Time: Mon Mar 10 18:14:07 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA29768;
Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:14:04 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:28:00 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: MTK: LTE: Let States Decide Marijuana (fwd)
<snip>
> Tom Hawkins
> Washington Media Awareness Project
>
>------------Forwarded Message-----------------------------
>
>From: mfmarion@juno.com
>To: hemp-talk@hemp.net
>Subject: LTE in The Herald, Everett, WA - 03-10-97
>Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 11:07:24 EST
>
>I don't know if this is a Hemp Talker but the following LTE to The
>Herald, Everett, WA is excellent.
>
>The Herald
>Everett, WA
>letters@heraldnet.com
>
>MARIJUANA USE
>
>Let States Decide
>
> The government is not always right, nor do they always have our
>best interests in mind, i.e. the medical use of marijuana. The citizens
>of two states voted to allow the medical use of marijuana and the
>government promptly said they would continue to enforce the federal laws
>prohibiting the use, possession or cultivation of marijuana. And
>marijuana would continue to be a Class 1 drug, right up there with LSD
>and heroin, under the Federal Narcotics Act.
> The reasons for keeping marijuana illegal and in the class 1
>narcotic schedule have nothing to do with what is in our (the country's)
>best interests. There is money to be made (a lot of it) by seizing
>property belonging to people cultivating marijuana crops. Millions of
>dollars are being spent to hire an "army" to enforce the laws with no
>discernible effect. The pulp and paper industry has a large financial
>interest in not allowing the cultivation of the hemp plant for rope,
>paper, clothing, etc., a very environmentally sustainable, renewable
>crop.
> Has the government looked into why there are millions of
>Americans who have smoked marijuana in the past, millions who currently
smoke marijuana and millions who will continue to do so in the future?
>The majority of these marijuana users have jobs, many are college
>graduates, pay taxes, vote, in other words, law-abiding (except for
>breaking the irrational marijuana laws) citizens. "Drug use" does not
>automatically equate to "drug abuse." The greater danger in marijuana is
>not in the use of it but the illegality of it. It is not proven that
marijuana is a "gateway" drug. (That has also been said of alcohol and
tobacco.) Perhaps it is the fact that buying marijuana may put you into
>contact with persons who have access to more harmful drugs that leads
>some people (certainly not the majority of the marijuana users) to go on
>to try something more harmful. Or perhaps some young people, after having
been lied to about marijuana's dangers, try more dangerous drugs with the
rationale that they have been lied to about those also.
> I want to applaud the recent editorial in the New England Journal of
Medicine regarding a physician's right to make a decision about the
treatment of his or her patient, treatment that may include the use of
>marijuana. The editor-in-chief went on to say that physicians have been
>trusted with far more dangerous drugs than marijuana, i.e.
>chemotherapeutic agents, and should have the right to make those
>decisions. The government has perpetuated these drug policies for over 60
years -- policies that in the '90s now seem even more repressive and
>uncompassionate than ever before; policies based on greed, politics, and
>unfounded fears. It's time for enactment of sane, sensible drug laws
>regarding marijuana.
>
> JOYCE GEHRKE
> Everett
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail