DO STUDIES SUBSTANTIATE CLAIMS ABOUT MARIJUANA?

At a weekly philosophical discussion group that I attend a question was
submitted that read, "If a majority of people routinely violate a law,
should they all be imprisoned, or should the law be changed?"

This question occurred to me when my father, who is dying of cancer,
informed me that many people have suggested to him that he use marijuana to
relieve his discomfort and to stimulate his appetite.

Upon learning of the broad diversity of people who made the suggestion
(you'd be surprised) I couldn't help but wonder why we're putting so many
people in jail for using the substance.

With so many (and so many different) people advocating its use, can
marijuana really be all that bad?

Sure, we hear public officials tell us that it's addictive and it's a
"gateway drug" to heavier drug use, but have we ever asked these people to
show us evidence to support such claims?

On the contrary, numerous reputable studies have been conducted (some by
our own government as well as Great Britain's) over the past hundred years
or so that have concluded that marijuana is not a dangerous drug.

Even the government's anti-marijuana commercials find it necessary to focus
on the dangers of using marijuana while driving. If the drug itself is so
dangerous, why don't they show ads that focus just on that?

To be sure, we've all heard of "someone" who became "addicted" to
marijuana, but was it because the drug is addictive, or because certain
individuals can't deal with their own lives and seek ways to "escape"?

A large segment of our populace believes marijuana is both addictive and a
"gateway drug." These people should ask themselves if their beliefs are
based on sound evidence, or simply what they've been told.

WAYNE L. PARKER, Perkinston