Johnson, Jack - December 15, 1997

Attn: Carl Olsen ~ you may release this response, at your discretion to anyone interested. jdj 12/16/97

Jack D. Johnson c/o Iowans For Medicinal Cannabis P.O. Box 4091 Des Moines, IA 50333

`RE:`	`1)`	`S 40 & Medicinal Cannabis a/k/a/ marijuana & yours of 11/24/97`
	`2)`	`Bill of Rights & Freedom of [informed] choice`
	`3)`	`10th U.S. Const. Amendment, Federal violations of state's sovereignty of ag crops in a state ie DEA overreaching`

Thank you for acknowledging my opposition to S 40. Had you been aware of my several previous letters on the crop Cannabis/marijuana & its agrarian & medicinal impact you'd have known I am a Cannabis geneticist well versed in the spin you put on pharmaceutical drug law & their historical development. Thus, your analogies of patent meds, thalidomide, & bureaucratic approval procedures are clearly not applicable to Cannabis. I address Cannabis & Cannabis only. Your letter to me uses the word "control" or synonymous language so repetitively as to insult my adult sense of "choice" & my understanding that despite political tyrants I am entitled by the Bill of Rights to a certain freedom to choose what medication (herbal, pharmaceutical, et al) I find effective as an individual. To impose on a physician's professional choice is doubly insulting, thus my position that S 40 is a ludicrous idiocy. It violates principles of the highest order. Your letter relates a position the Fed. govt. right (of might?) to act as parental authority does over a child. Your statement at p. 2, 3rd paragraph, last sentence leaves the ? who protects us from "political" quacks, charlatans & petty self-aggrandizing self-serving feeding-at-the-public-trough poli-crat tyrants? Finally, that you say it is an "exercise of responsibility" to protect us from ourselves, when what is really meant is that congressional cronyism has the power but not the legal right to make freedom of choice a principle of the past. That you pose such a public policy is enough to convince any thinking adult you are trying to promote a minority political agenda, not a majority public one. Your sophistry is noted. My previous letters to you, all on the Internet, have set forth detailed challenges of your sources. None have been answered. Why? Because your sources are all 100% self-serving & fraudulent hyperbole with no basis in fact or supported by independent science. All of your cites are of self-serving bureaucratic origin, or, succinctly stated, a pack of lies, a pile of federal govt dung. The 4th paragraph of p. 2 (yours 11-24-97) you say "there is ... no scientifically validated evidence ... substantiating the many anecdotal claims made for ... med values of [Cannabis]" is an outright lie, or you are deaf, dumb, blind & illiterate. Then, to ad insult to your injurious lie, you state "*there is med. evid. that [Cannabis] may aggravate some conditions it is supposed to treat" - oh, what unadulterated bull----! *PDR cite applies to all FDA approved meds (Phy's. Desk Ref. PDR) To the point, Cannabis is an herbal remedy with certain clinical medical application(s), accent on plurality, to many different diseases. It possesses a unique variety of effects as a result of its 60+ different compounds. It is to medicine what the peanut or soybeans are to the food & veg oils industry. There is no other ag crop with Cannabis' wide utility outside medical or recreational uses. In your narrow focus as a specialized medicine, Cannabis does not conform because of its diverse properties. Cannabis belongs in its own separate category due to its very diversity of a multitude of benefits, benefits now restricted to solely benefiting the perpetuation of law enforcement, courts & prisons (the self-serving bureaucracy) & damaging people & society, to say nought of govt's lack of public credibility. The "we" you repeatedly refer to is that self-same self-serving politico-bureaucrat structure. Wake up! The public did make Cannabis available to the public because of your ilk's abdurance, while "we" "the people" certainly did decide the scientific, medical & industrial utility of Cannabis at the ballot box, which you, being an elected from that same process are mandated to conform with & represent the will of the people, not some idiotic agenda of the self-serving bureaucracy, which is all S 40 is. Note: Overheard down at the elevator & local cafe is this consensus "I'd rather have my boys smoking pot than drinking [alcohol]" ... "what the hell are the Feds [DEA] doing telling the Iowa Legislature we can't grow hemp [Cannabis}?" Chuck, in closing, its important that you understand the public's mood about the Fed. govt. & the "political" (not public) hysteria opposing Cannabis. We, the people, view the Feds as costing us taxpayers a lot of money to make people criminals for using or growing pot [Cannabis] when all it really does is mellow them out & make them feel good. Its as if feeling good is a federal crime. Doesn't make much sense does it? Personally, the time has come to put this marijuana [Cannabis] issue on a "reality check". Here's some suggestions: 1. The recategorization of basic Cannabis types a. industrial fibres b. oils & feed - livestock cake c. psychotropic - for mental patients d. other medical e. paper 2. Remove scheduling authority from DEA to FDA 3. Decriminalize all except .03 or more delta-9 THC Best holiday wishes.

Web www.druglibrary.org