ABSURD PREMISE FOR PROHIBITION

The pro and con articles about medical marijuana was a nice touch for the
editorial page.

I think it is a sign of the times that here in the land of the free and
home of the brave, a person becomes a criminal if he chooses to smoke a
plant that relieves pain and symptoms of illness.

After all, we have a government that is exporting democracy to the other
side of the globe by expending huge amounts of treasure and blood, but that
same government does not allow its own citizens to smoke a common plant to
relieve pain or illness.

Yes, truth is stranger than fiction, and politicians routinely tell lies.

Neither side addressed the constitutionality of the issue in the articles,
and the U.S. Supreme Court has a case before it now that possibly could
decide that issue.

The case of Raich vs. Ashcroft could settle the question, but probably the
justices will demonstrate their political nature and sidestep the question.
We shall see.

As for me, I think that if at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a man
suggested that the proposed federal government should have the power to
tell the citizens what they may or may not ingest into their own bodies,
that man would have been laughed out of the room.

Yet the entire drug prohibition is based upon that absurd premise.

Mr. Kenric Ward's argument is nothing but a collection of old wives' tales
and government propaganda. His is sliding down the very slippery slope of
the position that its toxicity or potential harm should determine a drug's
legal status.

If his argument is taken to its logical conclusion, then a host of other
drugs must be added to the list of contraband, including alcohol, tobacco,
aspirin, acetaminophen.

In a good debate, that is a poor position to be in.

Richard Sinnott

Fort Pierce