Dear New York Times Editor:

I was outraged to read the blatant misrepresentation of established science by Henry I. Miller in last Friday's Editorial, REEFER MEDICINE. While reams of research uphold an understanding of cannabis as mankind's greatest herbal resource, the politically motivated denial published by F.D.A. the previous Friday was entirely unsubstantiated and quite unreasonable. Consider the obvious illogic of supporting the value of synthetic constituents while denying the value of their natural source. This same illogic prevails in the federal labeling of cannabis a Schedule I, " dangerous drug with no medical value", while allowing the common use of synthetic cannabinoids at the loosely restrictive Schedule III level. That is like saying non-dairy creamer is safe and effective, but real milk from a cow is dangerous and unhealthy.

Miller's claims themselves were outright contortions of facts detailed in the landmark 1999 Institute of Medicine Report. Miller wrote:"the Institute of Medicine's panel of experts flatly rejected the idea that herbal (usually smoked) cannabis would ever be considered a safe and effective medicine for widespread use." Yet the I.O.M. Executive Summary drew a much different conclusion: "Until a nonsmoked rapid onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting." Miller compounded his fractured fabrication by stating: "they [I.O.M.] also said that because smoked marijuana can increase the risk of lung damage, cancer and complications during pregnancy, it is appropriate only for short-term use (less than six months)", when Clinton's I.O.M. report actually found that "Because of the health risks associated with smoking, smoked marijuana should generally not be recommended for long-term medical use. Nonetheless, for certain patients, such as the terminally ill or those with debilitating symptoms, the long-term risks are not of great concern." Miller's "less than six months" reference, was taken from a section about the potential of clinical studies to further medical understanding of marijuana. Likewise, educated folks know it is well established in government-funded research that cannabis actually helps regulate tumor growth--quite the opposite of Miller's alarmist propaganda

It is difficult for reasonable people to believe that the Emperor honestly thinks he is truly fully clothed, to borrow an old cliché. Or, in the words of Shakespeare: "Methinks thee protesteth too much, Dr. Miller". The amazing new science on cannabinoid receptors in the human body has opened a whole new model in modern medicine, and no amount of posturing will alter that truth. Marijuana is a life-saving relief to patients who are physically crippled by the overpowering effects of powerful synthetic drugs. Most F.D.A. approved drugs cannot compete with the safety of cannabis, and they know it. Many thousands of doctors have already recommended marijuana to over a hundred thousand legally qualified patients in 11 American states, and this is alarming news to the status quo. Scarier still to those who uphold truth is the continuing escalation of the nonsensical war on nature's greatest medicine.