Legalization of Medicinal Marijuana

Medical Cannabis

As of November 2012, eighteen states plus the District of Columbia voted by ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for medical use. The revolution in voter attitudes towards marijuana reflects a social, political, and to a lesser degree, economic trend. Many Americans already use marijuana, pot, also or "more appropriately" known as cannabis (NORML). However, cannabis has been banned at the federal level, classified as a Schedule I Substance under the Controlled Substances Act, which is the highest and strictest classification any drug can have. "Along with heroin, LSD and some other drugs, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act. That means the drug is considered to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse," (Andrews 1). Federal law prohibits or strictly controls scientific investigations into marijuana, which has stymied the growth of research into the plant for its potential as a healing substance. The new state legislation is in direct conflict with federal law. Moreover, the federal law conflicts with scientific evidence that has been gathered from various research institutions and universities showing that indeed, marijuana has medical relevance and should be taken off the federal controlled substances Schedule I list. Current conflicts between state and federal laws could burden the already overburdened criminal justice system. Because marijuana has been shown to have medical benefit and is supported for research by the American Medical Association, and because federal law should reflect the state trends towards judicious use of the drug, cannabis should be rescheduled immediately.

The state laws that allow medical marijuana places the plant into a nebulous gray area of legality, which is harmful for consumers, the judiciary, and law enforcement. Currently, federal and state laws are clashing surrounding marijuana cultivation, distribution, and use. Furthermore, a federal law protecting the use of marijuana as a medicinal substance would relieve the conflicts associated with differential distribution programs that currently vary from state to state. "In states that allow medical marijuana, laws vary widely. Some permit people to grow their own supply, others only permit marijuana to be distributed through a state-regulated dispensary," (Andrews 1). A federal law would ensure uniformity and consistency in the application of the law, which lends credibility to both state and federal governments.

Regarding federal legislation on marijuana, the crux of the matter is whether scientific evidence supports its use as a medicinal substance; that evidence clearly claims that marijuana has benefit for a variety of medical conditions. Organizations like the Canadian Medical Marijuana association are linked with pain management clinics already. The pro-legalization organization NORML notes that marijuana's use as a pain relief medicine is well documented "particularly of neuropathic pain (pain from nerve damage) -- nausea, spasticity, glaucoma, and movement disorders." Moreover, marijuana is highlighted for its use as "a powerful appetite stimulant, specifically for patients suffering from HIV, the AIDS wasting syndrome, or dementia," (NORML). Citizens and lawmakers need not take NORML's word for it. The head honcho of health care in the United States, the American Medical Association, changed its policy on medical marijuana in 2009. Current official American Medical Association policy urges the government to ease restrictions on marijuana. Using explicit language to persuade lawmakers, the American Medical Association writes, "Our AMA urges the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to implement administrative procedures to facilitate grant applications and the conduct of well-designed clinical research into the medical utility of marijuana."

Even though the American Medical Association advocates for declassifying the drug as a Schedule I substance, opponents of the law remain rabidly irrational in their fear that a federal nod to medical marijuana will turn children into drug addicts. Opponents of the law in states that have medical marijuana "warned that its passage could increase recreational use of marijuana, especially among teens," (Conaboy). Fears about medical marijuana have a sensational appeal, but are completely unsubstantiated by research. The American Medical Association has a direct vested interest in protecting pubic health and safety, and it now supports medical marijuana and federal reclassification of the drug. Moreover, California has had medical marijuana available for a long enough time to yield longitudinal studies of the social effects of medical marijuana. Jocelyn Elders, the former United States Surgeon General, issued an editorial as early as 2004 that noted that after medical marijuana laws were passed in California, teen marijuana use actually decreased. A similar statement was issued by Earlywine, who cited statistical evidence related to the effects of medical marijuana legalization in the state of California. According to Earlywine, "Nine years after the passage of the nation's first state medical marijuana law, California's Prop. 215, a considerable body of data shows that no state with a medical marijuana law has experienced an increase in youth marijuana use since their law's enactment." Therefore, evidence does not support the continued ban on medical marijuana that stifles research into a potentially beneficial substance.

Federal liberalization of marijuana laws to permit medical research and treatment interventions is also necessary from an ethical point-of-view. It is categorically unethical to restrict access to a drug that might help alleviate suffering, as marijuana has been shown to do (American Medical Association; NORML). Given that eighteen states have already liberalized their marijuana laws to reflect scientific truth, it will become increasingly difficult to support the federal classification of the drug as a controlled substance. If the federal government persists in the Class I Scheduling of marijuana, the prison systems will continue to house nonviolent offenders at rates that are alarming from any ethical standpoint. Cohen claims, "federal drug laws are unjustifiably extreme," using a horrific example to prove the case. "While Jerry Sandusky got a 30-year minimum sentence for raping young boys, Mr. Williams is looking at a mandatory minimum of more than 80 years for marijuana charges," (Cohen 1). The criminalization of marijuana has pushed a plant into the hands of underground criminal mafia rings, which are linked to human trafficking and weapons trafficking. The War on Drugs is not only too costly for debt-ridden Americans to afford; it is also bad policy.