Opposition to Medical Marijuana - Essay Example

Opposition to Medical Marijuana Under the provisions of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, marijuana was categorized as a Schedule I substance, meaning it was determined to have a high potentiality for possible abuse, while having no accepted medicinal properties. As a result of this, marijuana is even more strictly restricted than cocaine or morphine. While those two drugs have also been criminalized, both are commonly prescribed by doctors and used by patients. As a result of tougher anti-marijuana legislation passed during the 1980s, the penalty for growing or possessing marijuana can range from simple probation to imprisonment and loss of property. Over the past two decades, however, a growing controversy has arisen regarding the classification of marijuana as having no legitimate medical purpose. There is growing support among the public and the medical community to rewrite the laws currently prohibiting use of marijuana so that its medical benefits can be of use for those with no other outlet. Marijuana has been used for medical purposes in the U.S. since at least the 19th century. Legal at the time, the drug was instantly popular as a treatment for pain ranging form headaches to menstrual cramps. Of course, simply using a drug to treat pain is not the same as evidence that it does treat the pain. Proponents of legalizing marijuana use for medical reasons raise evidence that marijuana has been proven effective in treating everything from glaucoma to cancer. It has even been hailed as being capable of prolonging the life of Aids patients. Closer scrutiny of the available scientific research, however, reveals that marijuana simply falls far short of what is commonly considered a medical treatment. Dr. Lester Grinspoon, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard, is one of those leading the call for reclassifying marijuana so that it can be used as a medicine. Grinspoon is fond of pointing to a 1990 survey of oncologists in which 44% admitted to advising that patient smoke marijuana in order to bring some relief to the nausea experienced following chemotherapy. He concludes that "if marijuana were actually unsafe for use under medical supervision, as its Schedule I status explicitly affirms, this recommendation would be unthinkable." Grinspoon is apparently willing to ignore that at one time or another throughout history a large majority of doctors were firm believers in treatments that run directly counter to the overwhelming majority opinion today. Indeed, the very idea that just because a minority of doctors would make a suggestion then that makes strengthens your case is fallacious. After all, if 44% said they would recommend marijuana treatment, doesn't that by definition mean that 56% of doctors would advise against it Grinspoon certainly does not rest his case based solely upon physician surveys, but the fact that puts such stock in the findings does not help his credibility. The credibility of the pro-medicinal marijuana movement cannot help but be considered a large issue. Opponents typically take the argument that the movement to allow legal medicinal use is just the first step in a plan to decriminalize marijuana entirely. This perspective has not been helped by certain facets of the pro-legalization movement. A former director of Director of National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Keith Stroup, addressed the true motivation of the push to legalize marijuana for medicinal use as far back as 1979 when he gave a speech at Emory University audience that "medicinal marijuana would be used as a red herring to give marijuana a good name" (Souder, and Zimmer). Richard Cowan, a writer for the pro-marijuana High Times Magazine, would be even more explicit, explaining in no uncertain terms how the pro-legalization movement has used "medical model as spearheading a strategy for the legalization of marijuana by 1997" (Souder, and Zimmer). The movement suffered a major setback in 1997 failed to get a ballot initiative passed in Washington. This loss came on the heels of victories in both California and Arizona. The Washington initiative, known as I-685 was roundly defeated by a 60-40 margin in part because it attempted to legalize not just marijuana but also harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin. In contrast, the victorious California referendum of a year earlier was successful in part because proponents focused on the contention that marijuana is helpful in easing symptoms of various medical conditions. This contention was based primarily not on scientific studies, but on anecdotal evidence courtesy of parents who report that it is effective in everything from restoring the appetite of cancer patients to relieving nausea, and cancer patients who have smoked it to combat nausea. Proposition 215 in California was touted as legislation designed expressly to legalize marijuana for the sick or dying while in fact it called for the marijuana to be legalized under such vague descriptions that literally any illness for which it was supposed to be provide relief. Beyond, there was absolutely no age limits attached. The evidence used to support the use of medical marijuana is based almost entirely on studies that focus on what patients say about the effects of marijuana use or on physician observations, rather than objective physiological data. For instance, the proof that marijuana helps to treat glaucoma is wide open to interpretation (Kemp). A study conducted by the American Medical Association in 2001 relies on anecdotal statements from patients who claim that it helps reduce pressure in their eyes (Medical Marijuana, 2001). Pro-marijuana lobbyists are particularly fond of the process of picking out the few physicians who agree with their agenda while ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of doctors disagree. A booklet released by the Cannabis Action Network proudly asserts that "Two highly qualified and experienced ophthalmologists have accepted marijuana as having a medical use in treatment of glaucoma" (Marijuana as Medicine). Marijuana has also been touted as a treatment for the unpleasant side effects of chemotherapy, including nausea and vomiting. Patients who have used marijuana to stifle these effects have-in concert with the use of other drugs specifically prescribed-reported the treatment as significantly more effective in a reduction of the occurrence of nausea