cannabisnews.com: The Harm of Marijuana
The Harm of Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on October 24, 2003 at 08:11:11 PT
By Joyce Nalepka
Source: Washington Post
The Oct. 15 front-page story "U.S. Appeal of Marijuana Case Rejected" might have confused young people who are looking for excuses to cover their marijuana use. Kids in treatment regularly say they have heard that marijuana is medicine and that it won't hurt them. Then they end up addicted. Marijuana harms the immune system. This was reported to Congress in 1974, 1976 and 1980. Further, the National Institutes of Health has said, "People with HIV and other diseases of the immune system should avoid marijuana use." Marijuana smoke in particular contains chemicals that adversely affect the body, from the brain and the immune system to the lungs and reproductive system.
The decision by the Supreme Court did not mean that the court supports "medical" marijuana. In fact, it ruled unanimously in 2001 that "marijuana has no medical necessity defense." The recent ruling simply addressed the "free speech" issue, saying basically that doctors are free to express opinions -- even stupid ones. Doctors who oppose the medical use of marijuana tell me that they don't come forward because they don't have time to tangle with the drug legalizers -- the real power behind the medical marijuana movement. Legalizers have said since 1979 that their plan is to get marijuana classified as a medicine and use that as a step toward legalization. JOYCE NALEPKA President Drug-Free Kids: America's Challenge Silver Spring Source: Washington Post (DC)Published: Friday, October 24, 2003; Page A24 Copyright: 2003 Washington Post Contact: letterstoed washpost.comWebsite: http://www.washingtonpost.com Related Articles & Web Sites:Walters vs. Conant, 03-40 - PDFhttp://freedomtoexhale.com/walters.pdfU.S. Appeal Of Marijuana Case Rejected http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17568.shtmlBackers of Medical Marijuana Hail Rulinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17566.shtmlHigh Court Lets Stand Ruling Over Medical Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17565.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #20 posted by freedom fighter on October 27, 2003 at 09:00:34 PT
jose, #17
kewl insight. To make a sign for mind, one will point the fore finger to his/her brain. The sign for marriage is two hands representing a couple joining together by clasping both hands together.In one fluid motion, point the forefinger to the brain and then clasp both hands together, you just made a sign of "Belief".pazff
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by Roger Christie on October 26, 2003 at 11:07:22 PT:
Religious use has zero 'second opinion'
Hello out there,Aloha. With the medical use of marijuana a 'second opinion' can always be offered by another doctor, by the government or by a prohibitionist PR person.'Getting high' is a spiritual term. With the religious use of cannabis as sacrament there can be zero 'second opinion' offered by government. It is forbidden by the First Amendment. "We use cannabis religiously and you can, too."All the best to you, Roger
The Hawai'i Cannabis Ministry
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by jose melendez on October 25, 2003 at 10:25:16 PT
OBJECTION: Asked and Answered!
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ujQD4.1638%24Hg3.111279%40typhoon-la.pbi.net&output=gplainMEDICINE'S MORAL MICROMANAGERSI was distressed by Joyce Nalepka's March 19 letter in which she asserted
that some unspecified National Institutes of Health publication recommends
avoidance of marijuana by people with HIV.That is perhaps true, but it is also the case that an extensive workshop on
medical marijuana convened by NIH in 1997 presented a great deal of
positive information on its benefits. The Institute of Medicine has
recommended that cannabis be made available to people with HIV, cancer and
other serious illnesses.Ms. Nalepka, who said that only the Food and Drug Administration should
dictate approval of medicine, may be interested to know that FDA recently
recognized medical indications for cannabis by virtue of its approval as an
Orphan Drug for treatment of AIDS wasting syndrome. Also, FDA approved my
Investigational New Drug application for cannabis in migraine treatment
last year, only to have progress derailed by the refusal of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse to provide the drug for the trial.It is false to assert that cannabis is ineffective in treatment of
glaucoma. Many patients who have failed standard treatments have preserved
their vision through such treatment.Cannabis may worsen balance in some, but not all, multiple sclerosis
patients. In contrast, it has had demonstrable benefit on the disease's
associated tremor and spasticity (muscle tightness). Recent studies also
suggest that with cannabis, deteroriation may be slowed.The moral micromanagers should step aside and leave this debate where it
belongs: with the FDA, patients and their doctors.Ethan Russo, Missoula, Mont.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by jose melendez on October 25, 2003 at 10:14:49 PT
related insight
Re: Nalepka's statement that in her belief marijuana is the most
dangerous drug:In the sign language of the deaf, the sign for belief is made by signing
mind
and marriage. Think about it, a belief is what you marry your mind to.
