_Nature_ anti-alcohol editorial is inappropriate

[Patrick O'Neil]

On Tue, 11 Apr 1995 U58563 at uicvm.uic.edu wrote:

[...]
> dictatorial governments with "anti-drug" money, the potential of hemp for
> industrial/agricultural purposes, the sordid history of racist and personal
> financial motives for anti-drug laws, among others.  Nor does he explain how
> these problems are to be addressed if only "soft" drugs are included. 

I have oft wondered what the hemp crowd would say if hemp were 
genetically engineered so as NOT to produce the psychoactive chemicals 
yet retain the useful properties for paper making, etc.  Would they be so 
enthusiastic about trying to gain legalization for "industrial use"?

Something tells me that they would not, and that the "industrial use" 
argument is subterfuge to gain access to smoking it.  Harmless:  not.  
ANY combustion product inhaled is harmful.  Hydrocarbons of various types 
are not "harmless."  For Shiva's sake, we're trying to CUT DOWN ON 
SMOKING, not replace cigarettes with ANOTHER smoking piece of garbage.

To use the argument that "we allow alcohol use and IT'S a drug" to 
justify allowing any and sundry other drugs is as faulty an argument as 
ole Pres Reagan used in regards to pollution and acid rain:  "Volcanoes 
put out more sulphur dioxide than we do, so it doesn't matter if we pump 
out even more."  Rubbish.  Making things worse is never an acceptable 
answer and providing another drug to be widely and easily abused is not 
acceptable.

I would agree that some restrictions should be lifted, but only for 
specific legitimate medical reasons like glaucoma treatment, chemotherapy 
patients, and AIDS patients...but NOT in combustive form.  Pills or IV - 
there is no need to add to the medical ills by adding combustion products 
to their lungs.

Patrick