Medical Cannabis: The Case for Federal Rescheduling

Introduction: Federal Law vs. State Momentum

As of November 2012, eighteen states plus the District of Columbia had voted by ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for medical use. This revolution in voter attitudes toward marijuana reflects a social, political, and — to a lesser degree — economic trend. Many Americans already use marijuana, also known more formally as cannabis. However, cannabis remains 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 receive. "Along with heroin, LSD, and some other drugs, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I 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 research into the plant's potential as a healing substance. The new state legislation is in direct conflict with federal law. Moreover, federal law conflicts with scientific evidence gathered from various research institutions and universities demonstrating that marijuana has genuine medical relevance and should be removed from the federal controlled substances Schedule I list. Current conflicts between state and federal laws could further burden an already overburdened criminal justice system. Because marijuana has been shown to have medical benefit, because it is supported for research by the American Medical Association, and because federal law should reflect state trends toward its judicious use, cannabis should be rescheduled immediately.

Legal Inconsistency and the Need for Federal Uniformity

State laws that allow medical marijuana place the plant in a nebulous legal gray area, which is harmful for consumers, the judiciary, and law enforcement. Federal and state laws are currently clashing over marijuana cultivation, distribution, and use. 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 drug policy, which would lend credibility to both state and federal governments alike.

Scientific and Medical Evidence for Cannabis

Regarding federal legislation on marijuana, the crux of the matter is whether scientific evidence supports its use as a medicinal substance — and that evidence clearly indicates that marijuana benefits patients with a variety of medical conditions. Organizations such as the Canadian Medical Marijuana Association are already linked with pain management clinics. 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." Furthermore, 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 rely solely on NORML's position. The American Medical Association — the leading authority on health care in the United States — changed its official policy on medical marijuana in 2009, urging the government to ease restrictions on the drug. Using explicit language to persuade lawmakers, the AMA wrote: "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."

Conclusion: Rescheduling as Policy and Moral Imperative

Liberalizing the classification of cannabis at the federal level will achieve several strategic objectives, none of which involves encouraging drug use among young people. Instead, the reclassification of marijuana would represent a victory for science and medicine over the tyranny of unfounded fear. Rescheduling would allow doctors to prescribe the most appropriate treatment interventions for their patients. When eighteen states — and counting — vote to legalize medical marijuana, the public is speaking clearly: marijuana is not the menace that federal policy has made it out to be.

Marijuana has clear and proven medical benefits, which is the primary reason it should be permitted for medical use throughout all fifty states. Reclassification would also advance important ethical goals within the criminal justice system and create a more consistent national drug policy, eliminating the conflicts that currently exist between federal and state legislation.

References

American Medical Association. "AMA Policy: Medical Marijuana." Retrieved from: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/AMA09policy.pdf

Andrews, Michelle. "New medical marijuana initiatives haven't convinced insurers." The Washington Post. November 19, 2012.

Cohen, Rebecca Richman. "The Fight over Medical Marijuana." The New York Times. November 7, 2012.

Conaboy, Chelsea. "Massachusetts voters approve ballot measure to legalize medical marijuana." Boston Globe. November 6, 2012.

Earleywine, Mitch. "Has legalizing medical marijuana led to increased drug abuse among children and adolescents? No." Retrieved from: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000246

Elders, Jocelyn. "Has legalizing medical marijuana led to increased drug abuse among children and adolescents? No." Retrieved from: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000246

Medical Marijuana.ca. Website: http://medicalmarijuana.ca/

NORML. "Medical Use." Retrieved from: http://norml.org/marijuana/medical