In 1972, Congress made marijuana into a Schedule I controlled substance claiming that it has, “no accepted medical use”. However, since then marijuana has been found to be a, “safe and effective treatment for the symptoms of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, epilepsy, and other conditions” and numerous studies have been published on this matter. Consequently, 16 states have already legalized marijuana, but it is still a controversial topic around the US. Interestingly, if marijuana is examined from an objective standpoint, meaning that we consider it as just another prescription drug and not associate it with recreational use and drug abuse, then the medicinal use of marijuana becomes apparently justifiable. So why then is the topic still so controversial?
It is because people are unable to change their paradigm of looking at marijuana from that of a recreational drug used by drug addicts. This becomes evident from the arguments critics against medical marijuana use. The arguments primarily lie on three fronts; first, the critics claim that the medicinal properties of marijuana have not been adequately proven due to the, “lack of consistent, repeatable scientific data”. But this is surely not the case, for instance, Jocelyn Elders, a former Surgeon General asserts that, “The evidence is overwhelming that marijuana can relieve certain types of pain, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms”. This “evidence” takes the form of controlled studies published in reputable journals around the US – so the critics are clearly just ignoring the facts and hiding behind their inability to shift paradigms.
Second, critics claim that marijuana poses health risks, which makes its use unethical. First of all, this has to be put in perspective – virtually all drugs that treat serious illnesses like cancer or AIDS have dangerous and potentially lethal side effects, so just because marijuana could have certain side effects does not immediately preclude it from medicinal use. In fact, again the critics are just making assumptions about the health risks of marijuana despite the fact that numerous studies demonstrate its general safety. Some people claim that marijuana could cause lung cancer or emphysema, but to this date not even one case of either disease has been attributed to marijuana use. Moreover, critics also say that marijuana use can suppress the immune system, but in one study conducted on patients with AIDS, it was found that patients using marijuana had higher immune function than those on a placebo. Admittedly, there are definite cases in which marijuana does decrease immune function, but as researchers agree, marijuana is far less toxic than drugs used in the aggressive treatments of other diseases, such as chemotherapy for cancer. Thus, marijuana does not pose any health risks that are incomparable to other FDA approved drugs, so the critics are again, just clinging to emotional arguments and are ignoring the facts in front of them.
Third, other critics claim that marijuana is addictive and a gateway for the use harder drugs. Although studies have found that there can be withdrawal symptoms associated with marijuana, they are largely incomparable to those with other drugs, like nicotine. In fact, the medicinal use of marijuana does not require use every day so addiction is far less likely. Despite this, critics do claim that up to 10% of people who use marijuana for medicinal purposes end up getting addicted. But again, this needs to be put into perspective, take pain killers for example, more than 15 million people use them regularly, which is a jump from half a million a decade ago. Furthermore, morphine addiction is the 3rd most common drug related reason people end up in the emergency room – but we still use morphine and vicoden as medicinal drugs. Secondly, the “gateway” theory has been largely repudiated by studies which have shown that people who are predisposed to using drugs will use both marijuana and other harder drugs regardless. The only reason that marijuana use starts first is that it is more readily available. Hence, again, the critics’ arguments fall apart in the face of studies which they conveniently ignore. Although they do bring up certain reasonable points about the properties of marijuana, they are still treating it as a recreational drug and are not looking at it through the larger perspective of medicine.
All in all, there are no perfect drugs in medicine, all have potentially adverse effects but they are the best options available. Similarly, there are no other drugs that can exactly replicate the therapeutic properties of marijuana, so despite the fact that it could have certain detrimental consequences, for the most part marijuana will be beneficial. As a result, marijuana should be allowed for use in medical settings, where patients can be adequately monitored, minimizing any potential risks – just as all other potentially harmful drugs are administered.
