point and counterpoint on medicinal cannabis

To my cites      Back to debate main      Back to enforcement

Con> 1 2 3 4

Pro> 5 6 7 8 9

The National Governors Association allows drug manufactures, alcohol and tobacco producers to partake in its policies. A donation of up to $12,000 dollars to the Association designates these Corporations a "Corporate fellow". A few companies who have participated in this are Phillip Morris (alcohol and tobacco) and Pfizer(pharmaceutical)(9).

What message do we send when we allow companies producing alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs to become a part of policy making. One hundred and Six thousand people die each year in US hospital due to Adverse reaction to prescription drugs. Only Heart disease, Cancer, and strokes kill more. Two million two hundred thousand people in hospitals suffer serious but not fatal adverse reactions to drugs (10).

Still with these dangers, an increased use of pharmaceutical drugs has been seen, and example could be California Advocates for Nursing Homes Reform (CANHR), reported in 1995 32,103 were administered psycho tropic medications and chemical restraints a 12% increase over 1994 (11).

The abuse of all substances must end. Yet, are we taking the most effective Direction? Money and property are seized, users are jailed rather than treated, lives are destroyed. Yet, the destruction of the "very foundation of our nation and this great state" seems to be the War on drugs itself.

What of those of us speak of reforming the current polices? Should we send a clear , and coherent message of what we want, or should we continue down the same path we now seem to be following?

A rebuttal to Alan Leshner claims on cannabis

Dear Mr. Leshner,
I received an your article published in the Boston Globe on 22 Nov 1998, titled "MARIJUANA ISN'T A HARMLESS DRUG." I believe we both share a common concern over raising healthy youths. Even with this collective cause, I still must strongly disagree with many of the points made.

Two of these points were also discussed in the House of Lords Science and Technology -Ninth report released on November 4 1998. They are:

• Damage to lungs and immune system, found no epidemiological connection between Cancer and cannabis consumption. It did hint at possible respiratory problems with extremely heavy long term use. I emphasize 'possible' since many other studies counter these findings.
• Mental/neurological effects: Complex Cognitive function might be effected in the long term but these effects are slight, and the existence of the theory is extremely controversial.

Among the numerous claims, and studies made by your agency and other federal agencies showing the danger of cannabis other studies refute these claims.