything you wrote about
"medical marijuana."

The term itself is an oxymoron. There is nothing "medical" about it.
It is merely a bastardization of the English language for its
advocates to give it a warm and comfy appearance for sale and use of the drug.

As you mentioned, there are no standards of purity, dosage, strength
of active ingredients, or side effects of the drug.

As a pharmacist, I am bound to observe very strict and detailed rules
and laws in the practice of my profession. Our country has an
excellent medical and pharmaceutical system for the benefit of our citizens.

I object strongly to the distribution of a Schedule 1 drug by
untrained and uncertified persons, which is against the federal law.
It doesn't matter that the state or city or popular votes allows its
use - it is still violently against the law. If we have "medical
marijuana," then, we should have "medical heroin," "medical LSD,"
"medical anything." Doesn't make sense.

That being said, I am not an advocate for, nor, against the use of
recreational drugs. But things will have to change - the law must be
enforced or changed to allow it. I'm just not too anxious to see the
results of stoned drivers in addition to drunk drivers.

Martin Mandel, San Francisco