and vomiting. Interestingly, however, the real meat of this report is not widely publicized. In fact, these studies concluded that marijuana was really only effective in treating those under the age of forty, whereas patients over forty reported little or no difference (Medical Marijuana, 2001). The FDA has approved only the only psychoactive ingredient of marijuana, THC, for use as a pain relief. The relief is found in the form of a prescription drug called Marinol. Marinol is classified as a Schedule II drug, which means it has been determined to have only limited medical use and arrives with significant potential for abuse. THC has never been proven safe and effective for anything other than to control the nausea and wasting effect of AIDS. A study conducted by the Institute of Medicine found that the threat to the immune system from smoking marijuana was so significant that it supported the development of a smoke-free inhale method to deliver purer forms of THC. Proponents of medical marijuana argue that the health industry is vehemently opposed to the legalization of the drug for treatment of various illnesses because it represents a threat to the enormous profits enjoyed by the pharmaceutical companies. They point to a study that claims up to 30% of prescription drugs could potentially be replaced by THC (Marijuana as Medicine). They also stake out a tenuous connection between the safety of marijuana and the fact that few if any have ever died from smoking it. Roxane Laboratories Incorporated, the makers of Marinol, disagrees about the claims by the pro-medical marijuana movement that THC is harmless. In fact, Marinol arrives with a long list of potential side effects. Nevertheless, proponents continue to rebuff the legal use of THC as it is found in Marinol and instead focuses on using marijuana cigarettes as treatment. Pure marijuana is made up of over 400 chemicals that create thousands of chemical combinations during the process of lighting up and smoking. The primary difference between marijuana and regular prescription drugs is that the drugs are carefully calibrated for dosage, while a marijuana cigarette simply cannot be controlled. That difference points to a major area of concern for those opposed to legalizing marijuana for medical treatment. Since the dosage cannot be calibrated, the negative effects of smoking marijuana go far beyond just the patient. For one thing, the use of marijuana is well known to affect one's behavior. Behavior is modified by using marijuana. A study conducted expressly into the subject found that young male marijuana users were especially prone to antisocial behavior and that the drug affected the ability to engage in normal social interactions for all users (Anti-Legalization Forum Claim III). Behavior is not the only thing affected adversely by marijuana, however. Marijuana has been shown to have adverse effects ranging from suppressing the immune system to impairing mental facilities. The use of marijuana elicits an assortment of mental disorders that includes paranoia, depression, hallucinations, and schizophrenia. In patients who have pre-existing mental health disorders, therapeutic use of marijuana may be advised against. Marijuana smoke also transports harmful toxins to the body, including many of those associated with smoking tobacco. In addition, marijuana has been linked to cases of cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx. In the face of minority support from physicians for the legalization of marijuana for medical use, the vast majority remains convinced that the negative healthy effects starkly outweigh the positive ones. In the Department of Health and Human Services held its first research conference on marijuana as treatment for illness. At this conference, many physicians raised concerns that "marijuana use during pregnancy has harmful effects on children's intellectual abilities... compulsive marijuana use may lead to an addiction similar to that of other illicit drugs..." (Claim V). The claims that marijuana damages the reproductive system are many. Evidence has been offered that mothers who marijuana can produce children with delayed onset of puberty. Another concern that opponents to legalizing medical marijuana have raised is the effect it would have on society, specifically the crime rate. Many police officers argue that it is not the dealers who are responsible for most of the crime associated with drug use, but rather those who are under the influence. One study of males 18-49 years old found that those who smoked marijuana were up to ten times likelier to engage in violent behavior than non-users. Opponents of medical marijuana argue that the current laws against marijuana that encourages the illegal drug trade is analogous with the laws against alcohol during Prohibition, pointing to the fact that organized crime suffered no significant decrease following its repeal. Increased marijuana use as a result of medical treatment will almost certainly result in an increase in danger on America's roads. Two National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports revealed that while alcohol is still far and away the drug most commonly abused in accidents, marijuana is firmly in second place. What's more, alcohol and marijuana combinations are very often detected in the bloodstream of drivers involved in accidents. In addition, a National Household Survey of Drug Abuse raised the stakes even higher by reporting that fully one-fourth all drivers sixteen and older drive while intoxicated, high or both on some occasions. Under even a mild dose of marijuana a driver's senses are affected adversely, opening the possibility of getting involved in an accident. Also of concern is that marijuana may be a gateway drug to harder and more dangerous narcotics. Marijuana has developed a reputation as a harmless illegal drug because it doesn't cause the severe addiction and withdrawal associated with such drugs as heroin or cocaine. Reports indicate otherwise and with some studies finding that significant withdrawal symptoms are experienced by as much as 60% of participants. These studies also provide strong evidence that marijuana withdrawal includes a spike in irritability, anxiety and physical tension (Maginnis 2003). As for whether marijuana use leads to harder drug involvement, a study conducted by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA) concluded that adolescents who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than