should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes

Should Marijuana be Legalized for Medical Purposes? Marijuana
has been used extensively as a medical remedy for more than five
thousand years. In the early 1900s, medical usage of marijuana began to
decline with the advent of alternative drugs. Injectable opiates and
synthetic drugs such as aspirin and barbiturates began to replace
marijuana as the physician's drug of choice in the twentieth-century, as
their results proved to be more consistent than the sometimes erratic
effects of the hard-to-dose potencies of marijuana (Grinspoon). The
Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 made cannabis so expensive to obtain that its
usage as a medical remedy in the U.S. came to a halt. Although now
illegal in the U.S., marijuana continues to be used for both medical and
recreational purposes by many Americans. There are a variety of
opinions both for and against the re-legalization of marijuana today.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the legalization debate is
whether marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. All
drugs, both prescription and non-prescription, are federally 'Scheduled' by
the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency). A drug's scheduling under Federal
law is determined "according to [its] effects, medical uses, and potential
for abuse" (Claim V). In this classification system, marijuana is a
Schedule I drug, grouped with heroin, LSD, hashish, methaqualone, and
designer drugs. These are drugs having "unpredictable effects, and
[causing] severe psychological or physical dependence, or death" (Claim
V). A closer analysis of the DEA's Federal Scheduling system reveals
that, according to various studies by physicians on both sides of the
legalization debate, marijuana does not meet the requirements of a
Schedule I drug, but not those of Schedule II. The difference between
the two classes is that Schedule I drugs may lead to death, while those
on Schedule II are less likely to do so. Proponents of legalization cite
information that indicates marijuana is a relatively "safe" drug. "There is
no known case of overdose; on the basis of animal models, the ratio of
lethal to effective dose is 40,000 to 1" (Grinspoon). Even some

opponents of marijuana legalization support reclassification. Two
physicians, in a widely distributed opinions piece entitled "Marijuana
Smoking as Medicine: A Cruel Hoax", wrote; "While the reclassification
of THC to Schedule II might be understandable, this would not be the
result of smoking the crude drug marijuana, which would as a result
become more available and more readily diverted for non-medical use"
(Nahas). Although this evidence clearly does not support the legalization
of marijuana, it highlights one of many discrepancies that cloud this
smoky debate. Lester Grinspoon, MD, is a proponent of the medical
legalization and re-classification of marijuana. In the Journal of the
American Medical Association, Dr. Grinspoon wrote an article entitled "A
Plea for Reconsideration". In this plea, Grinspoon suggests that
marijuana should be reclassified to a Schedule II class drug, so that it
might be legally prescribed. He writes: In a 1990 survey, 44% of
oncologists said they had suggested
that a patient smoke marihuana for relief of the nausea induced by
chemotherapy. If marihuana were actually unsafe for use
under medical supervision, as its Schedule I status explicitly affirms,
this recommendation would be unthinkable. It is time for physicians
to acknowledge more openly that this present
classification is scientifically, legally, and morally wrong.
(Grinspoon)Like many other physicians fighting for the re-classification of
marijuana, Dr. Grinspoon makes claims only towards the drug's medical
benefits. However, their rhetoric in calling the issue "morally wrong"
suggests that they may have other motives as well. Furthermore, the fact
that "44% of oncologists" suggested their patients use marijuana, despite
its illegality, may suggest that many of these physicians have little respect
for post-prohibition laws. The article also fails to address the negative
side-effects of marijuana that result from smoking the plant. While there
are many physicians who support the reclassification (and, sometimes,

