I am writing in response to Gov. Tom Corbett's slight change in stance regarding medical marijuana in Pennsylvania.
Although this is great news, it is sadly missing the mark of what supporters truly want. I am an Iraqi veteran with several mental/mood disorders who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in December.
As someone who has offered his life to his state and country, I feel entitled to therapy of my choosing. The VA dishes out pills that make depressed and even suicidal veterans more depressed. How is this safe?
The veteran suicide rate is alarming at almost 20 per day in 2013. This number disgusts me.
In March, there were zero combat fatalities; the same could not be said about vet suicides. What message is our government sending by not helping sick people?
I understand cannabis/marijuana may not be a cure-all, but when FDA-approved drugs don't work or stop being effective due to human tolerance, what's next?
Pennsylvania must take a progressive stance on this issue to help the hundreds of thousands of patients — like me — whom Corbett is dismissing. His new stance says: This disease is worse than that one, so I'll help those with this disease. You folks with some other disease — too bad.
I didn't realize Corbett, in addition to being our governor, is also a physician.
We need some compassion from Harrisburg and we need it now. We want marijuana law reform and we want it now.
The writer served in Iraq with the Pennsylvania National Guard.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.