Kudos to Boulder Weekly editors for printing "Pot perspectives" (Letters, May 6) with historical references that expose the constitutional basis for drug prohibition as "shaky," exactly as the author writes. Is marijuana legally included with drugs that have "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision"? Consider that legal Marinol is a synthetic chemical that works like THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. Marinol is four to five times the potency of the strongest street weed, about twice as strong as hashish. Generically named Dronabinol, warning labels specifically permit driving and using machinery when users know how the medicine affects them. [continues 87 words]
Two self-evident truths stood out in Darcy Jensen's con essay against legalizing medical marijuana in the April 19 Argus Leader. Yes, synthetic medical marijuana exists under the trade name Marinol, and it's true that relatively few Americans are imprisoned solely for pot possession. But each of the more than 800,000 annual marijuana arrests nationwide are made on the grounds that cannabis and cannabinoids lawfully are listed in Schedule I, having "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision." [continues 143 words]
In "Denver DEA: Drug Rings, Not Medical Pot" (Summit Daily News, April 6) a DEA spokesperson claimed that aggravating factors must be involved before his agents raid a medical marijuana grow. In fact, well over 800,000 arrests are made every year on the grounds that tetrahydrocannabinols and cannabis are listed as Schedule I, having "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision." Yet on October 7, 2003, The United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded patent #6630507 to the Department of Health and Human Services, acknowledging those substances' accepted medical use in treatment and accepted safety for use under medical supervision. If not "legalization", surely the word "restitution" is in President Obama's vocabulary? Jose Melendez Mutually Opposing Marijuana Prohibition [end]
In "The myth of a peaceful, pot-legalized world" (March 19), columnist Laurent Le Pierres mentions Prime Minister Stephen Harper's claim that "the reason drugs are illegal is because they are bad." Undisclosed in the column are the facts. Drug use was criminalized in Canada on the grounds that poverty, prostitution, alcohol and drug abuse were caused by immigrants of colour. In the United States, Harry Anslinger successfully convinced Congress that marijuana caused white women to seek relations with negroes. [continues 100 words]
To the Editor: With respect to the emotional letter from the teacher in Nelson, "Drug Crusaders Listen Up," what dignity results from closing one's eyes and ears to the facts about marijuana? Certainly cannabinoids have indisputable anticarcinogenic, neuroprotective and pain-relieving effects. Furthermore, since anandamide is a naturally occurring substance in all human brains that is very similar to marijuana's active ingredient THC, most people get high every day, whether they admit it or not. In fact, none of the anecdotal examples listed in the letter approach the harm associated with deadly alcohol, tobacco or pharmaceutical poisons that are legally peddled, taxed and consumed without risk of incarceration absent some other crime. [continues 53 words]
Unmentioned in the letter "Marijuana is a Bigger Problem than Some Think" was my reference to the destructive effects of marijuana prohibition; increased potency and availability of illicit drugs, along with windfall pay and profits for gun toting thugs on both sides of the law. Certainly, the neuroprotective, anticarcinogenic, antimicrobial and palliative effects of pot's active ingredients are not in dispute. Yet no one reasonably prescribed armed home invasions, asset forfeiture and prison time as "treatment" for beer drinkers and cigarette smokers. Indeed, transcripts from Congressional testimony to date on the comparative safety and efficacy of marijuana consistently include false claims and outright perjury. The real problem to solve is: Why should Americans accept a war waged on us? Jose Melendez Communications Director Concerned Citizens Coalition to Criminalize Prohibition DeLand, Fla. [end]
With respect to your editorial, "Feds Should Keep Spending Money To Fight Drug Problem," what should be done if anti-drug programs actually increase the abuse of stronger, easier-to-conceal contraband by ever-younger users? No one reasonably suggests incarceration, asset forfeiture or armed home invasions would protect or deter cigarette smokers, so why should Americans stand for a war waged against us? Face it, drug war is crime. Jose Melendez, Communications Director, Concerned Citizens Coalition to Criminalize Prohibition , DeLand, Fla. [end]
Editor: Thanks to the blessing of computer networks, I read Jim Harrison's column in the Aug. 7 edition of KTW ('Why do you think they call it dope?'). For readers who may have missed it, Harrison complained of pot-purveying crooks with ad hominem fervor, and advocated prison time for a particularly outspoken and articulate "law-breaking dope smoker" known as B.C. Marijuana Party Leader and cannabis seed seller Marc Emery. Interestingly, there is a strenuous debate carefully avoided by mainstream newspapers, television and radio about the idea that restraints in the cannabis trade may not be lawful on either side of the border. [continues 61 words]
In a July 19 letter to The Herald-Dispatch titled "With Drug Trade, Too Many Look Other Way," the writer ironically touches on the absurdity of laws that have resulted in thousands of deaths and millions of incarcerations, yet calls the comparison of the drug war to the Holocaust absurd. For the record, many millions of Americans die each decade from the use of legal alternatives to marijuana. At any given time, more than 2 million are behind bars for drugs, their lives destroyed, businesses ruined and possessions confiscated, all because our "leaders" look the other way. [continues 93 words]
The anonymous State Department official quoted in "Mexico's fight against drugs is a failure, analysts say" (July 4) uses an intellectually dishonest technique, classically known as the logical fallacy of a false dilemma. By presenting two possible solutions (continue waging war on citizens over which intoxicants or medications they choose to use, or yield societal control to criminal elements) as the only answers to drug policy issues, our paid public servant carefully ignores the fact that it is prohibition that causes societal harm, and not the drugs themselves. [continues 85 words]
