POT SHOULD STAY ILLEGAL

Re: Editor Andrew Thomson's June 10th pro-pot editorial ( and a clear
indication that someone at the Fort Record is smoking the stuff )

Thomson's suggestion that we approach this issue with an open mind was
belied by his entire subsequent editorial, which reads like a pro- cannabis
manifesto. I call it the Thomson Manifesto. Launched with hyperbole and
ridicule of the opposing side, (the tried-and-true tactic of someone in a
weak position) in this case, an earlier column by Elk Island opposition MP,
Ken Epp, against Jean Chretien's Marijuana decriminalization plans.

It cries out for rebuttal. The Thomson Manifesto's first pro-pot position
(PPP) statement sarcastically implied that since tobacco and alcohol are
legal and pot is not, Epp's anti-decriminalization stance would logically
lead to prohibition of alcohol and tobacco in order to send children the
right message about substance abuse.

Well, I can't speak for Ken Epp, but I didn't read anything in the Canadian
Alliance's policy statement advocating a return to prohibition. The point
of Epp's argument was that the first step in dealing with a social problem
like drug addiction is by preventing potential new abusers from having
legally condoned access to the drug in the first place. Also, groups like
AADAC would find their youth anti-drug awareness efforts undermined if the
Federal Government appeared to condone youth-marijuana use with smaller
fines for younger offenders than for older ones.

Thomson's second PPP was in response to Epp's statement that the
health-impairment implications of "smoking a little Pot" were unknown.
Thomson's reply was that Pot can impair judgement just like alcohol, but
that's not a good reason to make it illegal.

Way to stay focused, Andrew. That reply had nothing to do with Epp's
statement. Thomson's third PPP correctly criticized the MP for saying there
has been no long-term research on the effects of marijuana use. But then,
Thomson dismisses those studies and their results by the unsupported claim,
again, that marijuana is no worse than tobacco or alcohol. In fact, he
implies pot is better than alcohol because you can't overdose on marijuana.

In fact, although no one appears to have died from a THC overdose alone,
marijuana is a gateway drug, and is often used with other intoxicants. THC
combined with amphetamines or cocaine can dangerously increase blood
pressure and heart rate. THC can interact with other mood altering
medications such as Valium (diazepam), Librium (chlordiazepoxide
hydrochloride), Xanax (alprazolam), Seconal, Nembutol (pentobarbital) or
phenobarbital, by exaggerating their effect.

It can also cause longer retention of these drugs, increasing the potential
for toxicity and overdose. Thomson then assured us that pot causes little
damage to the nervous system. "You'd have to think", he wrote, "It's fairly
minor, or else [adverse] results would have shown up in the numerous and
extensive studies to date." Clearly, he didn't even look. The first link,
in my first Internet search, yielded a 1996 report in Archives of General
Psychiatry, about the cognitive problems of long-term marijuana users.

It reported that daily use of marijuana adversely affected the parts of the
brain that control memory, attention, and learning. There is no doubt that
marijuana abuse causes social and mental problems, including "drop-out"
from education and employment, exacerbation of any tendency to
schizophrenia and other psychiatric problems.

This is not news. If mental impairment wasn't a consequence of long-term
use, our popular culture wouldn't contain the stereotype of the burned out,
low-IQ, no-short-term-memory, pot smoker-but it does. As for effects on
health, To paraphrase him, Thomson says cigarettes kill 45,000 Canadians a
year, and they're legal; so smoking pot should be too. This a good thing?

In PPP 4, Andrew Thomson derides as irrelevant Ken Epp's concern that there
is no objective roadside test for marijuana impairment. Then this paper's
editor actually argues that there are people who will always be willing
endanger others by driving while stoned, whether it's legal or not.
Implying the government should therefore decriminalize Marijuana. Pick
another criminal act Andrew; try making that same claim about burglary,
possession of stolen property, or child pornographers. It doesn't work. In
his Manifesto's fifth pro-pot-position statement, Thomson claims that
tougher fines and jail terms won't help fight the illegal drug trade. He
goes so far as to suggest that America's drug laws and sentence minimums
have filled that nation's prisons without really curbing the drug trade.
Does this mean Canada should decriminalize Marijuana? Or does it mean
there's a lot of criminal types in American jails? Pick another criminal
act Andrew, and try inserting it into that argument.

See PPP#4. In short, the Thomson Manifesto reads like it was either culled
from a bunch of pro-pot websites or Mr. Thomson is into marijuana advocacy
in a big way. His editorial will certainly color the credibility of any
news the Fort Record carries on this issue in the future. Certain elements
on the periphery of our society might go so far as to suggest his editorial
was courageous. I'd prefer to suggest the police bring a drug sniffer dog
with them to the Fort Record's offices the next time they drop by. I don't
know you, Andrew Thomson, I'm sure you're a nice guy; but on the strength
of what you've written here I think Sun Media and Bowes publishing need to
hold out for a more mature editor the next time they're interviewing
applicants for this weekly community publication.

Andrew Rondeau Gibbons, Alberta