|
 |
|
|---|
REPLYING TO A FEDERALLY ELECTED CONGRESSPERSON’S LETTER:
With reference to H.R. 499 (at this present time) before congress which according to one web-site: [AA]
H.R. 499 WOULD DECRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA at the federal level, leaving it up to the states to decide whether to allow marijuana for medicinal or recreational use.The following letter was received by an O.V.L. (Oklahoma Voters League) member in reply to an original inquiry asking for support for the Bill.
Specifically, the bill would:
[1]- Remove marijuana from the list of federally controlled substances;
[2]- Transfer the Drug Enforcement Administration’s authority to regulate marijuana to a newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms, which will be tasked with regulating marijuana as it currently does alcohol; and
[3]- Require marijuana producers and sellers to purchase a permit, as commercial alcohol producers do, of which the proceeds would offset the cost of federal oversight.
Subject: Response from Congressman |
|---|
OUR OWN REPLY TO THE CONGRESSPERSON’S REPLY LETTER:
This letter from an elected Oklahoma Congressperson was a reply to an original letter written in by a member of the Oklahoma Voters League, requesting further assistance with regards to H.R. 499, (essentially) ending the Federal Government's war against Marihuana. The congressperson has indicated, as can be seen from the response above, is NOT in favor of the Bill now before Congress. And also equally apparent is the fact that this particular congressperson is also very uninformed about the issue.
Our reply letters are not meant to point fingers and say that somebody is wrong; but rather a means to rebut such unsubstantiated claims so that the public can make a more educated or informed decision on this matter. . We can no longer ignore the biggest elephant in the room, and that is JOBS. . The sudden reversal of the War on Drugs will place a lot of people, who are paid for enforcing these rules, on the unemployment line. . But that in no way should be a basis for continuing this practice which violates every one of the ten Bill of Rights amendments that grant each person their basic rights under the Constitution.
A quick check of the Internet shows that the Congressperson's letter is (for the most part) a cut and paste letter that is also being used by various other members of Congress. (Hmm . . . is it any small wonder where this cut and paste letter originated from, etc.?)
However, to be fair we ourselves are also making use of a lot of cut and paste reply statements from some of our other sites. But this is only because so many of the Congressperson's statements consist of the standard ‘bumper sticker’ slogans that have been created by the drug enforcement agencies and thus are being repeated over and over again by various Oklahoma political supporters of these “laws”. From our perspective it seems they have not taken the time to actually examine the facts behind these slogans for themselves.
Your letter begins as follows:
“Subject: Response from Congressman [name withheld]All right, so far no problems (we’ll accept your word that it is moving through all those committees); -- However, your Letter then goes on to say:
August 15, 2013
Dear . . .
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns the ending the federal prohibition of marijuana. I appreciate the initiative you took to engage yourself in the national conversation about this issue.
As you may know, Rep Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced H.R. 499, Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013, on February 5, 2013. This bill would deregulate marijuana from the Controlled Substance Act for consumption purposes by removing it from Schedule I under the Act. Currently, this bill has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, House Ways and Means Committee, House Natural Resources Committee, House Agriculture Committee, and the House Judiciary Committee where it awaits further action to be taken.”
“Each year, the scientific evidence documenting the health risks associated with marijuana use grows. Feel free to read the analysis of marijuana use from the National Institute of Drug Abuse:”Here you bring up two different issues so let’s look at each one individually.1.usa.gov/J511wW
https://iqconnect.lmhostediq.com/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=OK05JL&crop=14174.8232963.7160202.9534327&redirect=http%3a%2f%2f1.usa.gov%2fJ511wW
“Each year, the scientific evidence documenting the health risks associated with marijuana use grows.This statement is technically incorrect, in fact the documented evidence is going in the other direction; -- DOCUMENTING ITS SAFETY. In fact to the best of our knowledge, in the hundreds upon hundreds of years that physicians have been prescribing Medical Cannabis, there has not even been one death attributed to its use, --- NOT EVEN ONE.
