so this is what i have put together to send to ATI. i want it to sound intelligent and well thought out. but i'm looking for any input from you folks, any ideas that i might have missed, etc. thanks for the help! Dear Above The Influence, <o></o> I have been reading your website recently, and after reviewing most everything you have about marijuana, I have a couple of questions that I would love to have answered if someone in your organization could provide a non-automated response. <o></o> 1. It is great that you cite your information (as anything in my profession that goes un-cited has no basis for argument); however in scientific research it has become increasingly clear that the subjectivity of scientific results and their interpretation is often overlooked in data reported by various scientists. In fact, it is common knowledge that subjective conclusions can be drawn from objective statistics derived from objective information, and thus the final results can be manipulated in almost anyone's favor on any topic depending on the answers the researcher wants. An example of this is written directly on your website, which states, “Students who get grades of a D are four times more likely to smoke marijuana.†While this statement may be true, the astute reader realizes that this statement is actually meaningless. What you wish to get across to your audience is, “People who smoke marijuana get bad grades.†The problem is what the cause is and what the affect is. Because kids who do poorly in class are more likely to do drugs does not mean that kids who do drugs are more likely to do bad in school. Such examples of misuse of information are why the entire scientific profession has adopted measures to prevent these types of errors, most importantly the concept of peer-reviewed journals. Peer-reviewed journals must be accepted by other anonymous scientists that also specialize in the field before it is allowed to be published to the public. Nearly all of your statistics and scientific information come from government agency research groups. So my question then is how can you trust a group, such as ATI, who cites information from a group of researchers who are sponsored by the same government that wishes to enforce the negative aspects of marijuana? In other words, to be a credible agency as ATI should be, why not make it a policy to use citations from non-biased, peer-reviewed journals only? 2. Recently there was a broadcast on Fox News (http://youtube.com/watch?v=LcPF59CoGvs) that cites a DEA agent who talks about recent marijuana being more potent (I believe the term was "marijuana on steroids") because it received 24hrs of light each day (which is, again, completely wrong because if it were true there would be not a single gram of smokeable/useable marijuana on the planet). They continue to say that this marijuana can "kill you", which again is impossible. Since ATI is so concerned about the facts of marijuana, why not correct such mistakes made by the media? I believe that it is important for you to distinguish between such discontinuities between the reality of cannabis and the often misconceived ideas the media reports so as to clear up confusion in teenagers. When teenagers hear one thing about cannabis, and then another from the media/ATI, it only adds to the curiosity and confusion that is so common in adolescents. As any parent is fully aware, scare tactics rarely work with teenagers, so why not try a more affective method, i.e. teaching them the responsibility of understanding the truth about the drug? 3. How do you justify the well documented fact (as written in many peer reviewed journals) that THC and other cannabinoids can prevent cancer and tumor growth in mammals with all the apparently deleterious affects of marijuana cited by your website? In addition, it has also been well documented that the use of marijuana has brought relief and increased nourishment to sick patients who suffer from diseases such as AIDS, MS, cancer, diabetes, insomnia, etc. Why not discuss the medicinal purposes for marijuana and the differences between using it as such and as an undeveloped teenager? This, again, would help elucidate some confusion in children who are wondering why the drug is not OK to use while a teenager (which I strongly believe), but as one gets older there are benefits that mature adults can gain from using the drug, similar to alcohol in some ways (although there are no medical applications for alcohol while there are increasingly more for THC). 4. Lastly, why hasn't the government looked into other benefits of the cannabis plant? Such benefits would include using the plant to make clothes, fabrics, rope and paper. In fact, many of our deforestation problems in this world could be partially remedied using the cannabis plant due to its hardiness and its unparalleled ease of growing. Again, I believe it is important to educate the world about cannabis. Just because the government has made it illegal (for historical reasons that are based on the illogical social and racial associations it has had historically with African Americans and Mexicans) doesn't mean the world needs to be scared of it. In fact, there are strains of cannabis that do not produce an adequate amount of THC in their flowers or stems to make them smokeable, thus providing a means by which the government can take the first step to utilizing the benefits of this plant without generating what is currently considered an illegal drug. <o></o> Thank you for your time in reading this letter. These are just a couple of the concerns most advocates of marijuana are most eager to have answered properly. I must mention that I have not included many of the personal benefits that I have experienced while using marijuana over the last 2 years because my personal benefits may not be universal amongst every marijuana user, however after discussing with many different users across the world I do believe that I am only one of millions who have benefited from its use. The questions I listed above are of much broader importance as they reach out to many people beyond that of my own personal benefits, and this is why I ask for a response from you. On behalf of the peaceful marijuana community, I eagerly await a response.
