Published Letters to the Editor
Denver Post
Sunday, Sept. 17, 2000
In Response to Pro/Con Pieces on Colorado's Amendment 20
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/per0910a.htm
MEDICAL MARIJUANA
Treat it like medicine
The primary drawback of Amendment 20 is the spawning of a new bureaucracy for drug
regulation. The idea of regulating distribution of marijuana more stringently than the
distribution of morphine is preposterous. Surely a system that can handle the distribution
of a dangerous, highly addictive drug like morphine is already adequate to deal with
marijuana. If it's medicine, treat it like medicine. I'm baffled that a society so eager
to drug its children with Ritalin and Prozac could possibly object to this medical use.
KARLA MILLER Lafayette
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Overused rhetoric
I am a new resident to the state, so I have not seen the advertisements for or against
Amendment 20.
However, I feel that, from a logical standpoint, Martin Chilcutt and Chris Ott's
"pro" argument was far more compelling than Michael J. Norton's "con."
Norton fails to provide any details as to why medicinal use of marijuana actually will be
physically harmful. The argument that it hurts the immune system of those with already low
immune systems would seem a cost far outweighed by the benefits.
He stands behind the vague, overused rhetoric that it is a threat to the
"children" and "families" of Colorado. How? In the "pro"
argument, it's stated that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (specifically the
Institute of Medicine) concluded that marijuana is "neither addictive nor a gateway
drug." If that is so, how is it any more of a threat than legalized, culturally
sanctioned drugs like nicotine and alcohol?
Finally, I find it irresponsible of Norton to assert that "California-based
promarijuana backers" just want to legalize all drugs in Colorado ( "marijuana,
cocaine, the rest''). Where is his evidence for that? If he weren't so well spoken, I'd
almost guess he was using scare tactics. There is no logical connection between legalized
medicinal marijuana and the legalization of cocaine, or "the rest" of the
currently illegal drugs.
I, for one, am going to vote for Amendment 20 in November, and not because I want to
see marijuana legalized everywhere. I see no drawbacks to its medicinal use. Indeed, how
is it any more harmful (as Chilcutt noted) than already prescribed, incredibly addictive
drugs like morphine? I think Norton would have a hard time answering this. His vague
rhetoric and scare tactics just don't stand up to Chilcutt's inarguable facts.
JOHN WENZEL Littleton
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Best for patients
I continue to be astonished that any controversy exists regarding the matter of medical
marijuana.
Michael J. Norton's disingenuous arguments in opposition consistently failed, almost
all for the same reason: He could make the identical arguments to oppose the distribution
of virtually all prescription medications. Medically prescribed marijuana sends "a
dangerous message to our children," that "good medicine must be OK for kids,
too''? I trust and assume that Norton does not apply this standard to the "good
medicines," including commonly prescribed narcotics, many of which, by the way, offer
a significant danger of abuse and addiction if not responsibly administered. I don't think
that anyone argues that if those substances are good medicine, then they must be good for
children! Medical marijuana presents a danger in the work place? Then I am sure, Mr.
Norton, that you wish to make immediately illegal and unavailable the myriad of
prescription drugs which carry a warning label regarding the operation of vehicles or
heavy machinery.
One issue of legitimate concern was raised by Norton: Patients who have been prescribed
marijuana by their treating physicians most certainly should not have to seek out illegal
sources for its purchase.
Perhaps I am naive or old-fashioned, but I still believe that physicians are obligated
to have the best interests of their patients in mind when prescribing a course of medical
treatment. In any given situation, one physician might prescribe one medication and
another might prescribe another. Professional judgment is applied. If a trained,
competent, licensed medical doctor feels that prescription marijuana is the appropriate
course of treatment for a given affliction, who does Norton think he is to question that
professional conclusion, or to block the availability of the medication?
PETER BRIDGE Thornton
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Other "drug' abuses
I guess the first suggestion would be to listen to the patients, and not just the ones
that make the local news. I mean patients from all over and family members of these
patients. They will tell you that, in some cases, the people they love cannot eat due to
radiation therapy and the loss of weight is dangerous. Marijuana increases appetite for
these individuals, and relieves pain in the process. It strikes me as disgusting that we
will allow fetuses to be dissected for experimental purposes to help with diseases, but
something that is grown naturally and has been around forever cannot seem to get funding
for testing and Federal Drug Administration approval. We already know it does help some;
why not investigate further why it does help?
Some of our best drugs are derivatives from other forms of herbs, so why not this one?
Of course the American Medical Association and others wouldn't go for this testing.
Why? Because of the almighty dollar. Pressure from drug companies would be enormous -
think of the money they will lose on all the different drugs they sell if marijuana was
proven to have great healing qualities.
You talk of our children and how they will think this is OK. Well, what of alcohol
abuse in this country? Our children manage to find it, even though it's only legal for
those 21 and over.
This is all about money - who will lose it and who will gain. God forbid that any of us
have a family member who is dying and is in pain and we have to find out for ourselves
what helps them and does not.
DEBRA BUSSE Aurora
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Some need the help
Michael Norton's article is very distressing. His is just another voice telling the
state that disabled people are "less" than everyone else. Also, I have a problem
with Norton telling me that he should have the right to govern how I manage my multiple
sclerosis.
I believe that the people of Colorado are simply asking for another option when it
comes to managing their illnesses. Norton implies that our symptoms are purely imagined. I
suffer every day, but I do it smiling. There are so many people who are not as strong as I
am. If medical marijuana can help them, then they should have the right to use it.
Mr. Norton, serious illness is very difficult. Some of us are heroes, and some of us
need more help. Who are you to decide?
CAROL SMITH Pueblo
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Money vs. morals
I am not a pot smoker, yet couldn't agree with Michael Norton's point at all. There are
people who exist in this nation who do not want to put pharmaceuticals into their bodies,
and I am one of these people. Doctors may say there are more effective drugs, yet what are
the side effects? I've witnessed drug companies come to hospitals to "sell"
their wonder drugs, complete with catered lunches and perks. So of course the physicians
will push the pills, especially if they're receiving "kickbacks" from these drug
companies.
Money speaks louder than morals in this society. And the pharmaceutical companies are
screaming the loudest!
FREDERICK SCHILLING Boulder
###
Denver Post
1560 Broadway
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 820-1010
Fax: (303) 820-1369
Email: letters@denverpost.com
Web: http://www.denverpost.com |
