Medical marijuana legalization is a bad idea

With due respect to State Rep. Donna Lichtenegger and all the dedication she has shown for us, I stand strongly opposed to HB 1554. I believe the use of marijuana to treat terminally ill patients is a bad idea for several reasons:

1. Marijuana is a societal "gateway" drug, and legitimizing it for medical reasons is the first step toward general use. It's also a step toward euthanasia.

2. "Terminal" is in the hands of God. Though knowledgeable and experienced physicians may often be able to give a fairly accurate estimate of how much longer a patient is expected to live, the number of one's days is determined by an Almighty God (Psalm 139:16). Isaac gave his blessing to Jacob saying, "Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death." He then went on to live over 60 more years (Genesis 27:1-2). Hezekiah was told by Isaiah to "get thy house in order; you shall die and not live." Hezekiah prayed to the Lord, and God chose to grant him 15 more years (2 Kings 20:1-11). And, even when physicians are correct regarding the "terminal" patient, those who want to "get their house in order" need to have as sound a mind as possible to do so.

3. We really just don't know enough about the long-term side effects of cannabis, but what we do know is alarming. It's a mind-altering, mood-altering drug that can be detected in the tissues, including the brain, for over a month after a single use. It's an addicting drug that for some has life-altering results (potheads). The term "pothead" has become synonymous with someone who uses marijuana on a daily basis. The urban dictionary defines it as "someone who believes that: (a) any problem can be fixed by smoking marijuana and (b) any activity is more enjoyable while stoned." I would like to insert a personal story here if you would bear with me. Part of my post-graduate training required a year of internship and one year of general surgery before my 3 years of head and neck surgery. Those two prerequisite years (1971-1973) were spent at Long Beach Memorial and at Alameda County Hospital in California. To paraphrase Will Rogers, I never met a pothead I didn't like. They were always laid back and amiable, but not too ambitious. The last one I treated in California was in the Emergency Room. He had struck a train with his car and had an essentially normal exam except for a bruise across his upper abdomen. He had no abnormal findings otherwise and was experiencing no pain. He was "high" and had several ounces of marijuana in the front seat of his car. The police wanted to take him to jail. I insisted that we keep him 24 hours (Alameda County's jail had an 8-bed lock-up for observation, but it was usually fully occupied). Within 6 hours, he was found to have sheared off his superior mesenteric artery, and his small bowel had 18 inches of dead tissue. I believe had he not had marijuana on board, we would have picked up his symptoms sooner and, of course, he may not have hit the train in the first place.

4. There are drugs that are quite adequate already available to help the "terminally ill" without opening the medical marijuana "can of worms."

Let's hear from the physicians -- particularly the oncologists (chemotherapists, radiation therapists and surgeons) -- as to whether there is a place for medical marijuana. I think most would say that patients who want to live and fight and survive (prolong life) should be mentally strong and committed, not compromised by mood/mind-altering drugs. And, when the time comes, based on good communication between doctor and patient/family, there are drugs already available that can be used to handle the complications of nausea, pain, etc. without the risks to the rest of society that are seen in industrial marijuana production. A physician is called to prolong life and relieve suffering. Sometimes these two seem to come into conflict. But, to add marijuana to the regimen of already abundant choices of drugs and legalize the industry is not a step forward. It's another step backward.

Like several other issues (abortion, alcohol, cigarettes, gambling), there are other points to be made by those in favor, such as individual choice, opportunity to tax and regulate a "new industry," economic benefit, etc. These are and will be strong incentives to legislators, present users and perhaps farmers.

You can find more information online searching "pros and cons of marijuana." As you do your research, keep in mind that many of the "pro" arguments represent small, "motivated" groups tainted with the bias of greed and/or the desire for their habit to be legalized and legitimized. You might say the other side has its own bias, but I am not sure what the "tainted" motivation of those against it might be.

The fact is that, although marijuana has been available for four decades, we still don't have a grip on all the long-term side effects. We have, however, enough evidence to conclude that it is indeed a dangerous drug for many, and it should remain restricted to objective scientific study before being released in any way to the public.

Richard Martin is a physician who resides in ape Girardeau.