Eat it, don’t smoke it
Re: Letter, “Marijuana not harmless,” Sept. 23.
I agree with Brook M. [that the effects of inhaling a burned substance are harmful], since I’ve read that those who heat and cook with wood stoves have shorter life spans than those who use gas.
GW Pharmaceuticals and Bayer Aspirin Germany are producing an inhaled form of cannabis for those suffering from multiple sclerosis. Unfortunately, the United States Congress prohibited cannabis-based products from being covered by medicare this past spring.
Personally, if I had access to 19% THC marijuana, I would eat it.
Debby Moore
“An elected or appointed official in Wichita, KS”
Final(?) words on the War on Terror
Re: Everything is at stake for U.S. election: a response, Sept. 20.
Jeff MacPherson disregards the fact that 9/11 did affect the economy and security of the U.S. to the point that the U.S. needed to re-think its policy, budget, and security infrastructure.
The idea of the “War on Terror” comes from the principle that defense is impossible once a suicide bomber invades the U.S. This is where preemptive strikes come in. There is no way to defend against terrorism except by aggressive action, which inhibits the civil liberties of those who are the enemies of freedom.
It is natural that U.S. officals, being politicians, need to shape the way this is expressed in a way that gains favour in their approval ratings, hence the use of rhetoric.
The statement that the U.S. and Israel have vetoed or been absent at numerous occasions of the “peace process” is ludicrous. [Israel actually cannot “veto,” since it is not one of the five permanent UN Security Council members. Our mistake. See op-ed in current issue. -Ed.]
Although the lessons of previous wars should shape international law, the emergence of international terror to its present level is unprecedented and new policies must be examined to combat this real, global and massive threat.
George Jakubovits