It is an
addiction and is the most dangerous drug of all because it allows you to
hold on
to ignorance as though that were true and real.snip
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=392643FF.6213516D%40crrh.org&output=gplain
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by jose melendez on October 25, 2003 at 10:12:57 PT
In her own words
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bd5b6h%24aql%241%40pluto.ucc.uno.edu&output=gplainThe McDonald's Coffee Stirrer thread seems to have both drifted off topic
and mostly disappeared from my view. Anyhow, below is an email response from
Ms. Nalepka, the woman who apparently started the ball rolling on the
product redesign of the coffee stirrer spoon. I have not received a response
to my email to McDonald's.
(quoted with the permission of the author) Ms. Cancona,
Thanks, I was just curious who, after all these years, was looking for
the information.
I will give you my best recollection of what happened. There is also
note of it in a book titled: Marijuana Alert, by Peggy Mann, I believe.
At any rate, we were involved in closing drug paraphernalia shops in
Maryland and Senators Charles Mathias (R.MD) retired, and Senator Joseph
Biden, (D. DE) held hearings in Baltimore to bring attention to the issue. Some drug paraphernalia dealers and/or manufacturers were supoened to
testify and one-by-one they held up alternative types of pipes made from toilet paper rollers, apples, etc. and one of them--clean shaven and the price tag
still hanging from his new business suit, held up a McDonald's coffee stirring
spoon and commented, "This is the best coke spoon in town and you get it every
morning with a cup of coffee at McDonalds." Why would you close us down?'
My own testimony was held over till the following day and on the way home, I
decided to try calling McDonalds and attempt to reach the president. As it turned out, McD's is in Illinois allowing me to make it home before they
closed.
I tracked down the number, asked for the President's name (Ed Schmidt)
and asked to be connected. His regular "secretary--this was still an OK word
then--was out and the young lady who was replacing her put me through.
I explained what had just happened in the hearings and Mr. Schmidt asked,
"Well what do you want from me?" I told him I wanted him to redesign the spoon and allow me to go back to
the hearing the following day and announce that legitimate businesses wanted
no part of the drug culture that was destroying so many young people." He responded, "Lady, do you know we have over 4500 stores?" I didn't
respond but asked, "I'm not interested in that, how many children do you have. Don't consider doing it for me--do it for your own children."
He asked me to call back in 20 minutes. I did and the same young lady
told me he was "in Europe." I protested that I had just spoken to him and he
had asked me to call back. She connected me and he said, "We'll do it." Not long after, McDonald's designed a drug prevention project of their
own and sponsored some events at our national conferences.This event, of course, did not solve the drug problem; however, it did
send a strong message to families whose side McD's was taking. We received
press clips from all over the world. Please send me copies of anything you write. Joyce Nalepkahttp://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bd5b6h%24aql%241%40pluto.ucc.uno.edu&output=gplain
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by jose melendez on October 25, 2003 at 09:54:12 PT
Sound familiar? Note foxglove reference
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1993Mar10.082748.11877%40nntp.hut.fi&output=gplainFrom: habs panix.com (Harry Shapiro)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: DRONABINOL
Summary: descriptions of DRONABINOL
Keywords: DRONABINOL
Message-ID:
Date: 9 Nov 91 20:37:04 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Lines: 97DRONABINOLMarinol, Unimed, Inc. (C-II pending DEA rescheduling from C-1)
DESCRIPTION: A synthetic cannabinoid. INDICATIONS: For treatment of
naused and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients
who have failed to adequately respond to conventional antiemetic
treatments.CONTRAINDICATIONS: Hypersensitivity to dronabinol or sesame oil; also
in patients whose nausea and vomiting are due to any cause other than
cancer chemotherapy.INTERACTION POTENTIAL: May increase or decrease metabolism of ethanol.PREGNANCY: Should be used during pregnancy only if dearly needed;
pregnancy category B.PEDIATRIC USE: Information not available in official labeling.NURSING MOTHERS: Secreted in human milk; nursing mothers should not
use this product.ADVERSE REACTION POTENTIAL: The most frequently observed reactions
include drowsiness, dizziness, muddled thinking, brief impairment of
coordination, sensory, and perceptive functions, easy laughing,
elation, and heightened awareness (a "high').DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION: Initial dose is 5 mg/M2; it is given one to
three hours prior to chemotherapy, then every two to four hours after
chemotherapy is given, for a total of four to six doses per day.