Great job. My only concern is the line "Just because the government has made it illegal (for historical reasons that are based on the illogical social and racial associations it has had historically with African Americans and Mexicans) doesn't mean the world needs to be scared of it." While all that's true, I don't think it really contributes to the message overall and may deduct from your credibility. They'll probably think you play the race card all the time or something. Just a thought. You could just take out the part in parentheses.
You are a real intellectual (see your rep comment). While that was a GREAT read, and I share the exact same beliefs that you have expressed (mostly about science and these 'studies' they cite), I don't think they will reply. Try printing it and mailing them a copy, they get much less 'fanmail' from readers then they do emails.
"Recently there was a broadcast on Fox News (http://youtube.com/watch?v=LcPF59CoGvs) that cites a DEA agent who talks about recent marijuana being more potent (I believe the term was "marijuana on steroids") because it received 24hrs of light each day (which is, again, completely wrong because if it were true there would be not a single gram of smokeable/useable marijuana on the planet)." I do not understand this assertion that there would not be a single gram of smokable marijuana on the planet. Are you asserting that weed cannot be cultivated with 24/0 light cycles? For vegetative growth, it most certainly can. Also, much of the weed really *is* more potent due primarily to selective breeding techniques, proper curing/storage and various cultivation and fertilizing techniques that have been developed over the years. The increased potency IS overstated by the government and conservatives but they fail to realize the fact that this is actually a *good* thing. Increased THC levels mean you don't have to smoke as much plant matter which is what contains the carcinogens. There has been little/no evidence that THC itself causes any physical harm. Furthermore, there are a lot of spelling and grammar mistakes in your letter I'd look into fixing before you send it so you don't look like a total pothead. I'd also hesitate to say that *anything* is impossible. Just say 'very unlikely since there has yet to be a single recorded death due solely to marijuana use'. Also, I'd mention the possibility of use without abuse and beg the question of how many crimes are committed or rehabs filled due to people looking to get their THC fix. If you want, you could also throw in there how many murders and rapists get released early from their prison/jail sentences to make room for all of the deranged potheads. Just my two cents, hope i wasn't too critical. Good luck with the email/letter and keep up the fight!
thanks to all of you for reading that, i appreciate your feedback a lot. an no GenericStoner, you aren't too critical...your input is great and i'll definitely edit it with your ideas. what i meant by it being impossible to smoke marijuana that is grown on 24 hrs of light is simply that bud can only grow under a max of 12-13 hrs of light (during flowering). so yes, under vegetative growth it can do 24 hrs, but in order to grow actual bud it requires at most 12-13 hrs of daylight. any plant grown entirely on 24/0 will not give us anything to smoke. it'll just make them a little bigger on a shorter veg cycle.
When you send e-mails like this you should always keep it as short as possible. They're not going to read all that. Just summarize everything you're trying to say into one paragraph.
that was very good and well thought out. im gonna have to +rep you for that. unfortunately, i dont think they read the emails, i think it just has the autoreply, and they probably delete the email. also, not my idea, but somebody else brought up one time how they make medical users feel bad about themselves for taking their medicine. they said in a powerful way though.
jerkyrob is right. While the poeple who work there have personal email accounts that they read. the one they give out either has a machine or a person read and auto-respond with whatever templates they have setup.
nope, nothing. i've sent them several variations, with requests for responses to each variation. typical for a group of people that can't stand by their own claims i suppose.