Marijuana is the commonly used illegal drug in the United States (National Institute on Drug Abuse). Not all marijuana smokers, however, use the drug for its recreational effects. Cancer patients, patients with HIV, and other people suffering from serious medical illnesses have reported some benefits from smoking marijuana (Degenhardt and Hall 1685). Because of these potential benefits, some states have legalized marijuana for medical use.
The federal government, however, does not recognize the medical use of marijuana. Marijuana users and those who distribute marijuana to patients who might benefit from it are technically in violation of federal law. Should the federal government legalize marijuana for medical use? Among the duties of government is the responsibility of government to protect people from unsafe products and consumer fraud, both of which would apply if there is, indeed, no legitimate medical use for marijuana.
At the same time, the government also has an obligation to help to improve the quality of life for its citizens by making available medical treatments that are effective, relatively safe, and affordable. Ultimately, lawmakers and voters must weigh the potential benefits against the potential risks when deciding whether marijuana should be made available for medical use. Significance Laws regarding the medical use of marijuana have the potential to effect patients who suffer from serious illnesses and those who might become patients in the future, including patients with HIV-AIDS, cancer, chronic pain and other conditions.
Advocates for medical marijuana acknowledge that marijuana does not help to cure cancer or HIV, but that marijuana smoke improves the quality of life for the patient, reducing pain, nausea, and the side effects of chemotherapy and other medications, thus improving the quality of life for these patients and increasing the likelihood that they will continue their course of treatment (Degenhardt and Hall 1685). Other research has found no apparent relationship between quality of life and the use of illicit drugs, including marijuana.
In fact, one study found that marijuana use was associated with an increased risk for anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts in HIV patients (Korthuis, Zephyrin, Fleishman, Saha, et al. 865). These potential risks may offset the potential benefits of treatment for some patients. More research is needed in this area. Medical marijuana laws also have significance for federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. “Medical marijuana” is a legal term and not a medical term. All marijuana has the same potential for abuse and intoxication.
Marijuana use is often associated with traffic accidents, including those leading to death, and serious criminal activities (United States Drug Enforcement Administration. Legalized medical marijuana could potentially increase the amount of marijuana in circulation in the community. Law enforcement agencies would have to develop a system to distinguish between marijuana intended for medical use and marijuana that was used for illicit purposes. Medical marijuana, it could be argued, could increase the workload of law enforcement agencies and the level of crime in areas in which marijuana is grown or distributed.
This increase could be potentially greater in low-income communities. Definitions Medical marijuana may be defined as marijuana that is sold or distributed for medical purposes under the supervision of a health care provider. The United States Drug Enforcement Agency makes no distinction between marijuana that is used for medical use and marijuana that is intended for purely recreational purposes. In fact, there is no chemical difference between the two; “medical marijuana” is simply marijuana that is sold by providers for medical use.
Secondary Issues In addition to medical patients, law enforcement, and community members, other stakeholders include insurers, stockholders in pharmaceutical companies, and other members of the healthcare community. The potential impact of medical marijuana on these stakeholders should not be overlooked. American medical philosophy stresses the use of prescription drugs and tends to dismiss alternative treatments. Marijuana can be grown in most climates in the United States.
The potential for an effective natural treatment that is easily available at little cost to consumers could have a serious economic impact on pharmaceutical companies that provide competing medications. Assumptions Traditional white middle-class American values include a strong cultural bias against marijuana use. Marijuana has been associated with a drug culture and has thus been linked to other drugs with a greater potential for addiction and medical complications. Mainstream American culture holds that any drug that is approved by the FDA and distributed by a doctor is “good” and drugs that have not been approved are “bad” (Finley 365).
This bias has been perpetuated by the DEA and other agencies through school and community anti-drug programs. History and Background Historically, the question of whether marijuana should be legalized for medical use has been handled through the various states. So far, smoked marijuana has been approved for medical use in 14 states (Ananny 162). Through their votes, the voters and/or legislatures in these 14 states have indicated that they believe that the potential medical benefits of marijuana outweigh the potential medical and social risks that might be associated with the drug.
State laws that legalize medical marijuana, however, are contradicted by United States federal law, which does not recognize any legitimate medical use for marijuana. This inconsistency has created conflicts between the laws of these states and the federal government. In 2005, in the case of Gonzales v. Raich, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Congress had “the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana” despite the existence of any state or local laws that might legalize the medical use of marijuana. Gonzales essentially nullified state medical marijuana laws (United States Supreme Court, Gonzales).
Gonzales and other cases like it raise many interesting legal questions, including the issue of states’ rights, the role of the federal government in local law enforcement, and the supremacy of federal law over state law. Opponents of the medical use of marijuana might conclude that the Supreme Court’s ruling is the final decision regarding the medical use of marijuana. This opinion, after all, reflects the traditional views of marijuana in American society. The duty of the courts, however, “is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code” (United States Supreme Court, Lawrence).
Consequently, a change in the federal law making it legal to use marijuana for medical purposes would overrule the Court’s ruling in Gonzales. Parties to the Controversy Parties to this controversy include current patients, their families, and their healthcare providers. Other parties include those who might become patients in the future. Additional parties include law enforcement agencies and citizens who are concerned about the effects of marijuana being grown and distributed in their communities. Finally, insurers, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, and their shareholders will also be affected by laws for medical marijuana.
Works Cited
Ananny, Lesley. “Midwest Medicinal Marijuana. ” CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal; 180. 2 (2009): 162-163. Academic Search Premier database. 16 February 2009. Degenhardt, Louisa, and Wayne Hall. “The Adverse Effects of Cannabinoids: Implications for Use of Medical Marijuana. ” CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal 178. 13 (2008):1685-1686. Academic Search Premier database. 16 February 2009. Finley, Laura. “Our Drugs Are Better Than Yours: Schools and Their Hypocrisy Regarding Drug Use. ” Contemporary Justice Review 10.
4 (2007): 365-381. Academic Search Premier database. 16 February 2009. Korthuis, Todd, Laurie Zephyrin, John Fleishman, Somnath Saha, Joshua Josephs, Moriah McGrath, James Hellinger, and Kelly Gebo. “Health-Related Quality of Life in HIV-Infected Patients: The Role of Substance Use. ” AIDS Patient Care & STDs 22. 11(2008): 859-867. Academic Search Premier database. 16 February 2009. National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIDA InfoFacts: Marijuana. 5 June 2008. Online document. 16 February 2009 <http://www. drugabuse. gov/Infofacts/marijuana. html>.
United States Drug Enforcement Administration. “Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana. ” Online document. 16 February 2009 <http://www. usdoj. gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana. html> United States Supreme Court. Gonzales v. Raich, (03-1454) 545 U. S. 1 (2005). Supreme Court Collection. Cornell University Law School. Online document. 16 February 2009 <http://www. law. cornell. edu/supct/html/03-1454. ZS. html> United States Supreme Court. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003). Online document. 16 February 2009 <http://www. law. cornell. edu/supct/html/02-102. ZS. html>