3 comments:
I agree that medical use may be acceptable in the case of marijuana. While the anti-legalization movement’s objections that no standardized dosages or modes of administration have been established yet, this is also rooted in the fact that as a society we are unwilling to change our perception of the drug and give serious consideration to developing, standardizing, and distributing it as a therapy. I think that examining the ways the image of marijuana has developed and shaped public policy provides even more reason to overturn the unnecessarily harsh federal laws regarding it, because the history of these laws is plagued with sensationalism and a constant misrepresentation of the established facts regarding marijuana use.
The DEA—Drug Enforcement Administration—is one major propagator of this sensationalism, pointing to stories like that of Irma Perez to appeal to anxieties regarding kids’ futures and scare public opinion against marijuana:
The legalization movement is not simply a harmless academic exercise. The mortal danger of thinking that marijuana is “medicine” was graphically illustrated by a story from California. In the spring of 2004, Irma Perez was “in the throes of her first experience with the drug Ecstasy… when, after taking one Ecstasy tablet, she became ill and told friends that she felt like she was…‘going to die’… Two teenage acquaintances did not seek medical care and instead tried to get Perez to smoke marijuana. When that failed due to her seizures, the friends tried to force-feed marijuana leaves to her, “apparently because [they] knew that drug is sometimes used to treat cancer patients.” Irma Perez lost consciousness and died a few days later when she was taken off life support. She was 14 years old. (The DEA Position on Marijuana)
Using this story to argue that even allowing debates regarding marijuana’s medicinal use is dangerous seems absurd—the victim died from Ecstasy use, not marijuana use, and any teenager would be unequipped to deal with a friend who overdosed on ecstasy—she did not die because they thought marijuana would help her, but because they were in no state to take any steps to actually help her.
The DEA also argues that marijuana is a public health risk, insisting “It will create dependency and treatment issues, and open the door to use of other drugs, impaired health, delinquent behavior, and drugged drivers” (DEA). These arguments have their roots in the 20th, the first period of massive drug regulation in the United States. During this period, the same scare tactics were used, with the added racial tinge, as marijuana was portrayed as the drug of choice of Mexican immigrants. A few actors in the Federal Bureau of Narcotics were able to push forward legislation criminalizing the relatively harmless marijuana using the media and appealing to existing anxieties surrounding integration, race, children, and modernization (Provine), which suggests that, if we seriously reevaluate the issue, we will find this legislation outdated.
"The DEA Position on Marijuana." DEA, Jan. 2011
"Unequal Under Law: Race in the War on Drugs." Proine, Doris Marie, 2007.
I also agree that medical use may be acceptable in the case of marijuana.
However, I have a problem with the logic behind your third claim. You argued against the addictiveness of marijuana by comparing the withdrawal symptoms of marijuana to those of other highly addictive drugs, citing the fact that marijuana’s symptoms were largely incomparable to drugs like such as nicotine. While it may be true that other drugs may have exponentially worse withdrawal effects, this is no reason to put aside marijuana’s very real withdrawal effects. Studies have clearly shown that marijuana is associated with withdrawal symptoms that simply can’t be ignored - “abstinence following daily marijuana use can produce a withdrawal syndrome characterized by negative mood (e.g. irritability, anxiety, misery), muscle pain, chills, and decreased food intake.” Surely, these side effects comprise medical criteria to genuinely consider. Also, a proper medical analogy cannot be properly drawn between marijuana (which studies have shown to be relatively safe) and nicotine (which studies have shown nicotine stimulates angiogenesis and promotes tumor growth and atherosclerosis).
Furthermore, as you mentioned, marijuana is already more accessible than other medically approved drugs (such as morphine and vicoden) - prescription marijuana is indeed tempting enough for recreational users to illegally obtain. This increased availability must be reflected upon –the greater availability of marijuana and its black market trade opens up possibility for greater risk even though individual risk of addiction to morphine and vicoden may be higher.
You have a good overall argument, however, I believe you made some unpersuasive points in favor of marijuana’s medicalization.
http://ukcia.org/research/WithdrawalInHumans.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v7/n7/pdf/nm0701_833.pdf
Post a Comment