THERE MUST BE LAWS TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM CANNABIS

After reading the response of the two Americans who wrote to The NOW
(Letters to the editor, Page 13, June 7) to refute my arguments on the
issue of the Cannabis Reform Bill, I am compelled to remark on their
fallacies and present evidence to further justify my stance.

Matthew Hulett of New Jersey states "scientific data shows that marijuana
users overcompensate for their quite minor two-hour impairment by driving
more slowly and cautiously." I question Mr. Hulett's anonymous authorities
and supposed facts. My authorities, Health Canada and the National
Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), confirm that the main active chemical in
marijuana, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), influences the activity of
cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells in the brain, causing the user to
experience immediate symptoms such as distorted perception, difficulty in
thinking and problem solving and loss of co-ordination - none of which are
beneficial for a person behind the wheel.

Also, the impairment does not fade in two hours as Hulett believes; in fact
traces of marijuana can be detected in the bloodstream of a person who used
it as long as 30 days. An example? Marijuana detection in Ross Rebagliati's
system during the 1998 Winter Olympics almost cost him a gold medal even
though he claims he hadn't smoked a joint in 10 months and merely inhaled
some second-hand pot smoke at a party.

As well, long-term side effects range from inefficiency of immune system
cells to respiratory illnesses.

Mr. Hulett, it doesn't take a car driving at 130 km/h to end lives; a car
driving at 50km/h swerving into the opposite lane due to the driver's lack
of judgment can kill. A person with distorted perception and loss of
co-ordination driving cautiously? He or she should not even be on the road.

Yes, scientists are currently developing tests to identify stoned drivers,
but my point is an effective test should be presented before or at least at
the same time as the Cannabis Reform Bill. Mr. Hulett will find a good
reason to delay marijuana policy reform when one of his family members is
killed by a stoned driver who proudly passed the ineffective tests with
flying colours.

Now as for Michael J. Dee of Maine, I represent the generation that you
overlooked when you failed to acknowledge the adverse effects marijuana
decriminalization is going to have on the young generation, who are going
to encounter the repercussions long after your generation has retired.

If I am supporting organized crime by encouraging my generation to make the
right decision about pot-smoking by urging the Canadian government to
consider the multifarious aspects of this issue before taking action or by
pondering ways to protect the future generation from drug dealers and the
deadly lifestyle drugs entail, then you may pronounce me guilty.

"Grow houses are dangerous ... does that make marijuana dangerous?" Yes!
The bottom line is if marijuana was a healthy and beneficial plant there
wouldn't even be a debate over this. Think about it. If cannabis were good
for us, wouldn't we all be encouraged to smoke it? Because it is a harmful
drug that has already lured many into its addictive grasp, there must be
laws to protect people from it, if not the responsible adults, then young
people, who now account for almost half of recreational marijuana smokers.

All in all, I appreciate American concerns over Canadian matters and I hope
that together our governments will resolve this issue as soon as possible.