Letter to the editor: Medical marijuana effective, cheaper alternative | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Medical marijuana effective, cheaper alternative

I read with interest Barbara Cisek’s op-ed “Congress must take action on drug prices” (April 6, TribLIVE) regarding a very important issue for so many of us.

Cisek did not mention medical marijuana, which can be an alternative to expensive and not always effective prescription medications, and without the potential deleterious side effects. Medical marijuana can be used to treat many conditions and symptoms, such as migraines, gastrointestinal issues (Crohn’s disease, Irritable Bowel Syndrome), chronic pain, post-traumatic stress disorder and detoxing from opioids.

Once a person obtains a Pennsylvania medical marijuana card (cost, about $250), he or she can go to a dispensary, where medical guidance is available as to which of the many combinations of CBD and THC would be effective. With good medical consultation, the patient won’t experience psychoactive effects. You are not allowed to smoke the product.

The average patient spends $100-$150 per visit. Even seniors are taking it (the average age is almost 50). It works. It’s worth a try.

Mark L. Heckman

Lower Burrell

The writer is a vocational rehabilitation counselor and board member of the Pennsylvania Association of Rehabilitation Professionals.

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 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.