Medical Marijuana: The Case for Federal Policy Reform

Introduction: Irrationality in American Drug Policy

To a great degree, drug policy in America has long been irrational, based more on fear than evidence. Drugs are targeted when someone perceives that they are a problem, and once they are listed as a controlled substance, the listing becomes a self-perpetuating phenomenon. All evidence to the contrary is dismissed. Marijuana is listed as a controlled substance and has been demonized as a pernicious evil ever since. Growing evidence of the health effects of marijuana for people suffering from certain maladies has not been sufficient to change federal policies, and the irrationality grows as some states have adopted laws allowing for the medical use of marijuana even as the federal government has refused to do so and has sought to criminalize that medical use specifically. In truth, the federal response is wrong-headed, and the oft-repeated fear that allowing medical marijuana is tantamount to legalizing marijuana use for everyone is specious.

History of Marijuana Prohibition

In 1937, the Marihuana Tax Act placed marijuana on the list of forbidden substances. For most of the time since, the strongest force controlling drug use was social censure, and during this period heroin became the primary drug of abuse. Heroin users tended to live mainly in urban ghettos and so did not come into contact with the mainstream of society. After World War II, this picture changed with the arrival in the 1950s of new types of powerful medications with the ability to alter mood. Physicians used these new drugs to treat various mood states and changed the practice of psychiatry forever. More and more mind-altering chemicals appeared and took hold, and marijuana came into its own in the 1960s as the drug of choice for a new generation. The 1960s was also a time of experimentation with hallucinogens, and though these were never legal, their use increased during this period. The market for drugs grew so large that a huge worldwide network of growers, manufacturers, and distributors came into being (Gold 29–30).

Scientific Evidence for Marijuana's Medicinal Value

Despite contentions by those who advocate outlawing any use of marijuana, a great deal is known about the health effects of the drug. In fact, few drugs have been so extensively scrutinized for such a long period of time. The myths of the 1930s and 1940s about marijuana — that it is addictive, causes insanity, and will eventually lead to homicidal behavior — have since been dismissed as ignorance. Opponents of marijuana now claim that science does not know enough about its long-term effects, and thus the drug is potentially dangerous. The most widely accepted physiological effects of marijuana are stimulation of the appetite, an effect on psychomotor performance, diminished memory recall ability, and an increased pulse rate with a slight increase in blood pressure (Maykut 4–5). Some studies suggest other health effects, such as respiratory depression, fluctuations in blood sugar levels, and a lowering of the body's immune response.

Those opposing the legalization of medical marijuana often claim a lack of scientific evidence demonstrating its medicinal value. However, as shown by the nonprofit Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, there are today more than seventy modern studies published in peer-reviewed journals or by government agencies verifying that marijuana does have medicinal value. In addition, in 1988 the Drug Enforcement Administration's own chief administrative law judge, Francis Young, issued a ruling stating, "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known.... It would be unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance" (Demmer 35). This ruling has not stopped the DEA from doing so, however.

Therapeutic Uses and State-Level Legalization

Among the known therapeutic uses for marijuana are relieving chronic pain, alleviating nausea, reducing muscle spasms and spasticity, lowering intraocular eye pressure, and stimulating appetite. Marijuana is therefore most beneficial to people suffering from cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, and other serious ailments. While the federal government remains opposed, voters in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington have passed legislation allowing its medicinal use, typically enabling patients to grow, possess, and use medical marijuana when approved by a physician. Such laws also permit the assistance of a caregiver who is authorized to help the patient grow, acquire, or consume medical marijuana, and they further immunize physicians from liability for discussing or recommending its medical use (Demmer 35). Yet such state laws are often overridden by federal law and federal enforcement action.

Conclusion: Science Over Politics

Legislators and drug enforcers are not physicians and should not substitute their belief systems for demonstrable scientific studies showing that medical marijuana benefits patients. The federal argument often begins with a denial of this evidence, as if any study suggesting no benefit is automatically preferred over the hundreds that show there is benefit. The next claim made is that the harm outweighs the curative power — a contention that is patently false given that studies have difficulty demonstrating meaningful harm from marijuana use at all. The long-standing argument that marijuana is a gateway drug leading to the use of harder substances is irrelevant when dealing with medical marijuana: medical users are not likely candidates for harder drug use and are simply trying to alleviate their suffering in the most effective way available to them. The concern that allowing the medical use of marijuana is only the beginning of broader legalization may or may not be true, but it is also irrelevant — society cannot prohibit everything people might do simply because someone else could abuse it.