No 'Reefer Madness,' please

Re: Dr. Michael T. Jamison's April 27 commentary, "Medicinal marijuana at what cost?":

I don't care how many letters Jamison has following his name, he is flat wrong in his commentary about medical marijuana. He speaks with the authority of a doctor on a subject that he obviously knows nothing about.

As Jamison is a doctor, I would expect he would know that marijuana is not a narcotic, yet he still uses that terminology.

A Star article from April 11 offered this quote:

"The youth told authorities the group of friends had been drinking. Police found an empty liquor bottle, a marijuana pipe and an empty canister from a medical marijuana dispensary in the car.

"The influence of alcohol in the crash was "apparent" to the deputies and coroner at the scene."

There was alcohol all over the car and a victim said they had been drinking, yet Jamison barely mentions the destructive effects of alcohol, instead choosing to write a misinformed commentary blaming the evils of marijuana for the accident.

He says a medical marijuana card is a "get out of jail free" card, seemingly not understanding that possession of small amounts of marijuana was decriminalized in 1975.

He dodges years of clinical studies demonstrating that marijuana is not addictive by saying they "want it really, really bad," a statement that is inaccurate at best.

I'm not suggesting that people should drive under the influence of anything at all, but I am suggesting that a medical doctor with an alphabet soup following his name should know better than to try to authoritatively disseminate the kinds of scare tactics that were part of "Reefer Madness," the 1930s propaganda film.

He's certainly entitled to his opinion, but when he weighs in with all his credentials, it gives his opinion a weight that the facts clearly demonstrate it does not deserve.

— Bruce C. Marshall, Santa Paula

Role for FDA

Re: Dr. Michael T. Jamison's April 27 commentary, "Medicinal marijuana at what cost?":

Dr. Jamison makes an important point: Medical marijuana is a medicine, not a toy, and should be treated with appropriate respect. No one should drive when reactions or decision-making abilities are impaired by anything, be it marijuana, alcohol, drowsiness-inducing over-the-counter antihistamines or prescription narcotics.

Doctors who hand out medical marijuana recommendations without following appropriate standards of care should be disciplined by the state medical board. Indeed, many have been.

But it's important to remember why medical marijuana is not presently regulated by the Food and Drug Administration: The federal government, obsessed with maintaining its unscientific position that marijuana has no medical use, has consistently blocked the types of research needed to bring medical marijuana under the FDA system. As a result, states seeking a humane way to avoid arresting and jailing those truly in need have been forced to improvise.

The day our federal government abandons 1937 and joins the rest of us in 2008 is the day the sort of system Dr. Jamison envisions can be implemented.

— Bruce Mirken, San Francisco

(The writer is director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project based in Washington, D.C. — Editor)

Meddling drug warriors

Re: your April 30 editorial, "Pot costs man shot at a liver":

The treatment of patients like Timothy Garon, who was denied a transplant because of his marijuana use, shows how perverted American drug policy really is. The drug warriors have been meddling with medical practice for more than 90 years, to the detriment of patient care.

Before the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations issued standards for hospital care requiring maximum pain relief, the Drug Enforcement Administration had no compunction about interfering with pain relief. Patients were routinely denied adequate morphine because of drug warriors who never attended a day of medical school. Every hospital must meet JCAHCO's standard to operate legally, so the drug prohibitionists are no longer allowed to meddle.

Unfortunately, drug laws based on lies are used to deny all sorts of medical care to people.

It's long past time to end a drug crusade that has failed for 94 straight years.

— Ralph Givens, Daly City

Death penalty for pot use

Re: your April 30 editorial, "Pot costs man shot at a liver":

I'm a Libertarian, so I would be opposed to marijuana prohibition even if I had the same hostile attitude expressed by those who either benefit from its prohibition or are ignorant of its effects. But what system of values justifies a death sentence for using marijuana? I hope The Star will offer the University of Washington Medical Center an opportunity to answer this question.

— George Kosinski, Gibsons, British Columbia, Canada

Better things to do

While there have been studies showing that marijuana can shrink cancerous tumors, medical marijuana is essentially a palliative drug. If a doctor recommends marijuana to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and it helps them feel better, then it's working. In the end, medical marijuana is a quality-of-life issue best left to patients and their doctors.

Federal bureaucrats waging war on noncorporate drugs contend that organic marijuana is not an effective health intervention. The federal government's prescribed intervention for medical marijuana patients is handcuffs, jail cells and criminal records. This heavy-handed approach suggests that drug warriors are not well-suited to dictate healthcare decisions.

It's long past time that Congress showed some leadership on the issue and passed legislation reaffirming the Constitution's 10th Amendment guarantee of states' rights. States that prefer to cage sick patients for daring to feel better can continue to do so. The more enlightened states that have passed compassionate-use legislation should not be stymied by a federal government that really should have better things to do.

— Robert Sharpe, Washington, D.C.

(The writer is policy analyst with Common Sense for Drug Policy. — Editor)

Prohibition no solution

Re: Dr. Michael T. Jamison's April 27 commentary, "Medicinal marijuana at what cost?":

Dr. Jamison is confused about the argument related to alcohol. The argument is simply this: Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean that prohibition is the solution.

Why is alcohol legal? It isn't because alcohol is safe. Alcohol is clearly dangerous, more dangerous than marijuana by any standard of measure. But alcohol Prohibition didn't solve the alcohol problems, it only made them worse. Homicides skyrocketed. The Mafia got rich. Police corruption was so bad that they shipped convicted cops off to prison literally by the trainload. By 1925, arrests for public drunkenness and similar crimes were already above the pre-Prohibition records. Worst of all was the effect on children. Alcohol Prohibition produced the biggest teen drinking epidemic ever seen among U.S. children.

The only reason alcohol is legal is because we proved conclusively that Prohibition only drives the problems underground and makes them worse. The lesson is about Pprohibition, not alcohol.

Even if Jamison had made the right diagnosis of the social problem, he missed the correct treatment. He needs to go back to the books. He can start with major studies of drugs and drug policy at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer. This collection includes the full text of every major government commission report on marijuana from around the world in the last 100 years. In short, they say that marijuana prohibition was based on racism, ignorance and nonsense, and that it causes more harm than good. He should also read the short history of marijuana laws at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm It is both funny and fascinating.

If he wants a better understanding of the problems of modern drug policy in general, I suggest he start with the "Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs" at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm. It is the best overall review of the subject ever written. He will find surprises on every page.

— Clifford A. Schaffer, Director, Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, Agua Dulce