Dosage may be increased to a maximum of 15 mg/M2 per dose.AVAILABILITY: 2.5-, 5-, and 10-mg capsules. PATIENT COUNSELING: Warn patients not to drive, operate complex
machinery, orengage in activity requiring sound judgment and
unimpaired coordination. This product should not be taken concurrently
with alcohol, sedatives, hypnotics, or other psychotomimetic
substances. Patients should be advised about possible changes in mood
and other behavioral effects.READERS REPORT; Pg. 6 LENGTH: 171 words HEADLINE: IT ISN'T
REALLY 'POT' BYLINE: Joyce Nalepka, President, National Federation of Parents, for
Drug-Free YouthSilver Spring, Md. The article "Here comes prescription pot" (Science & Technology, June
24) needs clarification. First, the Food & Drug Administration has
not approved "prescription pot." It has licensed Unimed to
manufacture synthetic Delta 9 THC,replicating one of marijuana's 421
chemical ingredients. Furthermore, Dr. ThomasUngerleider and Robert
Randall serve on the board of the National Organization for the Reform
of Marijuana Laws (NORML), which has been effectively misleading the
public for many years. For instance, the article's heading could cause
the reader to conclude, as NORML's Ungerleider states: "You take a hit
-- you get better." Science has developed to the point where crude or
whole-plant materials are no longer used in medical practice; we don't
use the whole foxglove plant, we use its active ingredient, digitalis.
Similarly, Unimed's product, trade-named Marinol (genericname:
dronabinol) , is completely synthetic. It has no bearing on the street
drug marijuana and its serious health and societal problems.EDITOR-NOTE: * While Ungerleider does serve on NORML's advisory board,
he also directed a key study of oral THC on cancer chemotherapy
patients. That test was instrumental in the FDA's decision to make THC
available to cancer patients.SECTION: TECHNOLOGY NEWSLETTER; Pg. 22LENGTH: 83 wordsHEADLINE: Research for a cancer antinausea drugBODY:
An antinausea drug for cancer chemotherapy patients is the subject
of a $ 1.6 million, two-year research program between Unimed
(Somerville, N.J.) and Roxane Laboratories, a member of the worldwide
Boehringer Ingelheim group of companies. The drug, Marinol
dronabinol, produced by Unimed and marketed exclusively in the U.S. by
Roxane, will be studied for appetite stimulation and weight
maintenance in cancer patients, as well as for new applications for
nausea induced by cancer chemotherapy.--
habs panix.com
"You can't have a free society without free economics"
Live Free or Die! paraphrased from Milton Friedman
From: mikuriya igc.org (Tod Mikuriya)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: DRONABINOL
Message-ID:
Date: 10 Nov 91 04:10:00 GMT
References:
Lines: 27Dronabinol is correctly described in the posting except for the fact
that it is officially synthetic delta 1,9 tetrahydrocannabinol dissolved
in sesame oil. The term "dronabinol" is a synthetic pseudo generic name
utilized to sanitize the connection between the proprietary name, Marinol
and tetrahydrocannabinol. This sort of semantic disinformation is sadly characteristic of the
contamination of science and medicine by prohibitionistic politics.It is indeed correct that Unimed in NJ currently holds the monopoly on
the drug and the cost reflects this. Over $5.00/capsule makes the drug
prohibitively expensive. In some instances more than illicitly obtained
crude cannabis.Marinol is a schedule II drug. Same category as morphine, meperidine and
the stronger opiates.The write up in the PDR is overly inflammatory in nature and more accurate
accounts can be seen under cannabis in older pharmaceutical and medical
texts.Marinol is supplied in 2.5, 5 and 10 milligram gelatin capsules. Most
physicians are unaware of the drug or its clinical applications. The
same level of ignorance about crude cannabis or purified derivatives
is currently the same.
Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D.