About the July 5 letter, "Find a natural high," none of the supposed harms attributed to marijuana are sufficient reason for arrest, incarceration or asset forfeiture for possession of any of the far more harmful albeit approved intoxicants or medications sold. Marijuana was already accepted as a comparatively safe and effective palliative long before the Controlled Substances Act. Even the Office of National Drug Control Policy's chief today concedes the herb is nontoxic. Hypocrisy is neither a virtue nor an effective means of reducing addiction. Jose Melendez Communications Director Concerned Citizens Coalition to Criminalize Prohibition DeLand, Fla. [end]
When The Law Plays Doctor With respect to the June 21 letter, "What about Marinol?" I find it unlikely that a "retired resident" agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Lubbock and Amarillo offices is ignorant of the existence of vaporizers, or the brownies, cookies, teas and tinctures that can be made from cannabis, or marijuana hemp. Even if smoked, pot is ingested far more safely per dose than almost all approved medications or intoxicants, yet is classified in a stricter category than crack or even powder cocaine. In a typical example of how industry buys politics to trump science, the only legal but synthetic version of one of cannabis' active ingredients is classified less stringently, yet is uncomfortably stronger than many of the most powerful ganja strains. [continues 61 words]
With respect to the editorial, "Biggest fights in drug war lie ahead" on May 5, why should there be any praise heaped on the multibillion-dollar drug prohibition industry? Are historically high rates of children removed from their homes and the latest surge in meth use or, say, huffing deaths not enough evidence that the drug war harms society? Why is it that, although 15 of the top donors listed on the Partnership for a Drug-Free America site are pharmaceutical interests, this fact consistently remains undisclosed in newspaper editorials and public service announcements? [continues 67 words]
Anyone that claims marijuana has no medical properties is lying ("Also, hemp pants are dumb," letters, May 5). The letter omits the facts that the active, nontoxic ingredients in marijuana have indeed been shown to effectively ameliorate pain, reduce nausea and combat stress with reasonable side effects. In fact, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that cannabinoids are capable of reducing cancerous tumors via a process known as angiogenesis. Also: Many decades before today's war on 83 million of our own citizens, pharmaceutical manufacturers Parke-Davis and Eli Lilly were cultivating "home-grown cannabis" and selling the "flowering tops" of the plant for use in the treatment of illnesses such as anorexia, chronic pain, spasticity, and nausea. During Prohibition, newspapers printed complaints of children coming to school drunk. Restraint of trade and war waged against Americans are illegal; the former increases prices of inferior alternatives, and the latter is treason. Drug war IS crime. Any questions? Deland, FL [end]
Dear Editor: In a May 9 letter, a former nurse who is married to a judge and former district attorney expresses her frustration with those who self-medicate recreationally or for pain. With all due respect to the author, she should know better. It has been demonstrated historically that alcohol prohibition exacerbated the very same problems that she describes. Furthermore, there is substantial evidence that the current drug war has similarly increased the national per capita homicide rate, not to mention teen huffing and hard drug use. [continues 99 words]
To the editor: DEA Special Agent Will Glaspy used 9/11 victims as a benchmark by which to measure illicit drug deaths and circular logic to promote the war on (some) drugs ("The drug war is working fine," April 24). Actually, well over 100 times more Americans die from drug use every year than were lost in the 2001 attacks. Their deaths were caused by legal uses of dangerous and defective nicotine, alcohol, chemical and pharmaceutical products. Exempted from prosecution for those deaths, manufacturers of legal medications, intoxicants and poisons (along with the incarceration and "treatment" industries) earn many billions of dollars in profits thanks to the restraint of any lawful trade in coca, cannabis and poppies. [continues 117 words]
To the editor: In "Courier Editorial Missed The Boat On Funding Drug Sting,"(the letter writer) omits the historical fact that youth drug abuses increase along with illicit profits as a direct result of substance prohibition laws. No one trafficked booze in schools until Alcohol Prohibition. Doing "whatever is necessary" ought to include truth and justice, and not an act of entrapment or otherwise. Get it together, indeed. Jose Melendez, DeLand [end]
Even if it were true that today's marijuana is so much stronger than in the '60s that its use could be associated with schizophrenia, we can all thank prohibition laws, since such restraints of trade necessarily lead to higher demand for cannabis products that are smaller and easier to conceal. Of course, the rate of schizophrenia has remained at a steady one percent of the population. Interestingly enough, hashish has generally double the concentration of active ingredient as the strongest pot, and has been known for thousands of years. [continues 53 words]
Much thanks and respect to letter writer Stan White ("Does Jesus Get the Munchies?"Jan. 20) and columnist Tom Gogola (Fishing Report, Jan. 20) for humorously reminding us that it's high time to stop jailing marijuana users. For the record, the Yale study purporting to relate marijuana use to health problems associated with smoking tobacco did not make the distinction of rates of respiratory symptoms for marijuana-only smokers. According to Jacqueline E. Weaver, Yale Office of Public Affairs Assistant Director for Science and Medicine, "[t]hey were interested in looking at the additive effect." A 2004 study found that "a drastic quantitative reduction in non-cannabinoid compounds" may be achieved by using a vaporizer, which effectively suppresses most of the dangerous byproducts of combustion, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Jose Melendez DeLand, Florida [end]
Dear Editor, In the interests of setting "a good example for tomorrow's leaders" (Re: A Date With Mary Jane, published Jan. 27), I'll state for the record that I have little faith that this letter will be printed, and none that the editors at TEC will concede the following facts: Drug prohibition, just like alcohol prohibition early last century, has led to drastic increases in youth access to illicit contraband and per capita homicide rates. Furthermore, marijuana laws have been associated with increased demand for cannabis and much more dangerous substances like opiates and inhalants. [continues 107 words]