teens who have never smoked marijuana. Furthermore, the study also found that 60% of children who begin smoking marijuana under the age of 15 later move on to cocaine. According to this, more accessibility and 'normalization' of marijuana use will lead to a higher rate of overall drug use (Cigarettes, Alcohol, Marijuana: Gateways to Illicit Drug Use 1994). There are also dangers to using medical marijuana that are much more difficult to quantify. It must be remembered that the patient won't be the only one who is affected by the marijuana. Family members, friends and even co-workers may be exposed to the harmful effects. Firstly, if patients need to get high to relief their pain, there is the likelihood that the strength of relief will need to be increased. While one joint a day may be enough to begin, who can guarantee that in a few months or years the same relief won't require two or three joints And what happens when the relief provided my marijuana disappears altogether Will patients then move on to more powerful drugs in order to get back the effect they could once achieve with marijuana If so, does that mean the issue will evolved to decriminalize every known drug because it can help someone's pain relief Using marijuana isn't actually curing any of the illnesses or side effects that proponents point to as evidence of its capacity as medicine; it is merely alleviating pain or other unpleasant side effects temporarily. The plethora of legal and regulated medications already on the market are adequate to satisfy that need. Using marijuana for the same effect will just serve to provide too great an opportunity for abuse of stronger drugs when the effect wears off. Finally, there is the sociological impact of legalizing marijuana use for medical purposes. If marijuana is reclassified to become a drug, any attempts to regulate where it can be administered will inevitably result in a series of lawsuits that ultimately allows patients to "take their medicine" wherever they want. The prospect of impressionable young children seeing people smoking joints in public because it is "medicine" cannot but have disastrous results. Study after study has proven that children's behavior and conception of normality is based primarily on what they see taking place around them rather than they are told by parents and authority figures. Already many children are susceptible to experimenting with marijuana without having actually seen anyone lighting up. The potential for even more abuse of marijuana will raise exponentially if it becomes an acceptable practice. The more often something forbidden or taboo is introduced into the mainstream, the greater the likelihood of becoming normalized. With marijuana currently illegal and practiced while hidden away it may retain an essence of rebellion, but it hasn't become naturalized into everyday discourse the way that other formerly forbidden actions like exposing the buttocks in a thong, or peppering one's conversations in public with profanity have become. Once children accept that marijuana use is not only sanctioned by the government, but is considered to be no more harmful than taking aspirin it is only to be expected that marijuana use will increase and not for medical purposes. Proponents of medical marijuana are fond of pointing to mountains of evidence suggesting that the drug has legitimate medicinal properties, but the overwhelming majority of that evidence is based on nothing more than patient response. One vital element missing in the equation is the possibility that these patients who are reporting on this effectiveness may also be experiencing the negative effects on perception that marijuana engenders. The fact is that the health risks of using marijuana have been proven and are far more numerous than any scientific evidence yet offered as to the drug's benefits. Besides the adverse health conditions caused by marijuana use, there are many other societal disadvantages to allowing it to be used for medical purposes. There is consistent evidence provide by those in favor of medical marijuana legalization that the movement is little more than a thinly veiled attempt to decriminalize all marijuana use. This would be a disaster for American, opening up the possibilities for an increase in the crime rate as well as an increase in traffic accidents. The effects of society if marijuana is legalized for any reason cannot currently be adequately measured. Regardless of whether pot really does lead to use of stronger drugs, there is no denying that legalizing it as a drug would eventually result in marijuana smoking in any public place where someone else can inject insulin or take an anti-depressant. The effect on children of this kind of normalization of using an illegal drug known to have harmful effects cannot be underestimated. Works Cited Agency. Anti-Legalization Forum. FBI/D.E.A. Training Academy: GPO, 1994. Berkeley, Lexington, New Orleans. ---. Marijuana As Medicine. New Orleans. Cannabis Action Network. Cannabis Action Network - Strategy and Objectives. New Orleans. "Cigarettes, Alcohol, Marijuana: Gateways to Illicit Drug Use," Study conducted by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 10-00-94. Grinspoon, Lester, MD, and Bakalar, James. "Commentary: Marijuana as Medicine- A plea for reconsideration." Journal of the American Medical Association. June 1995. Kemp, Roxine. "Speaker to Talk About Medical Marijuana, Legalization." Western Herald. News. Online. 16 October 1996. Robert L. Maginnis."The Medical Value of Marijuana Has Been Overstated." At Issue: Marijuana. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. Medical Marijuana (2001, June). Paper presented at the AMA council of scientific affairs. Retrieved November 17, 2005 http://www/ama- assn.org/ama/pub/category/print/13625.html Souder, Mark, and Lynn Zimmer. "Q: Is the Government's War against Marijuana Justified as Public Policy." Insight on the News 12 Jan. 1998: 24+. Outline I. Proponents' claims for medical marijuana. A. Based mainly on anecdotal evidence. B. Credibility issues of proponents' motivation. II. State campaigns to pass medical marijuana laws. III. Health risks associated with marijuana. A. Use of Marinol as synthetic substitute. B. Dangers of non-regulated smoking of marijuana. IV. Dangers of marijuana use. A. Crime rate. B. Traffic safety. C. Gateway dangers. V. Sociological impact of marijuana legalizing. A. Normalizing drug use for children. Read More