Congressperson, should you choose to do more research on the matter (and in the interest of democracy and an informed electorate, we fervently hope that you will). G. S. Crow's booklet, “The Medical Marijuana Reference List” serves as a good reference source for all studies (both positive and negative) that have been done on the subject in recent years. [A] I’m sure that some small number of them are negative, but by far the vast number of them are incredibly positive.
“Feel free to read the analysis of marijuana use from the National Institute of Drug Abuse : “ 1.usa.gov/J511wWWe have, but it’s very difficult to accept anything that is said on this website as being the truth. Congressperson . . . , surely you must be aware that these people are not being forthcoming. In fact it seems they are preoccupied with censoring and distorting the evidence. But job security comes first. As can be evidenced by viewing the information from our website:https://iqconnect.lmhostediq.com/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=OK05JL&crop=14174.8232963.7160202.9534327&redirect=http%3a%2f%2f1.usa.gov%2fJ511wW
Our own website -- http://reefermadnessmuseum.org/chap03B/NCI/NCI-P1.htmDocuments how the 'NIDA' (National Institute of Drug Abuse) used intimidation to force the N.C.I. (National Cancer Institute) to censor its own website with regards to the issue of Medical Cannabis.
FROM: Welss, Susan (NIH/NIDA)
To: Manrow, Richard (NIH/NIDA); Johnson, Lenora (NIH/NIDA)
Subject: RE; concern about information on NCI’s website
All --- A follow up on this. Last night Ethan Nadelman, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, tweeted this message: “US National Cancer Institute acknowledges “potential benefits of medicinal cannabis for people living with cancer.”
http:/1.usa.gov/faKVIP”
This is an organization aimed at changing drug policy and promoting the legalization of marijuana—in direct conflict with the administration’s state policy. We will be contacting our colleagues at ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy) just to give them a heads up about it. Let us know if you make any changes to the document. Thanks.”
And the above is simply an example of how ‘NIDA’ tries to cover up the truth. Stating evidence to the contrary is one of the other methods that they have employed:
http://reefermadnessmuseum.org/chap04/Oklahoma/Wolf_MythStart.htmOur website documents just one of ‘NIDA's’ misleading statements contrary to actual evidence. This statement was by one of ‘NIDA's’ own Drug Czars. --- Thus again, we simply can’t take what these people are saying seriously. And in any case, we couldn’t find any actual “repeatable” scientific evidence documenting health risks, just their opinions on the matter.
--- go down until you see a picture of man with a big (Pinocchio like) nose
Your letter then goes on to say:
“Such evidence shows that marijuana can adversely affect the lungs, the cardiovascular system, and possibly harm the immune and reproductive systems. “These statements are also technically incorrect, let’s look at each one of these statements, one by one:
“Such evidence shows that marijuana can adversely affect . .
. . the lungs,
This is true, but only to the extent that any irritant (and there must be thousands of them out there) such as tobacco smoke, grain dust, air pollution, etc., can affect your lungs. Common horse sense and logic will tell you that. However, common horse sense will also tell you that firefighters are not going to stop going into burning buildings to save lives, that pollen is not going to stop farmers from plowing their fields, nor are diesel fumes going to stop truck drivers from driving their vehicles. All because these activities JUST MIGHT SLIGHTLY INCREASE their chances of illness, etc? ----- Most Americans would say that Cancer patients have a right to weigh the risks (no matter how small) against the overwhelming medical benefits derived by the use of Medical Cannabis for themselves. Each person should be allowed to weigh the pros and cons of each and every drug and be able to decide which meets their needs for a more healthy life. And thus preserving their basic rights as granted them by the Bill of Rights.
However, with that said, Congressperson, here are some facts that you should examine:
According to a pretty intensive study done on the subject and released by the AMA (American Medical Association), [B] due to the moderate use of Cannabis (Marihuana) cigarettes, as opposed to tobacco (in other words they inhale a lot less), the average user can expect no ill effects. In addition we can also expect that heavy but short term users (say a chemotherapy patient) who only requires its use for a year or so will also fall into this category.
