Pubdate: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 Date: 09/17/2000 Source: Denver Post (CO) Author: John Wenzel I am a new resident to the state, so I have not seen the advertisements for or against Amendment 20. However, I feel that, from a logical standpoint, Martin Chilcutt and Chris Ott's "pro" argument was far more compelling than Michael J. Norton's "con." Norton fails to provide any details as to why medicinal use of marijuana actually will be physically harmful. The argument that it hurts the immune system of those with already low immune systems would seem a cost far outweighed by the benefits. He stands behind the vague, overused rhetoric that it is a threat to the "children" and "families" of Colorado. How? In the "pro" argument, it's stated that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (specifically the Institute of Medicine) concluded that marijuana is "neither addictive nor a gateway drug." If that is so, how is it any more of a threat than legalized, culturally sanctioned drugs like nicotine and alcohol? Finally, I find it irresponsible of Norton to assert that "California-based promarijuana backers" just want to legalize all drugs in Colorado ( "marijuana, cocaine, the rest''). Where is his evidence for that? If he weren't so well spoken, I'd almost guess he was using scare tactics. There is no logical connection between legalized medicinal marijuana and the legalization of cocaine, or "the rest" of the currently illegal drugs. I, for one, am going to vote for Amendment 20 in November, and not because I want to see marijuana legalized everywhere. I see no drawbacks to its medicinal use. Indeed, how is it any more harmful (as Chilcutt noted) than already prescribed, incredibly addictive drugs like morphine? I think Norton would have a hard time answering this. His vague rhetoric and scare tactics just don't stand up to Chilcutt's inarguable facts. JOHN WENZEL, Littleton