MARIJUANA BAN, NOT USE, DOES MOST HARM

Editor, Times-Dispatch: Ross Mackenzie's Op/Ed column on marijuana ["On
Stumpf, Churches, Racism, Wind, Mary Jane, etc."] was a true disappointment.
I usually disagree with him, but he usually makes better arguments.

After all, people have been using marijuana for at least 5,000 years. The
U.S. government has spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars
on research designed to show its harmful effects (while repeatedly and
consistently banning and blocking any research looking for any beneficial
effects, of course). After all of that, the very best argument he can come
up with against marijuana use is an obscure newspaper advertisement
published on a small island that most Americans have never visited or
studied?

Of course, there also have been repeated efforts by various governments to
look at the scientific and sociological evidence and decide what measures,
if any, to take to control marijuana use. It's understandable that Mackenzie
wouldn't want to cite any of these, since every single one of which I'm
aware, from the 19th-Century "Report of the Indian Hemp Commission" through
Nixon's "Marijuana: Signal of Misunderstanding," right up to the Canadian
report just released, all have agreed that any attempt to outlaw marijuana
is bound to cause more harm than the drug itself.

As the most recent example confirming these warnings, in July a National
Guard helicopter looking for marijuana plants started a fire in California.
The former residents of the 37 homes and 53,000 acres that were burned out
will no doubt be greatly relieved to know that they won't be "messed up" by
the killer weed, and no doubt the injured firefighters are equally happy to
have been "protected."

Roy B. Scherer

Richmond