I've travelled down the cannabis-consumption rocky road and learned about its effect on (my) health the extremely difficult way. However, I must admit that research findings regarding pot's effect on health that "reveal" a benign or, contrarily, insidious nature of cannabis consumption make me instinctually wonder: Who commissioned the research? As cynical as it may sound, I'm one who believes that knowing the interests of the entity who has commissioned the research quite often reveal much about the research 'findings' to come. The commissioner, through the news media, will typically propagate terms like "independently commissioned," but such doesn't necessarily translate into 100 per cent accuracy; questions asked and/or research methodology can be quite manipulative. Frank G. Sterle, Jr., White Rock, B.C. [end]
Re: "We're asking the wrong question [on marijuana criminalization]," letter to the editor, Friday, Aug. 2. I've travelled down the cannabis-consumption rocky road and learned about its effect on my health the extremely difficult way. However, I must admit that research findings regarding pot's effect on health that "reveal" a benign or, contrarily, insidious nature of cannabis consumption make me instinctually wonder: Who commissioned the research? As cynical as it may sound, I'm one who believes that knowing the interests of the entity that has commissioned the research quite often reveal much about the research "findings" to come. The commissioner, through the news media, will typically propagate terms like "independently commissioned," but such doesn't necessarily translate into 100 percent accuracy; questions asked and/or research methodology can be quite manipulative. Frank G. Sterle, Jr. White Rock [end]
Editor: I must admit that the plethora of research findings these days regarding pot consumption's effect on human health that "reveal" a benign or, contrarily, insidious nature to cannabis consumption make me instinctually wonder: Who commissioned the research? As cynical as it may sound, I'm one who believes quite often knowing the interests of the entity that has commissioned the research often reveals much about the research findings to come. News media will likely use the terms "independent" or "independently commissioned," but such doesn't necessarily translate into 100 per cent accuracy; questions asked and/or research methodology can be manipulative. [continues 107 words]
The Editor, Re: "Prohibition appears to have taught us nothing," the Now, May 3. Especially with the unconditional support of the "opinion-makers" infesting the mainstream news media, it's undeniably but a matter of when, not if, pot consumption becomes legal and regulated. And when it does, hopefully it will be as progressive of a social move as its proponents adamantly insist it would. But as with research into the health hazards involved with all legal/regulated mind-altering substances, the same zeal for knowledge must be just as prolifically applied to pot consumption. [continues 57 words]
As a former frequent recreational pot consumer, I know of the negative effect cannabis smoking can leave behind in a consumer's body in my case, a few months after I quit cold-turkey. Nonetheless, if/when pot consumption does become legalized and regulated, hopefully it will be as progressive of a social move as its proponents adamantly insist it would. But as with research into the health hazards involved with all legal/regulated mind-altering substances, the same zeal for knowledge must be just as prolifically applied to pot consumption. Frank G. Sterle, Jr., White Rock [end]
Dear Editor, Re: "Drugs: Marijuana safer than water" & "Drugs: Harmful pot claims unfounded," Letters, Oct.30, Langley Advance. Maybe marijuana is safer than the water that's flushed down the toilet after it's been used; furthermore, it's been solidly proven that marijuana consumption is indeed damaging to the human body and mind. As a former frequent cannabis consumer, I, along with many of my former (some still) cannabis-consuming peers whom I've bumped into these last dozen years or so, can attest to the permanent damage that marijuana can cause to the consumer's body and mind. [continues 248 words]
Editor: Re: Lighting up is bad either way, May 20 letters. I strongly agree with letter-writer M. Downey on this issue. I, a former pot-consumer - along with most of my former pot-consumption peers who I've bumped into these last half-dozen years - - can attest to the permanent damage that marijuana can cause to the consumer's body and mind. Scientific proof of such potential damage? For one, there are the startling facts published in The Guardian newspaper in 2002; it was authored by Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry in London: [continues 204 words]
Editor, The Star: I must respond to Alan Randell's pro-illicit-drug letter. Why? Because as a former pot-consumer - along with most of my former pot-consumption peers who I've bumped into these last half-dozen years - - I can attest to the permanent damage that marijuana can cause to the consumer's body and mind. Scientific proof of such potential damage? For one, there are the startling facts published in an article last September 17, in London's Guardian newspaper; it was authored by professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry and hospital consultant, Robin Murray: [continues 200 words]
Editor, The Record: I find that I must agree with Larry Bennett on the pot issue. Why? Because as a former pot-consumer - along with most of my former pot-consumption peers whom I've bumped into these last half-dozen years - I can attest to the permanent damage that marijuana can cause to the consumer's body and mind. Scientific proof of such potential damage? For one, there are the startling facts published in an article last Sept. 17 in London's Guardian newspaper. It was authored by professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry and hospital consultant, Robin Murray: [continues 139 words]
Editor: Re: "Pot needs regulated market," (Letters, The Times, Jan. 9). As a former pot consumer - along with most of my former pot consumption peers who I've bumped into these last half dozen years - I can attest to the permanent damage that marijuana can cause to the consumer's body and mind. Scientific proof of such potential damage? For one, there are the startling facts published in an article last September 17, in London's Guardian newspaper; it was authored by professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry and hospital consultant, Robin Murray. [continues 200 words]