legalization) of marijuana, still others make different claims. In July of
1995, one month after "Marijuana as Medicine- A Plea for
Reconsideration" was published in JAMA, the Department of Health and
Human Services held its first research conference on marijuana. At this
conference, several respected physicians noted 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); and, finally, that "marijuana use can put a serious
choke-hold on users who try to quit" (Claim V). Conflicting reports, such
as these, are at the center of the smoke filled battle concerning medical
legalization. In this case, the physicians assembled at the conference
commented only on the drug's negative effects, and they failed to discuss
any possible beneficial effects. Although there are physicians both for
and against the medical legalization of marijuana, the DEA enforces the
laws. The DEA regularly makes publications against legalization. Claim
V of these publications is entitled "There are no Compelling Reasons to
Prescribe Marijuana or Heroin to Sick people". In this claim, the DEA
makes contradictory claims to those published in JAMA by Dr. Grinspoon.
The DEA claims that "Not one American health association accepts
marijuana as medicine. Statements issued by these organizations
express concern over the harmful effects of the drugs and over the lack of
solid research demonstrating that they might do more good than harm"
(Claim V). However, in reading the DEA's clam, one must keep in mind
that "drugs" (as they use it) includes both marijuana and heroin, and
therefore may be partially invalid when applied to the central marijuana
debate. By using the word "they", the DEA groups marijuana with more
dangerous drugs. It should also be recognized that the DEA has an
obvious bias against legalizing drugs; if all drugs were legal, who would
continue to pay their salaries? Doctors and the DEA, however, are not
the only ones with opinions about marijuana's medical re-legalization.

Mike Dooley, a member of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana
Laws (NORML), made news when he recommended that Elvy Musikka,
a patient legally supplied with marijuana from the U.S. government, spoke
to an "Experimental Living" class at Western Michigan University: "Elvy
Musikkia, a professional speaker, has glaucoma and take marijuana as
part of her treatment for the eye disease. Glaucoma patients smoke
marijuana cigarettes because it relieves the eye pressure that leads to
blindness" (Kemp). However, Dooley supports more than the medical
legalization of marijuana. "Dooley says using marijuana for medical
purposes is just one use of the plant, but people need to recognize that it
has more positive uses" (Kemp). Like many other advocates of
legalization, Dooley wants more than just medical legalization: "'Why are
we outlawing this particular plant?' Dooley said. 'What is wrong with
adults smoking marijuana in their own environment?'" (Kemp). Opponents
of legalization efforts worry that legalization for medical purposes will
eventually lead to non-medical abuse. An example of this type of
medical abuse can be found in the 1995 Comedy, Friday. In the film, a
corrupted priest tries to obtain marijuana from Smokey, a neighborhood
pot addict. Upon noticing the marijuana, he says "Excuse me brother,
what we call drugs at 74th street Baptist Church, we call a sin" (Friday),
representing the views of many Christians today. Only a short time later,
however, he changes his mind, saying: "Why don't you give me a little bit
for my cataracts?" (Friday). This film makes a comment on the attitudes
of U.S. society today towards marijuana, and re-legalization. By making
a medical excuse for using marijuana in the film, Brother William conveys
the worries of many Americans today about medical legalization of the
drug. While it may be suggested that Friday is satirist comedy, and
therefore not "real", critics of the film and of legalization will point out that
later in the movie, the characters make an outright plea for legalization.
Religious figures in real life express stronger anti-legalization

opinions than those in the movies. In 1986, "representatives of four
Oregon church groups, representing a combined membership of tens of
thousands, unveiled a plan to attack the proposed legalization of
marijuana from the pulpit" (Danks). The representatives cited
experiences like those Reverend John Jackson; Jackson spoke about
how his son's drug habit broke up the family. "'It got to the point that I
kept a weapon,' Jackson said. 'My son didn't act like my son. I got to the
point where I thought if he came into the room I would kill him" (Danks).
Many would be quick t discount the reverend's opinion, however,
especially after hearing of his fatal mentality. It should also be noted that
Jackson's son, who is now in the army, "graduated to harder drugs after
using marijuana as a 10-year-old" (Danks). Other religious groups
have more extreme views on legalization. In an on-line publication
entitled "Marijuana and Christians: Cure or Curse?", a group for
"Aggressive Christianity" writes that: "Through the innocently appearing
guise of the 'natural herbal high' called marijuana, Satan has found an
open doorway for invasion into the minds of millions of people" (Marijuana
and Christians). These "Aggressive Christians" decree that marijuana is
one of Satan's tools and should not be legalized for any purpose.
However, in calling it "Satan's tool" they incorporate little knowledge of the
drug's true effects, both positive and negative. For these extremists,
there is apparently no reason for Satanists not to use marijuana. Groups
such as these "Aggressive Christians" represent the most conservative
side of the battle over legalization. College campuses are often
recognized for their liberal views and high drug consumption levels.
Adam Djurdjulov, a journalism senior and Arizona Daily Wildcat opinions
editor writes a column that appears in that publication on Mondays. In his
column, titled "Airing it Out," he recently wrote an article, "Smoking
marijuana is as accepted as the word 'damn.'" In this column, Djurdjulov
criticizes the increasing acceptance of marijuana use. He states his

