FEDERAL PROHIBITION OF MARIJUANA IS BASED ON A LIE

I concur with Robert Gregg and Clifford Schaffer (Your View June 29/June 28).

Isn't it strange that nasty words like amphetamines are prescribed to
help people, and nicer words like nicotine are prescribed to help
people get off cigarettes? Some of the more taboo substances do not
kill or maim many, while the legally and widely promoted items do,
daily. The numbers have proved it for decades.

My concern is of the skewed perception about "dangers" of illegal
drugs, but allowance of the "government" to positively reinforce the
"benefit" of tobacco and beer, which kill people. A lot of them, daily.

Why did Nixon throw out findings from studies on marijuana use? Did
anyone get the chance to read "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" by Jack
Herer? No one ever saw the documentary "The History of Marijuana"?

I know, they were probably not in the libraries of America. On Web
sites, though, the truth can be found about why marijuana is illegal.
Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts,
but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a
specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You can find the very first
federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented
lie on the Senate floor.

The history of marijuana's criminalization is filled with racism,
fear tactics, protection of corporate profits (hello automakers),
yellow journalism, ignorant, incompetent, corrupt legislators,
personal career advancement and greed. These are the actual reasons
marijuana is illegal and the government's data on drugs are
unreasonably skewed.

Someday, "safe," ultralight, marijuana cigarettes may make tolerable
a day for a cancer or chronic pain syndrome (CPS) patient. We all
know doctors will never tell you to smoke, even if it would make life
livable. Even for a little bit of time.

JONATHAN FRASER

High Point