Reading Doonesbury lately about the marijuana for medical use leaves me
caught between tears and laughter.

This valuable medicine was taken from us in 1937 in a convoluted bill
masked as a tax act. The American Medical Association opposed it strongly
in brief sub-committee hearings. Only two questions were asked on the House
floor: "What is this bill about?" The answer given by speaker of the House,
Sam Rayburn, "I don't know -- it's about something called marijuana -- I
think it's a narcotic or something." And, "What is the AMA's position?" The
answer given by one of the sub-committee members [who later became a
Supreme Court Justice] was, "They're behind us 100 percent."

Today, legitimate access to medical marijuana is still prohibited by law.
If it works to relieve any suffering and a doctor prescribes it, it is
still denied. What right does the federal government have to make such
decisions?

At least in California, voters had a chance to express their views on a
ballot; Washington voters should, too.

Sincerely,
Johanna Wools
Grand Coulee