Own your ow legal marijuana business | Your guide to making money in the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry |
Carl Olsen's Marijuana Archive |
The Des Moines Register
Monday, December 16, 1996, Page 6A
letters@dmreg.com
The Register's Readers Say
Flimsy case for legalized pot
The Dec. 5 Register editorial
"Marijuana: What's the Fuss?" uses anecdotal evidence to make its flimsy case
for the legalization of pot. It is unwise and irresponsible to suggest that doctors
should have the right to "prescribe" marijuana without scientific evidence that
smoking marijuana can provide relief for a medical condition.
It has never been scientifically demonstrated
that marijuana can treat a disease or relieve a patient's symptoms. In fact, the
scientific and medical communities have overwhelmingly rejected this notion.
The American Medical Association, the National
Multiple Sclerosis Society, the American Glaucoma Society, the American Academy of
Ophthalmology, and the American Cancer Society have all rejected marijuana's so-called
medicinal use. These organizations have done this not because they lack compassion,
but because sound medical research does not validate the outlandish claims of the
legalization movement.
Even if we were to agree that smoking marijuana
can ease the suffering of a person, it does not mean that pot is the only solution or even
the best one. The side effects of marijuana, both to the user and society, make pot
an inferior alternative to nearly every accepted treatment.
The voters of California and Arizona passed
"medicinal marijuana" referendums last month based on misinformation similar to
what The Register printed. A patient may, as stated in the editorial, receive
similar benefits from the prescription drug Marinol and smoking pot.
However, these substances do not represent the
entire universe of drugs that are available. The Register should be ashamed of its
willingness to ignore scientific research, the side effects of smoking marijuana, and the
fact that there are many safer and more appropriate drugs available on the market.
I have little doubt that the people cited in
The Register's editorial claim to have benefited from their ability to smoke marijuana,
but these assertions alone are not enough to change public policy. Until it is
scientifically proven that marijuana is an effective medical treatment, its side effects
can be reduced, or that there are no other acceptable alternatives, we should reject the
dangerous precedent that the voters of Arizona and California were duped into passing.
-- Graham Gillette,
505 Fifth Ave., Des Moines.