From: canorml igc.org (NORML California)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: SF Votes 80% for Medical MJ
Message-ID:
Date: 7 Nov 91 08:38:00 GMT
Lines: 18 Nov. 6th, 1991: San Francisco voters overwhelmingly
endorsed Proposition P, calling for legalized prescription use of
medical marijuana. Final returns showed Proposition P with
79.5% yes votes, more than any other ballot proposition including
one affirming the city's support for the First Amendment.
Proposition P received the endorsement of all of the city's
newspapers, as well as the Democratic Central Committee, Mayor
Agnos, and other leading mayoral candidates. It was opposed by
the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, the Chamber of
Commerce, and the Republican Party.
Organizers of Prop. P expressed their thanks to the voters of
San Francisco for their humanity and compassion, and vowed to
work with city officials to guarantee patients' access to medical
marijuana.
Proposition P puts the city on record as recommending
legalized use of hemp medication on prescription, but does not
alter current state or federal laws.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #14 posted by jose melendez on October 25, 2003 at 09:48:59 PT
Honorable. Right.
Archive-Name: gov/us/fed/congress/record/2000/jun/30/2000CRE1176A
[Congressional Record: June 30, 2000 (Extensions)]
[Page E1176-E1177]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr30jn00-53]
NARCOTIC DRUGS ______
HON. MARK E. SOUDER of indiana in the house of representatives Thursday, June 29, 2000 Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the countless mothers,
fathers, families, and individuals whose lives have been devastated by
illegal drugs to introduce legislation to federally nullify movements
in the states to legalize the use of narcotic drugs illegal under
federal law.
It is undisputed that narcotic drugs devastate our families and rot
our communities literally to the core through addiction and crime.
Earlier this week, we passed the Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations
bill that provided literally hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to
fight drugs and drug-related crime, and we are finalizing action on
$1.3 billion in assistance to our allies in Colombia, where agents of
the Colombian National Police are dying in numbers to keep them off of
our streets in America.
Directly defying our efforts as a Congress and a nation, a small
group of well-funded activists have engaged in deceptive, back door,
efforts that pretend to legalize drugs under state law that are banned
under federal law. These activists hide behind the myth of so-called
``medical'' use of marijuana and other drugs, despite the facts that
there is no scientific proof that smoked marijuana provides any real
medical relief, and that the active ingredient in marijuana is
available in pill form.[[Page E1177]]Increasingly, however, they have abandoned even this pretense, and made
clear that their goal is the legalization or decriminalization of
narcotic drugs.
One activist called it the ``leaky bucket strategy . . . legalize it
in one area, and sooner or later it will trickle down into the
others.'' The bucket is now leaking faster.
The Governor of Hawaii just signed into law state legislation that
purports to allow the ``medical'' use of marijuana, even though it's
still illegal under federal law. Five states have enacted laws by
ballot initiative that purport to allow so-called ``medical'' use of
marijuana under state laws: Alaska, California, Maine, Oregon and
Washington. In furtherance of that strategy, pro-drug activists are now
attempting to pass ballot initiatives for the November elections in six
states to virtually decriminalize marijuana by removing criminal
penalties for its use in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Massachusetts, and Michigan.
These initiatives have already given us such Alice-in-Wonderland
moments as the ``nation's first bed and breakfast inn catering to
medical marijuana users'' in Santa Cruz, California. This
``establishment'' was featured in People magazine with a smiling couple
holding marijuana plants in front of their home, which is said to
contain cannabis-themed tiles on the sidewalk, and hemp curtains and
towels. That really sounds like a ``medical'' facility to me. We've
also seen the bizarre decision by the Oakland City Council to declare a
``public health emergency'' after a court closed the city's medical
marijuana club, and the issuance of photo ID cards supposedly allowing
marijuana use by the Arcata, California police chief.
But this is all an illusion--states can't permit marijuana use,
because it's illegal under federal law. The legalization initiatives
mislead the public into breaking federal law and directly counter
congressional policies against drug use and the provisions of the
federal Controlled Substances Act. Today, I am introducing legislation
to stop this charade once and for all, with the support of my
colleagues on the Speaker's drug task force and others, including Task
Force Co-Chair McCollum, Chairman Mica of the Drug Policy Subcommittee,
Chairman Gilman, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Myrick, Mr. Foley and
Mr. Baker.
Federal law is ordinarily assumed to preempt contrary state laws.