However, note the keywords ‘Moderate Use,’ meaning the study did not focus in on long term medical patients, who due to their chronic conditions, are forced to make use of medical cannabis on a daily basis. And there does indeed seem to be some scientific studies to establish that heavy smokers (of either Cannabis or tobacco or both) do indeed have a slightly higher pertinacity toward some lung illnesses. However, there are others who challenge these findings . . . and in any case they point out that by the simple use of a Vaporizer, most if not all of these harmful effects can be negated.
But even more important is the basic concept that (historically speaking), MEDICAL CANNABIS is an ORAL, NOT A SMOKABLE MEDICINE. So why is it being smoked today? The answer is obvious, because of our present day legal situation and for no other reason. Need proof?
Our museum has now documented well over two thousand Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) medicines, that sold legally in drugstores across this country between the years 1840 and 1940. Of ALL these medicines only (2) two of them were smokable preparations. The rest were all either external lotions or oral medications.
|
|
Do any of these medicines look as if anyone is going to smoke them? Quite literally, before the Reefer Madness campaign Medical Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) came in a pill that you bought at your local drugstore. And (again) once legal it most assuredly will go back to being that way again -- So why all the Mumbo Jumbo about lung problems?
. . the cardiovascular system,
Congressperson . . . , As you must know, cardiovascular is a general term that could mean a number of things dealing with blood circulation (veins, arteries, capillaries, the heart itself, etc.) According to the NORML website [E]
Myth: POT CAUSES HIGH BLOOD PRESSURESo indeed it seems that Medical Cannabis can have some minor effects on the cardiovascular system, however, one must question your use of the term “Adversely Affect(s)” as being appropriate. The effects simply are not that large.
According to the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, the effects of marijuana on blood pressure are complex, depending on dose, administration, and posture. Marijuana often produces a temporary, "moderate" increase in blood pressure immediately after ingestion; however, heavy chronic doses may slightly depress blood pressure instead. One common reaction is to cause decreased blood pressure while standing and increased blood pressure while lying down, causing people to faint if they stand up too quickly. There is no evidence that pot use causes persisting hypertension or heart disease; some users even claim that it helps them control hypertension by reducing stress. One thing THC does do is to increase pulse rates for about an hour. This is not generally harmful, since exercise does the same thing, but it may cause problems to people with pre-existing heart disease. Chronic users may develop a tolerance to this and other cardiovascular reactions.
. . and possibly harm the immune (system)
This statement is totally incorrect. The following is a cut and paste from one of our other websites: In reply to the following allegation ----- ". . . and studies confirm . . Lowered immune systems also have been traced to marijuana smoking. [C]
The original source for this golden wonder came from the "infamous" Gabriel Nahas [C] (note, this guy became such an embarrassment that after a while that not even the narc's wanted to quote him anymore)
Quoting the New York Times (obituary section) July 7, 2012
"Dr. Nahas . . .His research, which he did as a professor at Columbia University and reported in more than 700 articles in scientific journals, suggested that marijuana contributed to cancers of the head and neck, leukemia, infertility, brain damage and a weakening of the immune system."At this point there have been so many scientific studies that contradict Dr. Nahas's original assertions, that I see no point in debating the matter. For those of you interested in the subject, the website - http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth5.shtml ---- does a good job of documenting these studies, all of which can be easily obtained on line.
"His critics in the scientific community sometimes assailed his methodology, questioning the large judgments he made often based on small samples. Organizations promoting the decriminalization or legalization of marijuana painted him as a villain. The New England Journal of Medicine once described his work as “psychopharmacological McCarthyism that compels him to use half-truths, innuendo and unverifiable assertions.”
In 1974, he announced that he had discovered a link between the drug and the body’s immune system. “The findings represent the first direct evidence of cellular damage from marijuana in man,” he said in a statement. But scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studied the chromosomes of volunteers who smoked marijuana, found no deficiency in immune responses and no chromosome abnormalities, which Dr. Nahas had also predicted."
. . and reproductive systems.
Once more (using a cut and paste from another one of our web-pages): [C] In reply to the following allegation --- ". . . and studies confirm damage to . . reproductive organs which have lead to still births and birth defects.