Dear Editor, As a former pot consumer, I - and most of my former pot-consumption peers whom I've bumped into - can attest to the permanent damage that marijuana can cause to the consumer's body and mind. If pro-pot people propose legalizing marijuana for practical reasons - that is, less pressure on already-overburdened law-enforcement and justice systems - that's a clear and perhaps practical motive; but there's simply way too much of the media-propagated misinformation out there telling our impressionable youth that pot is harmless. Frank G. Sterle, Jr. White Rock [end]
By promoting its decriminalization or outright legalization, our government is basically legitimizing marijuana's consumption and implying it's basically harmless. As a former pot-consumer I, along with most of my former pot-consumption peers, can attest to the permanent damage that marijuana can cause to the consumer's body and mind. If pro-pot people propose legalizing marijuana for practical reasons -- less pressure on already-overburdened law-enforcement and justice systems -- that's a clear and perhaps practical motive, but there's simply way too much media-propagated BS telling our impressionable youth that pot is harmless. Frank G. Sterle, Jr. (The pot affected your logic, too.) [end]
Editor: By promoting marijuana decriminalization or legalization, pro-pot activists are basically legitimizing its consumption and implying that it's basically harmless. As a former pot-consumer myself, I - along with most of my former pot-consumption peers who I've bumped into these last half dozen years - can attest to the permanent damage that marjiuana can cause to the consumer's body and mind. In addition, the is [sic] a growing body of scientific proof of such damage. For one, there are the startling facts published in an article last Sept. 17 in London's Guardian newspaper. [continues 165 words]
BY PROMOTING its decriminalization or outright legalization, pro-pot activists are basically legitimizing marijuana's consumption and implying that it's basically harmless. As a former pot consumer myself, I - along with most of my former pot-consumption peers who I've bumped into these last half-dozen years - can attest to the permanent damage that marijuana can cause to a person's body and mind. If pro-pot people propose legalizing marijuana for practical reasons - for instance, less pressure on already-overburdened law-enforcement and justice systems - that's a clear and perhaps practical motive. But there's simply way too much of the media-propagated garbage out there telling our impressionable youth that pot is harmless. Frank G. Sterle, Jr. (An interesting perspective.) [end]
Abolishing prohibition against marijuana consumption is legitimizing its consumption and implying that it's harmless ("Drug prohibition never the answer," Letters, April 17-24 issue). As a former pot-consumer myself, I, along with most of my former pot-consumption peers who I've bumped into these last half-dozen years, can attest to the permanent damage marijuana can cause to the body and mind. Scientific proof of such damage? For one, there are the startling facts published in an article last Sept. 17, in London's Guardian newspaper; it was authored by professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry and hospital consultant, Robin Murray: [continues 146 words]
Dear Editor, According to the few statistics of that time-period, alcohol prohibition proved that the illegal status of that substance reduced its public rate of consumption . Also many studies indicate that pot-consumers' mental health depends in part on the reduction or prevention of cannabis consumption. If pro-pot people propose legalizing marijuana for practical reasons - e.g., less pressure on already-overburdened law-enforcement and justice systems - that's a clear motive, but there's simply way too much of the media-propagated B.S. out there [Prohibition propagates propaganda, March 25 Letters to the Editor, Langley Advance News] telling our impressionable youth that pot is harmless. Frank G. Sterle, Jr. White Rock [end]
Dear Editor, Ending prohibition against marijuana is legitimizing its consumption, and implying that it's basically harmless [Marijuana: Prohibition no solution either, April 15 Letters to the Editor, Langley Advance News]. As a former pot-consumer myself, I, along with most of my former pot-consumption peers whom I've bumped into these last half-dozen years, can attest to the permanent damage that marijuana can cause to the consumer's body and mind. Scientific proof of such damage? For one, there are the startling facts published in an article last Sept. 17, in London's Guardian newspaper; it was authored by professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry and hospital consultant, Robin Murray: [continues 148 words]
The U.S., for a change, makes a good point: Canada's laws and judges are quite lax about marijuana consumption (Relaxed pot laws prompt U.S. warning, April 19). This is, despite the fact that, according to many studies, pot-consumers' mental health depends in part on the reduction or prevention of cannabis consumption, more so than opiates. For example, there were startling facts published in The Guardian newspaper last Sept. 17. Written by Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry and a hospital consultant, the article said in part: [continues 192 words]
Editor, The News: Let's get one thing straight: Legalizing recreational marijuana consumption will result in an increase in its use. A Ministry of Health-funded study on cannabis consumption reveals that contrary to the pro-pot propaganda - with which the mainstream media are infested - a permissive attitude (e.g. legalization/decriminalization) towards marijuana results in its increased consumption, and the detrimental effects of that consumption, among youths. The study, conducted by UBC's Institute of Health Promotion Research, surveyed illicit drug use among 8,179 B.C. students, and then again during the spring of 1995 at 20 schools province-wide. [continues 170 words]
Dear editor, Many Canadian court judges, but particularly B.C. justices, are quickly directing our society toward legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. As an ex-pot-head, I believe that will result in increased consumption. Note the great increase in alcohol abuse following the abolishment of alcohol prohibition earlier this century. According to health ministry literature, "Prohibition in both Canada and the United States was successful in dramatically reducing the extent of alcohol abuse and alcoholism, at least for the period of its existence." [continues 158 words]
