As an alumnus, a father of three daughters, an attorney and a taxpayer I have many reasons to agree with your editorial call for “a new look at drug policy.” However, two of the comments you make in your editorial are unsupportable. You state, “Though marijuana users may kill some of their own brain cells, the drug does not hold the same potential for danger to other members of society as do many other drugs.” The myth that marijuana damages brain cells is one I hoped you would not have perpetuated. As pharmacologist, John Morgan, MD and Sociologist Lynn Zimmer wrote in Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts, “None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even in long-term, high dose use.” The perpetuation of myths, like this, is one reason even “a new look at drug policy” may not result in reasoned policy. Thought leaders in the academic community should hesitate before repeating reefer madness propaganda.

Your second unsupportable statement was, “Though the commonwealth’s citizens may not be ready for full-scale decriminalization, some liberalization is clearly worth a look.” The Commonwealth’s citizens are CLEARLY ready for, “full-scale decriminalization.” Over 60% of the voters in 19 representative districts voted in support of “full-scale decriminalization.” I think, perhaps, you meant to say, “Though the commonwealth’s citizens may not be ready for full-scale LEGALization, some liberalization is clearly worth a look.”

Steven Epstein, Law ’85 Georgetown, MA