This one we will have to file in our, "NOT REALLY TRUE" department. To quote one website: [C]
“A number of studies claimed reported low birth weight and physical abnormalities among babies exposed to marijuana in utero. However, when other factors known to affect pregnancy outcomes were controlled for - for example, maternal age, socioeconomic class, and alcohol and tobacco use - the association between marijuana use and adverse fetal effects disappeared.”According to the follow up studies: [C]
- "Fetal alcohol syndrome-like facial features were not associated with prenatal marijuana exposure in this study sample. No consistent patterns of facial features were identified among the marijuana-exposed group."
[Astley, S., "Analysis of Facial Shape in Children Gestationally Exposed to Marijuana, Alcohol, and/or Cocaine," Pediatrics. 1992 Jan;89(1):67-77]
- "There were few significant effects of marijuana use during pregnancy on birth weight, head or chest circumference, gestational age, or growth retardation after adjustment for covariates using a regression model for analysis."
[Day, N. et al, "Prenatal Marijuana Use and Neonatal Outcome," Neurotoxicology and Teratology 13:329-34 (1992)]
- "When we used logistic regression to control for demographic characteristics, habits, and medical history data, these relationships [the use of Medical Cannabis] were not statistically significant." [Linn, S. et al, "The Association of Marijuana Use with Outcome of Pregnancy," American Journal of Public Health 73:1161-64 (1983)]
TO THE READER, granted, "the weight of scientific evidence indicates that marijuana has few adverse consequences for the developing human fetus." HOWEVER, it is still common horse sense to advise pregnant women to abstain from using most drugs - including marijuana, tobacco, alcohol etc. In other words, PLEASE give the kid a brake. |
|---|
Your letter then goes on to say:
“It is well established that marijuana intoxication can adversely impact coordination and impair motor and decision making skills.”Yet again, allow us to use cut and paste material to answer your question.
In reply to the following allegation --- “Marijuana users are at increased risk for auto crashes, because their reaction time, concentration, coordination, and perception ability are affected. For example, users can have trouble judging distances or reacting to road signs. Even worse, these effects can last up to twenty-four hours.“ [D]
[Ms. . . ], first the scientific evidence shows that Medical Cannabis DOES NOT EFFECT YOUR ABILITY to safely drive an automobile. A statement that begs a question: DO WE HAVE ANY EVIDENCE to this effect? And the answer is YES, WE DO. In fact ALL but one of the scientific studies (those published in peer review journals, done by neutral observers with no axe to grind, etc.), clearly show this as being the case.
Let us look at what our own Federal Governments, “Department of Transportation” has to say about the matter. There are two of their studies that I particularly like to quote. One “DOT HS 808-078” entitled "MARIJUANA AND ACTUAL DRIVING PERFORMANCE" is important because automobile drivers were actually given Marihuana and monitored.
The end result of the study: While there was some slowing down effects on a driver’s coordination and motor responses, it wasn't enough to prevent safe driving. And just to put the coffin nails on the subject. They actually translated the effects into equivalent blood alcohol levels that we can all understand -- those being between a 0.04 and 0.08. At the time a blood alcohol level greater than 0.10 in most states was needed to be considered a drunk driver. So it was well within the safety limits. However, at this time the standards are more stringent, a 0.08 or greater is considered a drunk driver. However note that one will never be above a 0.08 (and rarely if ever at .08), at least not when Cannabis (Medical Marihuana) is in use in the quantities needed by Cancer Victims.
It is no accident then, that the first summary sentence from the study reads as follows:
“In summary, this program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. " NOTE therefore that Cannabis DOES INDEED affect your ability to drive an automobile; IT JUST DOESN’T affect it enough to warrant the title of unsafe driver. And in yet another study “DOT HS 808 065” entitled “The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers,” a background check (in the past tense) Was done on actual traffic accidents to see if Marihuana was involved. There results were, that given all other factors and traffic conditions, Cannabis (Marihuana) users were no more nor more less likely to have been involved in traffic accidents than any other drivers. [D]
And note that these studies have been reproduced by various other private as well as governmental agencies, throughout the planet with similar results. MEDICAL CANNABIS (in doses realistically used by medical patients) simply does NOT affect your ability to safely drive an automobile. Just remember Caffeine (aka coffee) can impair too, but like cannabis, rarely. [D]
WHAT ABOUT NEGATIVE STUDIES?
