Dear Editor:
I read the article "City Council Calls for Pot Regulation" by Benjamin Alldritt in the April 27 North Shore News with mixed emotions. A few questions if I may:
1) The story outlines arguments in support of decriminalization and legalization of marijuana in B.C., as presented to North Vancouver city council by a Dr. Evan Wood.
It does not include a single word about any of the dangers associated with such a move. Where is the other side of the story?
2) According to the article there were no questions from the council raising fears over respiratory cancer or other side effects of using marijuana.
Hello councillors, is this really true? Were you asleep during the presentation?
A quick glance at the American Psychiatric Association website provides some information: Marijuana can damage the cells in the bronchial passages that protect the body against inhaled microorganisms and decrease the ability of the immune cells in the lungs to fight off fungi, bacteria, and tumor cells. Marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory and learning.
Other possible outcomes: cannabis intoxication delirium (memory deficit, disorientation); cannabis induced psychotic disorder; and cannabis induced anxiety disorder.
Council members, didn't it cross your mind to perhaps ask a few question in regards to these findings? Shouldn't you have invited a speaker who would present a different view?
3) The arguments in support of decriminalization, as presented, are flawed:
? "77 per cent of British Columbians" support decriminalization. This is not a good argument; one can prove any point by using statistics.
? "In the United States they are actually way ahead of us now. Sixteen states have legalized medical marijuana. . . . Fourteen states have decriminalized marijuana." Do you really think that this is an argument? Do we need to follow that just because someone else is already doing it?
? "Wood said he himself has treated patients with gunshot wounds following drug-related disputes." What does this prove?
If the market were regulated, perhaps instead of a wounded dealer he would be treating hallucinating, paranoid, depressed, uncontrollably aggressive teenagers. Which one is better?
? "Regulatory tools can move us to a regulated market." Bingo. The governments that have already monopolized and taxed the tobacco and alcohol industries see a $7 billion industry up for grabs.
Ultimately, this is what this whole issue is about. Marijuana, a highly addictive drug, provides a lifetime guaranty of steady income.
Wouldn't that be good news for the government?
Gregoz Gawronski North Vancouver
