Responding to Richard Craig's "A war on people" (Your Views, Dec. 5), I hope he was not as poor a detective as he is a purported authority on marijuana. Abstracts of thousands of peer-reviewed articles available on PubMed attest to the fact that cannabis is indeed addictive. Marijuana has been shown to have profound, negative effects on the cardiovascular, respiratory and immune systems; on neurocognitive function and IQ; and on the brain's delicate neurotransmitter systems, including the endogenous cannabinoid system. [continues 196 words]
If there is anyone who thinks legalizing pot is without its evils, they had better look to Washington state and Colorado. Washington state has experienced an influx of organized crime, including biker gangs and cartels. This also is taking place in Colorado,where dispensaries are being used as distribution centers by these same groups. Take a dose of reality along with John Morgan. Morgan never fails to point out in his commercials distrust for the insurance companies but doesn't seem to be able to present a clear, simple initiative proposed on a ballot. How many bereaved families will he represent when some pothead he helped put on the street kills someone while DUI? Does the government become liable for endorsing pot smokers who develop lung cancer when it promotes eradification of smoking tobacco? H.L. West Lutz [end]
The letters you published regarding medical marijuana on Dec. 1 are inaccurate. As a former narcotics detective, and a spokesman for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a police group that advocates the regulation of drugs in the same manner in which we regulate beer and tobacco, I can tell you categorically that marijuana is neither addictive nor a gateway drug. You want a real gateway "drug?" It is a government that feels it knows what's best for its citizens, without regard to their freedom of choice. [continues 141 words]
Regarding "Pot not medicine" (Your Views, Dec. 1): For someone who claims to be an expert on drug problems, Calvina Fay's letter sounds like nothing more than an advertisement for the pharmaceutical industry. Her first error was to state there are no other forms of marijuana other than the street version. If Fay were truly educated on drug research, she would learn that there are several experiments that are altering the cannabis plant to remove all traces of THC, the chemical that gets you "high." She then incorrectly states that marijuana causes mental disorders. Is she a research scientist?! How can her lack of scientific and psychological knowledge be sure that the drug use came I first, instead of the drug use being a manifestation of a particular disorder? If she'd actually bother to read the full study reports and not just the sound bites from mainstream media outlets, maybe she wouldn't make such erroneous statements. j [continues 179 words]
In reference to "Lighting Up -- the pros and cons of the medical pot debate" (Views, Nov. 24), I find it absurd that John Morgan has the gall to claim that his initiative is not about getting high but rather about helping the "truly sick." What he calls "medical marijuana" is not special marijuana. It is nothing more than street pot that contains contaminants such as pesticides, fertilizers and fungi -- hardly a substance that is safe for the truly sick. Marijuana is addictive and has been linked to harms such as cancer, schizophrenia and other mental illnesses, and respiratory diseases. It has also been shown to suppress the immune system, something that is not needed by the truly sick. [continues 67 words]
Regarding "Lighting up": Having spent 30 years in law enforcement and more than 20 years teaching DUI classes, I have done my share of homework on the legalization of pot issue. I submit that attorney John Morgan and Sheriff David Gee are both missing the point. Marijuana, like all drugs, has side effects, and if the medicinal argument was anywhere as strong as Morgan implies, it would have been a windfall in the health care industry in California, where this drug has been legal for medicinal reasons for many years. It is all about getting "high," and if the "high" were taken out of the equation, the argument would evaporate. [continues 72 words]
According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, Floridians support legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes by a whopping 82-16 margin, crossing all party lines. Frustrated by decades of inaction by the Florida Legislature, citizens have taken it into their own hands to put the issue directly before voters through a citizens' initiative to amend the Florida Constitution. The question should be whether Florida wants to join 20 other states and the District of Columbia in making medical marijuana available to its residents suffering from debilitating illnesses. [continues 747 words]
Thanks to a well-funded effort by ubiquitous trial lawyer John Morgan, Florida voters are likely to get the opportunity to vote for, or against, approving the use of medical marijuana next November. For most supporters, the issue of medical marijuana is a highly emotional issue based on personal beliefs and scientific evidence that is often criticized by the establishment. Meanwhile, opponents say approving marijuana usage for medicinal purposes is a mere foot in the door that will eventually lead to approval of recreational marijuana use. That, they say, will lead to greater use of harder drugs and create more societal ills. [continues 1629 words]
As a great-grandmother, my concern is for our children. How many children have died from drugs; lives ruined, destroyed? Everything has to do with money. If marijuana was legal then the children would not be bothered by drug dealers. The time is now to make a better and safer life for the young. Kennedy said, "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." My fellow Americans, ask not what your children can do for you, ask what you can do for your children. Keep our children free of drug dealers. Let moms and dads, the community, the churches, clubs, friends, neighbors, relatives work together to protect our children whom we love so much. They deserve the best. Jo Ann Crain, Tampa [end]
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's assertion that the proposed medical marijuana amendment's summary "suggests there is no federal prohibition" makes no sense. The exact wording is "Applies only to Florida law. Does not authorize violations of federal law..." That wording tells me the amendment does not alter federal law, that it alters only Florida law. Her complaint is a last-minute attempt to insert ambiguity where none exists. Bondi wants to stop the amendment because she fears that if it reaches the ballot, it will become law, and if it becomes law, it will not cause the problems opponents claim. University researchers have found that the first 16 states to enact medical marijuana laws saw traffic fatalities drop 9 percent in the first year, beer consumption down and teens' pot use unchanged. John G. Chase, Palm Harbor [end]