Now the next question that should be asked is: – Are there any studies that showing that MEDICAL CANNABIS DOES AFFECT your ability to safely drive an automobile?
The answer is yes, BUT, but . . . but . . . but . . . First there is one AND ONLY ONE such study that can be called scientific (done via the scientific method, by neutral observers, published in peer review journals, etc.) and that was the Vancouver B.C. study done some time ago. [D] From what I recall, it looked scientific enough, very similar to “DOT HS 808 078” mentioned above, except that it reached a different conclusion. AND HERE NOTE, no one is saying that any hanky panky took place, it's simply that no one has been able to duplicate its results. It is possible that it was just an off beat luck of the draw for statistics or a bad day for science etc.
As for all the other studies this museum has had a chance to look out at, the only words that one can use to describe them is JUNK SCIENCE. Almost all of them were paid for by the narcotics police, AND one also presumes that the researchers themselves were also hand chosen for their (ah) lack of objectivity on the matter. ALL of them seem to have one or both of these flaws:
The test subjects were chosen because they have never used Cannabis before (not even in their teens). Making failure in (whatever driving test used) a certainty. --- As a hypothetical example: Let’s say that you go to a rent-a-car company and somehow end up renting a large car. Let’s also pretend that up until then you are used to driving a small car. Well it is obvious that (at least for the first day or two), you are going to be disorientated. That you are going to be driving slower or in an awkward way to make up for your lack of expertise in maneuvering a much larger vehicle.
Even the Federal Government itself makes this factor very clear: To quote one of their websites: [D]
“Effects on Driving: “ “The drug manufacturer suggests that patients receiving treatment with Marinol® (a synthetic but legal form of Medical Cannabis) should be specifically warned not to drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely.”
Extremely large doses of Cannabis (Marihuana) were administered to the test subjects. Doses much higher than what most Medical Patients can realistically be expected to use under normal conditions.
Putting those two factors together, and the results are obvious. And yes, there were other various problems with those (paid for by the narc’s) studies. But here it is best to simply say that the narc’s got the results that they were looking for and paid for.
SUMMARY: http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence Marijuana and Driving: A Review of the Scientific Evidence
It is well established that alcohol increases accident risk. Evidence of marijuana’s culpability in on-road driving accidents is much less convincing. Although cannabis intoxication has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment does not appear to be severe or long lasting. In driving simulator tests, this impairment is typically manifested by subjects decreasing their driving speed and requiring greater time to respond to emergency situations. Nevertheless, this impairment does not appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents. A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, “Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.”
Yes the science is on our side, BUT STILL, in the words of a higher up at NORML (National Organization for the Repeal of Marihuana Laws):
WARNING:
PLEASE DON’T BE STUPID
Or putting it another way, DON’T USE SCIENCE as an excuse for acting irresponsibly. If you had too many drinks (or whatever), and you know when you have, have respect for others and please DON’T DRIVE.
YOUR LETTER GOES ON:
There is no scientific evidence that has shown marijuana to be safe and effective for treating any medical condition.Congressperson . . . , It is understood that you are using a generic ‘cut and paste’ letter that is also being used by other members of congress (supplied by who knows who), but please, do you really believe that statement is true? ---- If you do then simply put, -- this statement is in error, the evidence is overwhelming.
Elsewhere, I have shown you where you can get a list of (modern day) scientific studies done on Medical Cannabis. Here (for the sake of brevity), it is enough to say that Medical Cannabis has met the rigorous safety as well as medical efficiency standards of numerous nations and is legal by prescription in countries such as Germany, Israel, Austria, Italy, etc. And just one country up from us (Canada), Medical Cannabis is not only legal by prescription, but the Canadian Government even provides it to their citizens via their socialized health care system.
