Article Review written by R. Eric Barnes - Essay Example

? The article being reviewed, en d “Reefer Madness: Legal and Moral Issues Surrounding the Medical Prescription of Marijuana written by R. Eric Barnes, sets out to establish the federal government's obligations in taking specific steps towards legalizing the medical prescription of marijuana. The writer argues that legalizing the medical use of marijuana is still justified regardless of the claim that utilitarianism is true and the harms of legalization will far outweigh the benefits. He claims that with respect to the federal government's significant interest in preventing the recreational use of marijuana, other states must still follow Arizona and California regarding the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes, which also includes the production, distribution, and prescription. Barnes attempted to establish several arguments in justifying his claims, particularly by trying to inject conclusions with moral, legal and medical bases. He discussed the properties of THC and its various effects when used, and then claiming that the effectiveness of marijuana in terms of its medical effectiveness is not controversial by describing them as the positive its medicinal properties. He then argued that the controversial argument lies in its medicinal value. He deliberated that the medicinal value corresponds to a normative claim which is controversial due to its implications that the medical benefits will then be far greater than the medical cost such as the side effects as well as the implications that there are no treatments which can be used as alternative, and that will be preferable to use in its stead. He claimed that individuals have interests and rights to safe and effective medical treatments, justifying that rights are an important “prima facie” which the government must respect as well as enforce, at the same, giving credit to aspects such as positive and negative rights, and then emphasizing his assumptions regarding the responsibilities and rights of the government in the regulation of the sales of this drug to ensure the safety of individual. Barnes tackled some options the federal government may undertake with regards to marijuana, some of which are the removal of marijuana from the list of controlled substances which would entail total freedom to purchase by any individual, another is removing the drug from schedule 1 of controlled substances and then moving it to the schedule 2 category. He admitted that few options are available to state governments regarding this matter, as their authority, in reality, is supplanted by those of the federal government. He then tackled the issues for allowing the prescription of marijuana, claiming that the side effects of using this drug as a medicine is considerably less than other certain drugs that are currently being prescribed. He also claimed that a certain percentage of patients and doctors have an expressed desire towards its legalization for medicinal purposes. He claimed that marijuana is “effective, sufficiently safe and endorsed by a significant percentage of the relevant medical community”. According to Barnes, there is not enough reason to stop the government from allowing the legal prescription of marijuana, which then entails that it should allow doctors to do so, particularly to patients suffering from certain ailments. He then addressed several arguments that have been raised against the legalization of marijuana such as how the government should not allow harmful medications to be prescribed, discussing the grounds which have been used to justify this argument. He then addressed the second argument, which states that the government should not allow for the prescription of potentially harmful drugs that are not adequately tested, and tried to refute it be underlining the rapid growth of marijuana usage in the country over the past three decades and then emphasizing the need for legalizing further research and testing. The third argument Barnes tried to address is the practical problems associated the legalization of its prescription which may be too hard to surpass and then claiming that considering the amount efforts put into other areas of medical research, the practical problems concerning marijuana should not be difficult to manage. He discussed other arguments in the matter and tried to refute them by using several arguments. However, what he considered to be the most significant argument against its legalization is in how it might lead the the general population to receive it the wrong way, and consequently lead to the more extensive recreational use of marijuana, or rather, the abuse of it. In trying to refute the latter argument, he used philosophical issues to address the empirical basis of the argument referred to as TRUA and expressed his assumptions on how the benefits will outweigh the possible harms caused by the use of the drug, and how the arguments fail in justifying its claim to not legalize the prescription of marijuana. Barnes stated that there are three ways in which a government may be structured based on utilitarian principles which he discussed, claiming that the main issue will be on which structure will provide maximum utility, and then proceeding with the need for second order constraints and other issues that he deemed relevant to the arguments. He concluded that due to the federal government's unlikeliness to make any move towards taking the steps he tackled in his article, the state governments should then be taking these steps in order to make the federal government to follow suit. He admitted that the federal government just might as well supersede any laws the state government might legalize. However, he claimed that these should not hinder state governments to do so. He expressed his views on how the benefits will exceed the ramifications. Barnes set out to establish the necessity for the federal government's legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, and admitting to the unlikeliness of this happening, expressed the need for state governments to do so in its stead. He addressed arguments opposing its legalization and then proceeding to establish his own arguments by refuting existing opposing arguments. The basis of his research, however, is vague. He used several arguments which are based on public opinions and clinical research pertaining to the advantages and disadvantages of marijuana. At the same time, he also used concepts in philosophy which may be perceived as an expert opinion, in a manner of speaking. For the most part of the article, the arguments were based on existing arguments while the author's assumptions, the rest of which were speculations, were used as the author's grounds for arguments. Though the context of the article was indeed very interesting, I have found the article lacking in terms of content. While Barnes attempted to justify the need for the need for legalization of the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, there was not enough facts and figures to back up his claims. Majority of the assumptions and claims he made were based on speculations and assumptions he had himself, which made the article too subjective and not very factual. In various of the articles, it may be noted that the author used the phrase “I assume” numerous times but facts were not adequately given to back up his assumptions. On one article part of the article, he mentioned that a certain number of doctors and patients have expressed desires to legalize the drug, however, statistical data would have aided this claim and would have given it more credibility. The writer also elaborated on the certain steps which the federal government may undertake regarding the matter, however, he did not discuss the pro's and con's that may result to the undertaking of the results he tackled. Though he did discuss certain clinical aspects of marijuana, the data he gave were still lacking. Certain aspects of the drug were discussed, particularly the health cases which he perceives would benefit from its prescription, however, he did not discuss the side-effects that would result from its use enough to provide sufficient information. He elaborated on the philosophical aspect of the issue, however, the clinical and legal aspects would have been more relevant. He emphasized the need for the state government's legalization of marijuana, and mentioned the states that have already undertaken that step, but did not discuss the current status of those laws presently, such as how the law has been received by its populace, its effectiveness and perhaps, even the researches that may now be conducted in those states. The article, as written by Barnes, was argumentative, but still too subjective. However, it would have justified his claims more if he provided enough data and it is for this very reason that the article fails to be convincing. Reference: R. Eric Barnes. 2000. “Reefer Madness: Legal & Moral Issues Surrounding the Medical Prescription of Marijuana”. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Read More