However, the Federal Controlled Substances Act does not contain an
express preemption clause, and currently has language stating that the
intent of Congress is not to occupy the entire field of regulation of
narcotic drugs. In light of the state initiatives, federal courts could
potentially interpret the language of state efforts to regulate
narcotics as legally harmonious and proper. In fact, one federal
district judge has already argued in non-binding language that Congress
intended federal law to regulate drug trafficking, and not ``medical''
marijuana use.
My bill will remove any potential loophole or ambiguity by clearly
declaring that it is the intent of Congress for federal law to
supersede any and all laws of states and local governments purporting
to authorize the use, growing, manufacture, distribution or importation
of any controlled substance which differs from the provisions of the
Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and
Export Act. It would also expressly declare such state and local
enactments as null and void. If enacted, the bill would decisively
prohibit federal and state judges from giving any effect to drug
legalization initiatives and legislation, and send an equally clear
message that Congress will not tolerate backdoor efforts to legalize
narcotic drugs.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not my bill--it belongs to our mothers,
fathers, families and our communities. It has strong support from
numerous community groups and coalitions, narcotics activists, and
tireless anti-drug advocates, who have worked closely with my office in
drafting this bill. I would particularly like to acknowledge and thank
Joyce Nalepka of America Cares, who first raised this important issue
with me. I look forward to working with the anti-drug community to pass
this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and
passing it.http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2000CRE1176A%40us.govnews.org&output=gplain
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by jose melendez on October 25, 2003 at 05:03:52 PT
ran for MD senator?
http://www.elections.state.md.us/past_elections/1992/candidates_1992/primary_all.htmlU.S. Senator Vote For OneRepublican Candidate(s)Candidates' Addresses
James Henry Berry, 9 Sangamore Court, Bethesda, MD 20816John J. Bishop Jr., 6671 Lockhill Road, Baltimore, MD 21239Joseph I. Cassilly, 513 Calvary Road , Box 86, Churchville, MD 21028Joyce Friend-Nalepka, 1805 Tilton Drive, Silver Spring, MD 20902
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by Michael Segesta on October 25, 2003 at 04:37:42 PT:
the 'doo
Nick --Can one see Joyce's lovely new coif; if so where?Mike
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by Michael Segesta on October 25, 2003 at 04:36:32 PT:
a lawyer?
If this women is a fellow member of the bar, I would love to know which state bar she belongs to. I think they ought to know just to make sure things are legit and she doesn't violate any ethical cannons, like the duty not to commit fraud and deceit. If she is a lawyer, I know now how we get such a bad name.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by GentleGiant on October 25, 2003 at 01:58:00 PT
Oh please......
Would someone please tell this lady that when you measure up marijuana to all the drugs prescribed or non-prescribed, marijuana is at the the bottom of the list for being harmful. I hate people who completely absurd.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by The GCW on October 24, 2003 at 20:20:42 PT
The JOYCE NALEPKA's of the world.
We're told in latter times there will be the JOYCE NALEPKA's of the world (1 Timothy 4:1-5) who advocate abstaining from foods which God has created.1 Timothy 4subtitled: Apostasy1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,
3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;
5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. http://www.biblegateway.org/bible?passage=1TIM+4&language=english&version=NASB(Joyce = simple math: 420-420=0) (check Your math)Joyce is being controled by the spirit of error. -1 John 4
subtitled: Testing the Spirits. http://www.biblegateway.org/bible?passage=1JOHN+4&language=english&version=NASBJoyce displays traits of the deluding influence (bad). - 2 Thessalonians 2 subtitled: Man of Lawlessness. http://www.biblegateway.org/bible?passage=2THES+2&language=english&version=NASB Joyce carries herself as though she is the self-condemned. -Titus 3 subtitled: Godly Living. http://www.biblegateway.org/bible?passage=TIT+3&language=english&version=NASB
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by kaptinemo on October 24, 2003 at 16:53:19 PT:
I said it's getting tiresome, and it is