YOUR LETTER GOES ON:
“This is primarily because its (referencing Medical Cannabis) alleged therapeutic results have yet to be sufficiently demonstrated in well-controlled clinical trials, . . . “This is true and here is the reason why; --- Because it’s EFFECTIVELY AGAINST THE LAW to do medical research of Cannabis in this country. I will repeat -- IT’S AGAINST THE LAW to do medical research on Medical Marihuana. NO MEDICAL RESEARCH, NO FDA APPROVAL, it’s as simple as that.
Now in case you’ve been under a rock for the last 40 years or so, here’s what’s been going on.
Under the controlled substance act, Medical Cannabis is classified -as a Control Class I substance. This means that it’s right on up there with Heroin, etc; and it also means that you can’t do any research on it WITHOUT a special permit from the ‘NIDA’ or the office of the Drug Czar. And guess what, they wouldn’t give you these permits. Why? Well you see it seems that ‘NIDA’ has a mission statement (from congress no less) that they are there to [a] Prevent the use of Marihuana and [b] to do scientific investigations into the negative effects of Marihuana.
Nothing there about them allowing any positive studies, only negative ones. Thus they simply don’t issue them. A situation with which has made us a laughing stock within the scientific community. Example, any researcher can tell you that, a safety study to investigate the negative effects of Cannabis on (let us say) toe nails will get a permit, but not for one investigating Cannabis as a possible treatment for nausea in cancer patients.
YOUR LETTER GOES ON:
“. . but evidence does show that smoking marijuana, even in small amounts, carries inherent health risks that far exceed potential therapeutic benefits. “This is not correct. If there is one thing this country has plenty of are safety research studies on Medical Cannabis (originally investigating the possible negative side effects of something or another) that came back positive. Again, Granny Storm Crow’s reference booklet (which you can download for free at the following website:
http://asa-nc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/granny-storm-crow-complete-index-jan-2013.pdf. . . contains a very good and detailed list of the research that has been done on this subject. And from what we have seen, the vast amount of it is ALL POSITIVE. The minuscule negative side effects are F-A-R outweighed by the positive benefits. But, if you have any (repeatable) scientific evidence – please do show it to us as many of us will be very interested in it.
YOUR LETTER GOES ON:
In fact, the American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society both reject the claim that marijuana has therapeutic value.Yipes, Congressperson, this quotation comes from a 2005 publication [F] and is now a bit outdated. Example, the AMA (American Medical Association) long ago (in 2009) reversed it’s policy on Marihuana and now is in favor of it’s use. Specifically stating:
“. . That marijuana’s status as a federal Schedule 1 controlled substance be reviewed,” with the goal of facilitating clinical research, and presented a new medical report, conducted by its Council on Science and Public Health, laying out the drug’s various medical benefits. . . ”Which is as close as a medical group can say that they want this stuff in doctors offices and as soon as possible. HOWEVER, there is some truth to what you are saying. Just recently according to an article just published by Norml, [F2] the AMA is still on record as stating that “Cannabis is a dangerous drug”???
As for the American Cancer Society, well you got us here. Their position is still very negative, but then their website (even today) actually claims that Marihuana use can lead to amputation -- that’s not a joke by the way. [G] I don’t know what else to say about them at this time other than I hope they find salvation through prayer.
YOUR LETTER GOES ON:
I appreciate your opinion about this issue, but since I believe this drug is unsafe, ineffective and harmful to our communities, I will oppose this and other legislation legalizing marijuana or synthetic marijuana variations.Congress person, I (along with a lot of other persons) am saddened to hear that you feel this way. Yes, you do have a right to your opinion on the subject, but please put yourself in our shoes. We feel that Cancer victims should not be sent to jail, because they seek the right to obtain proper medical treatment. Which is our view on the matter.
FINALLY YOUR LETTER ENDS WITH:
“As the 113th Congress addresses the many challenges facing our nation, I hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me; however, due to increased security measures, mail delivery may be delayed. Please visit my website at “ [ . . . . ] to continue to contact me via email.