un-professional medical opinion on marijuana, saying it "[is] a substance
that destroys motivation and wazzu brain cells" (Djurdjulov). Although he
makes a valid argument that drug use proliferates on today's college
campuses, Djurdjulov weakens his own credibility when he suggests that
Americans 'kick out' Bill Clinton from President of the United States for
exercising his right to free speech, writing "Hell, on MTV in June 1992,
Clinton quipped that if he tried marijuana again, he would inhale"
(Djurdjulov). Although many Americans might disagree with Clinton's
"liberal" policies towards drug use, few would condone his removal from
office, solely for exercising his first amendment rights. Like the
"Aggressive Christians," Djurdjulov's non-scientific, extremist position
somewhat destroys his credibility, along with the credibility of his
statements. Other college students feel differently about legalization.
Oliver Petri, a freshman at the University of Arizona, is a proponent
of marijuana legalization for medical and recreational purposes. In an
interview, Petri explains that "I once knew a woman with cancer. She
grew [marijuana] plants in her backyard and smoked weed to relive her
suffering. It should totally be legal" (Petri).Petri's comments epitomize the
views of many college students who advocate legalization. Few of these
students, however, have any knowledge of the medical uses and
properties of the drug they consume for recreational purposes. Petri also
admittedly supports medical legalization initiatives because he thinks it
will make marijuana easier to find. California's proposition 215 is an
initiative that would legalize marijuana for medical purposes.
"[Proposition 215] would permit patients with cancer, AIDS, glaucoma,
arthritis, and other serious illnesses to grow, posses and use marijuana"
(Lacayo). Despite criticism of Prop 215 that suggests the initiative is "too
loosely constructed", polls show that California voters favor it by almost
2-1 (Lacayo). Opponents of the initiative worry that anyone will be able to
legally obtain and use marijuana under Proposition 215, "'This

proposition is not about medicine,' charges Orange County Sheriff Brad
Gates, co-chairman of Citizens for a Drug Free California, the campaign
opposing Prop 215. 'It's about the legalization of marijuana'" (Lacayo).
Voters like Sheriff Gates are unable to consider medical legalization
because of their fears of increased recreational use. There opinion, then,
means nothing when applied to the issue on a smaller scale.
Reputable sources on marijuana's true effects are hard to come by.
Conflicting reports suggest that personal opinion might be more of a
factor than it should be in many reports about the drug's effects and
toxicity. Words such as "dangerous" and "harmful" are often used by
figures on both sides of the legalization debate, with little explanation of
their definitions. No-one knows what the results of a non-biased study on
marijuana's medical future might contain, because conflicting
"non-biased" studies continue to proliferate on both sides of this debate.
Because of the wide availability of marijuana today, it is not surprising
that marijuana usage for many today is a personal, rather than legal,
decision. Works Cited"Claim V: There Are No Compelling Medical
Reasons to Prescribe Marijuana or Heroin to Sick People." DEA-
Publication: Speaking out Against Drug Legalization: Claim V.
Online. Internet. 6 August 1996. Danks, Holly. "Churches Fight Marijuana
Legalization." The Oregonian. 21 June 1986: C1.Djurdjulov, Adam.
"Smoking is as accepted as the word 'damn.'" The Arizona Daily
Wildcat. 14 October 1996: 4.Friday. Dir. Gerry Lively. Perf. Ice Cube,
Chris Tucker, John Witherspoon. Videocassette. New Line Home Video,
1995.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. Lacayo, Richard. "Marijuana: Where There's
Smoke, There's Fire." Time 8 October 1996: 36-37.Nahas, Gabriel,

MD, and Pace, Nicholas, MD "Marijuana Smoking as Medicine: A Cruel
Hoax." Usenet Newsgroups. Online. 16 August1996."Marijuana
and Christians: Cure or Curse?" Aggressive Christianity. Online.
Internet. 6 October 1996.