Great cannabis debate

Dr. Erik Steele’s commentary (Nov. 17) seems to bemoan the upcoming cannabis debate, one can only hope. In the 61 years since prohibition was installed, there has yet to be an informed debate and he still believes it is too soon. This major New Deal Tax Act went through Congress in December 1937 with no debate and a total of 92 seconds of discussion. The Canadian Le Dain Commission Report 30 years ago noted the debate on cannabis was “based on hearsay, myth and ill-informed opinion on the effects of the drug.”

This instilled public misperception is why office commision studies are ignored instead of being acted on, so we can study and forget again, keeping things the same. This repeating pattern has been apparent since 1898 and the British-India Hemp Commission Report. In short, the truth is yet to win out (a challenge to prohibitionists).

Three other ways to prepare for the upcoming debate, if one wants to act responsibly, would be to: Realize or verify that cannabis hemp is arguably the oldest and least toxic medicinal herb (called by a DEA law judge “far safer than many foods that we commonly consume”) on record. At the turn of the century the Meric Index listed more than 100 different problems that might be mitigated by tincture of cannabis.

Verify or realize that hemp prohibition is modeled on the 1936 machine gun tax act, with a foundation based solely on hearsay and emotional pleas from special interests without the slightest bona fide scientific justification. (Cannabis was said to be much worse than cocaine or heroin.)

Verify or realize the petition the good doctor mentioned is from out-of-state interests, using international money to impose their unreasonably restrictive version of what’s best for Maine citizens upon us. Their referendum bill is meant to serve doctors, the pharmaceutical industry, lawyers, crooks and the ever-growing prison industry; patients’ needs were of no serious consideration. Robert C. Stuart Lincoln