In God We Trust,
[name withheld]
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
[To preserve anonymity, info on various web sites, facebook, twitter, youtube, etc., is withheld ]
CLOSING THOUGHTS:
Congressperson, with reference to the use of Medical Cannabis, of course you have a right to your own personal opinion. However, as you can see we have pointed out numerous technical errors with your arguments, your reasoning behind your opinion.
Congressperson, please try to understand that this is not some silly subject, some resolution calling on the month of August to be known as national postal day, etc., but something that greatly affects the lives of many people. Simply put, you can go to jail; --- But why? Shouldn’t Cancer victims have a right to obtain proper treatment?
I hope that in the future you will change your mind on this subject. And remember, there are a lot of people out there with nefarious motives, people who are making quite a bit of money off the War on Medical Cannabis patients, who are simply NOT TELLING IT THE WAY IT IS.
I hope you do start listening to the truth and not to those who do not tell the truth.
==============
FOOTNOTES:
[A]- Granny Storm Crow's MMJ Reference List- January 2013 - serves as an exhalent
http://asa-nc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/granny-storm-crow-complete-index-jan-2013.pdf
[B]- [Journal of the American Medical Association. - Jan 10, 2012]
[C]- See http://reefermadnessmuseum.org/chap04/Oklahoma/Wolf_MythStart.htm -- for footnotes, etc.
[D]- as per our webpage
http://reefermadnessmuseum.org/chap04/Oklahoma/OK_InAnswerC.htm
[E]- NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Report, pp. 66-6
http://norml.org/library/health-reports/item/norml-s-marijuana-health-mythology#15
[F]- MEDICAL MARIJUANA: WHAT IS GOOD MEDICINE AND WHO DECIDES?
Prepared by Mark Stanford, Ph.D.
[F2]- AMA Continues Opposition to Marijuana Legalization, But Softens Language
“National Harbor, MD: The House of Delegates of the American Medical Association voted Tuesday to retain an official position that "cannabis is a dangerous drug and as such is a public health concern," while at the same time adopting language appearing to acknowledge the changing attitudes toward marijuana among the American public.[G]- American Cancer Society says marijuana use can lead to amputation
Since 1977, the AMA has been on record urging the "modification of state law to reduce the severity of penalties for possession of marijuana." That language has now been replaced by a call for the states and the federal government to modify laws "to emphasize public health based strategies to address and reduce cannabis use"; and for the offense of possession of marijuana for personal use, they adopted new language calling for "public health based strategies, rather than incarceration."
Perhaps most promising, the Delegates determined current federal anti-marijuana policies are "ineffective" and called for a review of the "risks and benefits" of the new legalization laws adopted by the voters in Colorado and Washington.
The delegation from California had proposed amending AMA policy to reflect a "neutral stance toward cannabis legalization," but that proposal was defeated, along with a second California proposal to advocate for the "sale of cannabis to be regulated on a state-based level."
Regarding the medical use of marijuana, the group reaffirmed its position that marijuana research be expedited, and that the drug's "status as a federal schedule I controlled substance be reviewed with the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines, and alternate delivery methods." However, they also left in place language making it clear their support for additional research "not be viewed as an endorsement of state-based medical cannabis programs, the legalization of marijuana, or that scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of cannabis meets the current standards for a prescription drug product." -- For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org, or, Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director at: 202-483-5500.
By Russ Belville on December 7, 2011
http://stash.norml.org/american-cancer-society-says-marijuana-use-can-lead-to-amputation
[AA]- Description taken from
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr499#summary/oursummary
|
-- BACK -- MORE REPLY LETTERS |
WANT TO KNOW MORE:
=====================
Due to space / download time considerations, only selected materials are displayed. If you would like to obtain more information, feel free to contact the museum. All our material is available (at cost) on CD-Rom format.
CONTACT PAGE
(A Pro Medical cannabis Organization)
ADD YOURSELF TO OUR MAILING LIST:
http://drugsense.org/lists/listform.htm?okvotersleague
|
BACK TO OKLAHOMA MAIN PAGE |
|
Our Motto - We're pro-Medical Cannabis and we Vote!