Amendment Supporters' Ballot Language Misleading, She Argues In Attempt To Derail It TAMPA a=C2=80" Attorney General Pam Bondi is asking the state Supreme Cou rt to invalidate the language of a proposed constitutional amendment allowing medical use of marijuana in Florida a=C2=80" a move that, if successful, could derail the measure for this election cycle. Bondi argued in a court filing that the summary of the amendment that would appear on the ballot doesn't give voters an accurate idea of the effect of the amendment and therefore shouldn't be placed on the ballot. [continues 480 words]
Two recent letters speak out against legalizing marijuana. If their reason for writing was Morgan & Morgan's project to put medical marijuana on the 2014 ballot, they need to check their facts. One letter asks, 'Why legalize the smoking of drugs to create a further burden on the healthcare system and send the wrong message to kids?' The other worries about 'a nation full of mindless people wanting to drive while being legally high.' Fact is, most patients do not 'smoke.' Instead, they use a vaporizer or ingest it in food. As for driving 'high,' the first 16 states to legalize medical marijuana saw a decrease in traffic fatalities, a decrease in beer consumption and no increase in teen pot smoking. John G. Chase Palm Harbor [end]
I agree with the writer of 'Don't legalize pot' (Your Views, Sept. 7). The writer posed two great questions. Why legalize the smoking of drugs and create a further burden on the health care system of America? And with the MADD folks doing all they can to stop drunken drivA-ing, why promote a nation full of mindless people wanting to drive while being legally high? My questions are: Will driver's licenses now need to be issued with an identifier such as 'Pot Smoker'? And should these folks also need to pay higher insurance premiums? Legalizing pot opens the door to a host of problems most of us haven't even considered yet. Just say no! Cheryl Johnston, Plant city [end]
With the government running millions of dollars in ads against smoking, why legalize the smokA-ing of drugs and create a further burden on the health care system in America? It surely is not a good influence on our youths to legalize drugs. You have the MADD folks doing all they can to stop drunken driving and now we promote a nation full of mindless people wanting to drive while being legally high? It is another agenda being shoved down our throats. Can you see why our nation is in a moral and physical decline? Kelly Langston, St.Petersburg [end]
Regarding "War on people" (Your Views, May 25): Kudos to Lt. Richard Craig. He clearly articulated the considerations associated with the insane "War on Drugs." I wish him well in his pursuit of a cure for the insanity, but I fear that it is incurable cancer, with roots in political corruption, turf protection (would the DBA accept a diminished role?), misguided religious zealotry, and the lobbying by those with direct monetary interests. Donald Barnhill Trinity [end]
I am the retired executive officer of a Northeastern police department, and I applaud the letter you recently published from John G. Chase of Palm Harbor, "Drug war a waste." As a former undercover officer, I booked literally thousands of youths for small amounts of marijuana. Never did I consider that they might lose their right to vote, their right to live in public housing, their right to certain scholarships. Thanks to my zealousness, those youths, now grown men and woman, may well have a career track that involves saying something like, "Do you want to supersize that?" [continues 162 words]
The government justifies the drug war by saying it "takes drugs off the street". What it really does is raise the price so high that casual users quit. But they were no problem in the first place. Problem users will do almost anything to get the cash to pay the price. The best way to take a drug off the street is by giving it the legal status of alcohol. Then its tax revenue could be used for treatment of those who ask, and people selling to kids would lose their jobs. Start with marijuana and see how that goes. Then decide what to do, if anything, about the other illegal drugs. The funds now being wasted to arrest marijuana smokers could be used elsewhere. Most important, patients who smoke marijuana would no longer have to hide from police. John Chase Palm Harbor [end]
Los Zetas is considered the most violent drug cartel in Mexico, using terror and brute force to impose its will. In a country renowned for drug-related brutality, the cartel distinguished itself last year in San Juan by leaving 49 headless, handless and footless bodies near a spray-painted message at the entrance gates: "100% Los Zetas," a sign from the cartel that it owned the city. Ronald and Esther Winter, a retired Clearwater couple in their 70s who used to own construction businesses, have never been in trouble with the law. Ronald Winter says they raised their three children with strong morals, were part of the PTA and have worked hard to make contributions to the community. [continues 1817 words]
Regarding "The expectation of privacy" (Other Views, March 29): "Expectation of privacy"? Sounds good. But the Fourth Amendment offers much less protection than it did before the drug war began. A person expects the privacy he or she can remember. But the drug war started two generations ago, and memories fade. Expectations were different before stop-and-frisk ("Empty your pockets!"), before urine testing, before sniffer dogs, before thermal imaging to look for the warm roofs of grow houses, before traffic stop paperwork was filled out slow enough to bring in a sniffer dog, and before such arrestees were threatened with a felony record unless they snitched on "" somebody. Rather than continue to discuss the legal arcana of what is, and is not, an unreasonable search, just roll back the 1971 Controlled Substances Act, starting with marijuana. JOHN G. CHASE, PALM HARBOR [end]
The war on marijuana is going up in smoke, and it's about time. There is no bigger waste of money and resources in all law enforcement. Failure is too polite a description for the long campaign to eliminate the pot trade in the United States. A colossal flop is what it is. After four decades and billions spent, marijuana is easier to get, and more potent, than ever. More than 40 percent of all Americans over 12 have tried it, and at least 30 million people smoke it each year. The most recent national drug survey found that 18.1 million Americans had used it during the previous month. [continues 551 words]
