MARIJUANA ARGUMENTS NEED LESS EMOTION

To the Editor,

Re: Prohibitionists losing legal debate, Letters, Jan. 10.

OK, you've had your fun.

You've sparked a debate where both sides have strong opinions that
are long on emotion and short on fact.

The writers make sweeping statements such as Whelm King's, "Cannabis
should be legalized because it is relatively harmless and is a potent
and effective natural medicine" without referencing any specific
study that supports his statement.

Ashley Suggett offers California's legalization and regulation of
medical marijuana as a useful example while seeming to be unaware of
similar provision currently available to Canadians.

H.B. deWaal is concerned that young people are being saddled with
criminal records for a harmless drug when the Youth Justice Act
protects all minors from long term implications of youthful
indiscretion and in my opinion officers of the law exercise a great
deal of leniency with regard to the use of marijuana (nor is the use
of restricted to young people).

There is more emotion and opinion here than fact.

I think it would be helpful if you assigned a reporter, perhaps even
two one who supports the legalization of marijuana and another who
is against it to actually assemble some facts.

There is confusion in our society about this drug in
particular some believe legalization will mean the freedom to
produce it for themselves without any sort of regulation. Apparently
some are unaware that there are provisions for its medicinal use.
Many believe that marijuana use brings about much ill.

In the introduction to Plato's Republic, I came across this
statement: the diseases of a state are like the heads of a hydra;
they multiply when they are cut off. The true remedy for them is not
extirpation but prevention. And the way to prevent them is to take
care of education and education will take care of the rest."

Your newspaper is a catalyst for much good in our society when you
choose to assist in our education.

Susan Schleppe

Nanaimo