MEDICAL MARIJUANA APPEAL

Heed Civil Rights

Re: "The medical marijuana haze," Nov. 4 editorial.

Monday was the last day on which we had to endure political ads whose
distortions and outright lies compete in plumbing the depths of decency. It
was really sad, therefore, for your editorial page to see fit to present
its own set of falsehoods on the same day.

In urging that the recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on medical
marijuana be appealed, you offer the following twisted logic. "No one
disputes the fact that 'aiding and abetting' the distribution and sale of
marijuana is a crime under current law. The question is when a physician
crosses the line and either distributes or helps someone obtain it.

"The 9th Circuit ruling is unsatisfactory because it virtually assumes that
every involvement by a physician is a protected free-speech matter and
actually prohibits the federal government from investigating physicians'
conduct based solely on the fact that they have recommended" marijuana use.

As you know quite well, the federal government's position has been that
physicians do not have the right to even make a patient aware of the
possible medicinal benefits of marijuana use. The purpose of the law, and
the lawsuit, to muzzle physicians has been completely explicit.

Furthermore, the "logic" that The Post applied is that all physicians
should be assumed guilty until proven innocent of exceeding their
free-speech rights and becoming drug dealers.

This is exactly the same mindset that the religious right uses in
condemning educational attempts at teaching teenagers safe sex in public
schools. Abstinence, in their view and yours, is the only acceptable
policy. The fact that you disclose your opposition to Amendment 20 does
nothing to protect you from the calumny of this editorial.

TIM FLYNN, Denver