Weed out the rhetoric

I encourage that before you spew out-dated hokum, don’t watch Reefer Madness for your sourced materials or you’ll just look foolish.

Eileen Nattrass (PNR letters, April 26) feels weed is obviously a danger and mustn’t be discussed by politicians. She feels it would be the bullet to the foot that would hemorrhage one’s political career.

Here’s some counter facts: marijuana when smoked in bleached rolling paper is bad for the heart and lungs because of minor increases in CO2 levels in the blood but these are so minor they more often never manifest as any kind of symptom. But it is recommended by Health Canada to be vaporized, a process that doesn’t burn the plant matter, but just vaporizes the medicative crystal content. This process is proven to have no adverse or life threatening consequences.

Her claim of causing depression is also false. All the websites refer to a single study that merely asked “do you smoke” and “are you depressed”. This is not causation, its merely coincidence. And maybe they smoked because they were depressed, not the other way around.

To lay down a foundation of truth, one would say: “weed was used until the 1930s as medicine/tonic, with amazing results.

Then in ‘37 one man decided to classify it as a “schedule one” drug, meaning it has no medicative effect. On behalf of the new pharmaseutical and old paper industry, hemp was targetted by lobbyists for the Mellon, Hearst and Du Pont Families. Their wholesale destruction of the hemp industry and its mudslinging of the “drug” resulted in a full fledged war on weed. Not because it’s bad for you, but because it’s bad for other businesses!

That is why, when a politician tackles this erroneous law, he/she will probably win, because the majority of Canada wants the “drug” rescheduled as it should be.

I can hear the cries of future letters.

I encourage that before you spew out-dated hokum in the PNR letters section, don’t watch Reefer Madness for your sourced materials or you’ll just look foolish.

Noel Gagnon