"I'm not convinced that Dr. Russo's position implies that if cannabis were more harmful, it should be illegal. The current claim from the opposition is that it's addictive and harmful, and ought to remain illegal for those reasons. What am I missing here?"

The counter argument, advanced backhandedly by Dr. Russo that it is not addictive and harmful and should therefore not be illegal. Therein lies the implication that were it addictive and harmful it should remain illegal.

The more harmful and addictive the drug, the less I want the Hell's Angels in charge of it. I would argue that we should legalize heroin first *because* it is addictive and harmful. There is less of a pressing need to legalize cannabis because, even with no quality control or warning labels whatsoever, it is practically impossible to kill yourself with the herb and most users eventually quit on their own unscathed.

I'm not convinced that Dr. Russo's position implies that if cannabis were more harmful, it should be illegal.

"There is no reason cannabis should be illegal, Russo said, since it is less harmful than other legal, addictive substances like nicotine, alcohol caffeine."

The implication is that if cannabis were more harmful than caffiene, tobacco and alcohol then abdicating control of it to organized crime would make sense.

Contrary to popular misconception, perpetuated here by Dr. Russo, prohibition is at the bottom, not the top of the regulatory scale.

I see that there is another article up about epilepsy- http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread17435.shtml#1 . John the Engineer Turmell who took it to the courts of Canada continually speaks of the death that epileptics have because of the denial of cannabis. He says repeatedly at medpot at yahoo groups that 10 epileptic people a day in Canada and reminds us continually that Terry Parker who ushered in the demise of possession laws in Ontario and elsewhere was an epileptic.

Firstly, I am a resident of Montana.

In relation to the Chronic Use Study:

http://www.maps.org/mmj/russo2002.pdf

there certainly were some side effects of cannabis usage in these patients, but these were minor in relation to the benefits that they enjoyed. Two of the four had mild to moderate obstructive pulmonary disease, but this may have been partially attributable to cigarette smoking in one, and to effects of his connective tissue disease in the other.

I specifically repeat that I do not recommend smoking for patients who require cannabis treatment, but rather suggest the use of alternative delivery methods, such as oral administration, vaporization, or use of sublingual tinctures that eliminate any pulmonary risks.

Secondly, our patients did have minor problems with immediate attention and concentration, but all function normally with enhanced lifestyles as a result of their legal access to cannabis, and one is a very successful stockbroker.

I did say that the concept of withdrawal from cannabis in humans is an unproven one according to the latest comprehensive review by N.T. Smith. Although there are occasional people who seem to develop at least a psychological "dependency" to cannabis, and medical patients do develop a tolerance to its side effects, in practice, clinical cannabis patients do not demonstrate a tolerance to its benefits. In other words, the amount required to control their pain, spasm or other symptoms remains stable over time, and in some instances, goes down.

There is no reason cannabis should be illegal, Russo said, since it is less harmful than other legal, addictive substances like nicotine, alcohol caffeine....

You don't need to believe anything I say tonight, but read what is out there and see if there might be a different way of thinking about these issues. Make up your own mind.<

You go doc!!!

The Cannabis Crusades: Medical Marijuana and the Recall Election By Ed Rosenthal*

The San Francisco Chronicle recently published an article in which I expressed regret at not being allowed to vote in the upcoming California gubernatorial recall -- the first election in which I would not be voting since I turned 18, 40 years ago. I had been told by my probation officer that my three felony convictions related to cultivating medicinal marijuana had also resulted in the loss of my right to vote.

Although I was spared prison time, the loss of my voting rights was cruel punishment for me, because I have always been politically and civically active.

It is remarkable that I ended up with the felonies, since I had been deputized by the city of Oakland and promised immunity from prosecution for providing medicine to qualified patients.

Still, I feel a certain satisfaction about the recall campaign. I watched one of my daydreams come true in the first debate. Medical marijuana was the only issue that all the candidates agreed upon: all pledged to uphold California’s marijuana laws. State Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Northridge, the most conservative, was the most ardent -- stating that the federal government should stay out of the state's business.

When Dennis Peron opened San Francisco’s first medical marijuana dispensary nearly 10 years ago, there was virtually unanimous agreement among politicians and the criminal justice community that marijuana wasn't a medicine. Furthermore, the risk was too great for the medicine to be permitted. What a difference a decade makes. In 1994, no reporter would have asked the question, but if they had, every candidate would have pledged to redouble efforts to eliminate “the assassin of youth.”

All the candidates agreed that medical marijuana should be “legal,” but there are definite differences in their attitudes toward what legal means and who should decide. This is significant, because some California state agencies are still at war against this popular medicine. The California attorney general's Medical Board is prosecuting doctors based on complaints. Neither patients, their caregivers, nor their loved ones are complaining. No, all the complaints are being filed by officers or prosecutors thwarted when they attempt to arrest or prosecute a patient. Police and prosecutors in some counties have declared war on medical patients, spending an inordinate amount of time and taxpayers' money to harass people whose only crime is that they are ill.

State probation and parole orders sometimes limit use of medical marijuana, even in life-threatening cases. Could you imagine the uproar if a judge denied a diabetic the use of insulin?

These actions are being fueled by the inflammatory rhetoric of the California Narcotic Officers’ Association. The organization denies that marijuana has any medical use and encourages police and prosecutors to view all medical cases as bogus. Its lobbyists use obstructionist tactics and threaten legislators inclined to vote to implement provisions of Proposition 215, California's medical marijuana law. CNOA functions as a clique of verbal terrorists fighting against patient's rights.

The problem with the implementation of Proposition 215 is that it is based on the “stakeholders theory,” where all the interested parties reach a compromise. This policy may work for water rights, but it is insane when patients' health is compromised.

The idea that the criminal justice system is a stakeholder in a health and medical issue is ridiculous on its face. The police have training only in identifying marijuana and arresting its owners. They have no cultivation expertise, know next to nothing about the herb’s medical use and have no sociological knowledge to lend to the discussion. The police's only vested interest in marijuana is using tax dollars to arrest and incarcerate users of any type, recreational or medical. The police industry's influence in this medical and sociological debate is inappropriate, since their representatives mostly deny marijuana's medical benefits and view arrests as an employment issue.

That's why this recall campaign is such a watershed. All the candidates accept marijuana as medicine. How each one would implement the law is of prime importance to the 70,000 Californians holding medical marijuana recommendations. Will patients using this exceedingly safe herbal medicine continue to be held hostage to “stakeholders’ whose interest is a high arrest count?

Meanwhile, readers of my article in the Chronicle contacted the newspaper to correct the disinformation my probation officer had given me -- as a convicted felon not currently in prison or on parole, I in fact retain my right to vote. Ironically, just as the jury in my trial only learned the truth of my case outside of the courtroom, I only learned the truth about my voting rights outside of the criminal justice system. While I was certainly pleased to learn that my right to vote remains unbreached, I wonder more than ever how long we will allow our criminal justice system to misrepresent the facts to achieve its own ends.