Typical of Joyce: Do we hear anything new? Of course not, because she hasn't been able, like so many other antis are unable, of coming up with new falsehoods. Nope, we hear the same old, old tunes, the same old wheezing winbag propaganda machine, so patched you'd think it was really a camouflage print, leaking fetid hot air and grossly distended.Joyce, if your son had had access to legal weed, he'd be alive today. Most cannabists don't want anything else. But contact with an unscrupulous dealer means exposure to other, nastier things. As you well know. He was tempted, and he gave in. That was his mistake. He knew the risks but thought he could play the game. And, like so many others, the game played him. To his death.But you are doing something almost as bad. You are knowingly supporting the very system that killed your son.That's right Joyce, my dear.Supporting drug prohibition puts you in the same bed as the dealer who sold your son heroin. You can continue to wear the blinders and think you are on the side of the angels, but the fact remains that supporting illicit drug prohibition is supporting drug dealers. Period. They wouldn't exist without prohibtion, just as large scale bootlegging doesn't take place anymore because legal alcohol purchases are regulated and taxed, rather than swept under the table where corruption spreads and law enforcement becomes an exercise in Cicero's dictum about the Law being a whore that smiles at the man with the biggest purse. You're supposed to be a lawyer (why else add that Esq. to your name as you have in the past?) so you ought to know the history of what happens in any society, anywhere, when a minority seeks to ban something the majority wants. Black markets, crime, murder, etc. usually result...when simple regulation and control eliminates the necessity. Why would you knowingly support prohibition when you *know* what results from it?Sort of belies everything you've said concerning your highly publicized and often histrionic concern for 'the children', doesn't it? Ensuring their exposure to dealers whose only concern is the color of their money is hardly indicative of a social conscience.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by FoM on October 24, 2003 at 16:35:46 PT
Oh Nicholas
You do make me laugh.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by Nicholas Thimmesch on October 24, 2003 at 16:24:53 PT:
Lousy letter...
....great new hair-doo, Joyce.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on October 24, 2003 at 13:01:48 PT
LTE
Sirs, Not once in her article does Joyce Nalepka mention the many and various harms of arrest and imprisonment. Why? Because she supports the policy of arresting marijuana users, for their own good. Alcohol has effects far worse than the ones she attributes to marijuana. Why does she not support arresting alcohol drinkers and suppliers? Americans know full well that for all the troubles people have with alcohol, making it a crime to drink was not the solution. In fact, it made the problem worse, creating a lucrative market for gangsters who could turn out a product of questionable quality and charge ridiculous prices for it. It amazes me to see people like Ms. Nalepka, who miss the paralells to marijuana, a plant which costs pennies to grow and currently sells for the price of gold. Anyone who wanted alcohol during prohibition had no problems finding it. For children, it was easier, since the speakeasy did not check I.D.'s. Children were even able to work in alcohol production and sales. Can Ms. Nalepka claim that there are people today who want to smoke marijuana in America but have trouble finding any? The annual drug war budget at the federal level is $20 billion; the combined total at the state level another $20 billion. Drug-law reform proponents are not spending anywhere near this amount of money. For example, Joyce Nalepka is paid, among other things, to write letters such as the one you printed. All but a handful of pro-reform activists write their letters without any compensation, because they believe our country could be a better place to live in.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=->>Does anyone get tired of these misinformed people spewing the same crap over and over without rebutal?Then REBUT, man, REBUT!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by mamawillie on October 24, 2003 at 10:54:42 PT
A P.S. to Joyce
Oh, Joyce, I almost forgot. Your "marijuana isn't medicine because it is smoked" argument is invalid since most medical patients either eat their marijuana or vaporize it. So you are left with a laughable point that marijuana is more harmful than good because it is smoked when the majority of medical patients aren't smoking it. What will you do now, try to outlaw Sears Craftsman heat guns?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by mamawillie on October 24, 2003 at 10:41:10 PT
Joyce is the good old reliable...
I love the hearsay part at the end about doctors who oppose marijuana....yes, Joyce, that will win people over to your side... some good old hearsay!Joyce, you would do better targeting caffeine, caffeine pills, smoking and alcohol because it is there you might be able to make a real difference.I also love how her articles and opinions are limited to vague nonsense; Joyce is unable to get specific because she has no facts to back her claims.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by Darwin on October 24, 2003 at 08:26:29 PT
Joyce!
As I said before, Joyce has bewen around long enough to know that she is spouting propaganda. She doesn't care, she is on a mission to "save the children" and is getting paid to do so. Keep those blinders pointed straight ahead Joyce, and ignore the reality around you.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by OverwhelmSam on October 24, 2003 at 08:13:53 PT:
Alcohol & Cigarettes are Worse
Does anyone get tired of these misinformed people spewing the same crap over and over without rebutal? It's like the constant drone of meditation.
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment