MONEY BEHIND POT PUSH?

Editor, The News:

Re: The Feb. 3 letter from Jody Pressman ('Prohibition worse than pot
itself,' Opinion) has raised several questions, and some comments.

There is a very impressive group of speakers lined up for the "Fill The
Hill" rally in Ottawa.

In reviewing the speakers, it appears that most of them are part of the
marijuana lobby who in many cases appear to have an interest in ensuring the
harmful, possibly addictive drug, marijuana, becomes more easily accessible.

If marijuana becomes more easily accessible, it would also include our
youth.

If the rally becomes a smoke-in, I would hope that youth would not be
allowed to attend. I have no objection to the product being available for
approved medical use, controlled as a narcotic.

A statement was made to me recently by an optometrist, with a
quarter-century of experience, after I raised the issue of marijuana for
treating glaucoma. He indicated there is possibly some benefit to patients
in using marijuana.

It has been available by prescription for many years. It does not have to be
smoked to be effective.

Pressman also states: "The prohibition of marijuana has failed and Canadians
are victims. Marijuana is more readily available in our schools than
cigarettes or alcohol."

Would the reason for this be that parents and youth have become aware of the
ravages of these products?

Do we want to go through the same problems with marijuana?

Who will we sue?

Where does the "myth" that marijuana is harmful come from?

In part, from New Scientist: "Many hard drug users have followed a similar
path from cigarettes to alcohol, to cannabis, to heroin and cocaine. This
has led some researchers to argue that soft drugs provide a 'gateway' to
harder substances.

"Clearly not everyone who likes a drink ends up as a coke addict, but very
few users of hard drugs have not tried cannabis first."

Why is so much energy being spent on a drug which has the potential of doing
so much harm? Is it money, addiction or both?

Eric Myrholm

Abbotsford