>>> Part 1 of 15...
Jane Kelley wrote in a message to Alex Vasauskas:
AV>Knowing that 36 states have passed legislation recognizing
AV>marijuana's therapeutic value; [9,10] and
 JK> Legistlators can be easily swayed by constituents who vote.
But, were they in these cases?  Considering the pandemic
prohibition hysteria, this is not likely.
AV>Also knowing that the only available access to legal
AV>marijuana which was through the Food and Drug
AV>Administration' s Investigational New Drug Program has been
AV>closed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services since
AV>1992; [11] and
 JK> Good use of common sense.
Right.  It is prudent to remain as ignorant as possible so that
those who have invested careers and money and reputations in
proclaiming the virtues of prohibition can avoid being faced
with facts contrary to their emotional, "reefer madness" assertions.
As evidenced by the demonstrated harm and failure of Prohibition I
with respect to alcohol, we certainly don't want any evidence to
weaken Prohibition II.  Accurate information might succeed in
adversely influencing the mass of people who refuse to learn from
the lessons of Prohibition I.
Maybe we should forget about alternative medicine and leave
all medical and health care to licensed physicians and established
drug companies.  Every other adult is probably too stupid,
irresponsible, and incapable of reading to be able to learn, 
evaluate, and personally decide about appropriate uses of herbs,
roots, and other substances in their lives -- even if the vested
interests didn't prevent the development of information as has 
happened in the case of marijuana.
Depending on the person, many legal and illegal substances can be
benign, beneficial, or harmful.  The fact that someone may be
foolish enough to use something to an extent harmful to them should
not preclude other adults from developing and obtaining information,
and using herbs and other chemicals for health, medicinal, and/or
recreational purposes.  It is a pernicious paternalism that governs
a nation as though its adult citizens are expected to be irresponsible
and incapable of governing their own lives -- purportedly just because
some citizens may harm themselves due to acting irresponsibly.  It is
worse yet to deprive people of accurate information important to their
being able to make decisions in their lives.  Notwithstanding this, we
have a renewed Prohibition, aka "The War on (some) Drugs" -- and, it
is substantially more harmful than what it is represented to be
designed to prevent:
The War on Drugs is Lost
Buckley, William F., Nadelmann, Ethan A,
Schmoke, Kurt, Macnamara, Joseph D., Sweet, Robert
W., Szasz, Thomas, and Steven B. Duke.
"The War on Drugs is Lost."  National Review.
12 February, 1996: 34-48.
(c) 1996 by NATIONAL REVIEW, Inc.
150 East 35th Street
New York, NY 10016.
Reprinted by permission.
 
Contents
William F. Buckley
Ethan A. Nadelmann
Kurt Schmoke
Joseph D. McNamara
Robert W. Sweet
Thomas Szasz
Steven B. Duke
NATIONAL REVIEW has attempted during its tenure as, so to speak, keeper
of the conservative tablets to analyze public problems and to recommend
intelligent thought. The magazine has acknowledged a variety of
positions by right-minded thinkers and analysts who sometimes reach
conflicting conclusions about public policy.  As recently as on the
question of troops to Bosnia, there was dissent within the family from
our corporate conclusion that we'd be best off staying home.
For many years we have published analyses of the drug problem.  An
important and frequently cited essay by Professor Michael Gazzaniga
(Feb. 5, 1990) brought a scientist's discipline into the picture,
shedding light on matters vital to an understanding of the drug
question.  He wrote, for instance, about different rates of addiction,
and about ambient pressures that bear on addiction.  Elsewhere,
Professor James Q. Wilson, now of UCLA, has written eloquently in
defense of the drug war.  Milton Friedman from the beginning said it
would not work, and would do damage.
We have found Dr. Gazzaniga and others who have written on the
 >>> Continued to next message...
___
 X Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 X
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------