Controversy over Medicinal Marijuana
Adam Simon
There is currently a significant portion of our country’s population involved with the war on drugs. However, despite numerous advocates of a drug-free America, everyday drug related crimes are committed and countless hours are spent handling the concern of illegal substance abuse. Among the scope of illicit drug use in America, marijuana certainly plays its part in keeping our legislative government as well as law enforcement agencies busy dealing with case after case especially considering the wide use of this particular illegal substance. In fact, many believe marijuana to be a very dangerous substance; and being a “Schedule I” classified drug, the government has thus characterized the substance as having high potential for abuse and accredited with no medicinal value1.
The scheduling system of illicit drugs, comparatively, tells just how “illegal” a substance is considered to be; marijuana (a schedule I drug) is in this case grouped with those drugs considered to be the most dangerous and having the highest potential for abuse. There are five schedules, and Schedule V substances are those that are considered to be least dangerous. A better way of putting this is to say that all drugs are controlled substances; the lower the schedule of the drug, the more regulated the substance is2. Now that this has been made clear, the real controversy that this paper discusses can be introduced: medical marijuana. By definition, medical marijuana is the use of the controlled substance for the medicinal benefit of its effects. If marijuana were to be reclassified to a schedule II drug, then it could legally be prescribed to those who could medically profit from its use. In fact, there is evidence of marijuana’s medicinal qualities in treating certain illnesses, especially those causing pain or nausea3. So why doesn’t the government ease up on marijuana laws and allow for its medicinal distribution? The controversy is clear, but its causes must be considered.
Marijuana had been used widely in America up until about 1850 with neither significant governmental nor societal opposition. Therefore government had no foundation upon which to establish marijuana laws. This in addition to society’s approval of the substance perhaps made for the vacillating views of marijuana. The face of marijuana made a definite change however in 1937 when congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act. Though the Act did not directly criminalize the substance, it did place a tax on the drug’s distributers and served as the first piece of regulating legislation for the substance4. At this point marijuana had lost much of its perceived quality as being a medicinal substance and rather becomes more commonly known as an intoxicant. However, this Act was only the beginning of marijuana’s regulation. Meanwhile, many other substances of abuse were being regulated in a similar fashion (Alcohol prohibition had occurred through the 1920s), and the wake of a “war on drugs” was forming.
In 1938 congress passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, another cornerstone piece of legislation for determining the fate of medicinal marijuana. This Act granted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) jurisdiction to determine the safety of commercial foods, drugs, and cosmetics5. Though the Act has been amended extensively (considering vast changes in food, drug, and cosmetic products/markets), FDA testing and approval is still necessary for those drugs available by prescription.
Substance regulation continued to increase across the board until the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 passed, thus creating the demanded scheduling system of controlled substances that we use today. As previously mentioned there are five schedules; schedule I drugs define those that have high potential for abuse and no medicinal worth. Schedules II through V classify those drugs that the government claims do have medicinal value; schedule II drugs being those considered to have the highest potential for abuse and schedule V drugs as having the least. The Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention Control Act, furthermore, categorized marijuana and all its forms as a schedule I drug. The Act also served as replacement for all previous legislation concerning controlled substances as well as increased pressure for the instigation of the “war on drugs.” Provisions of the Act granted the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as well as the Department of Human Health and Services (HHS) authority over initiating the rescheduling of a drug6.
At the federal level, drug laws have since been enforced as well as modified to increase penalties and risks of being involved with use. This period of time which continues to the current, is what is known as the war on drugs. However, this is only one side to the controversy. That is, despite increasing federal laws, state laws have more than begun to make a compassionate turn. Currently twelve states have reformed their marijuana laws to allow for the medicinal use of the substance for those that have qualified medically7. In fact, numerous studies have been conducted in discovery of the beneficial medical qualities of marijuana. Here is where a great source of controversy stirs; the legal status of marijuana at the federal level has not changed since the 1970s, yet twelve of fifty states now allow for the distribution of medicinal marijuana. It is difficult to analyze all aspects of this phenomenon; however, a further look can be made into the evidence of marijuana studies in order to further understand the dynamics of the conflict between medicinal marijuana’s advocates and its opponents.
Since the 1970s (and even prior to), there have been conducted an array of studies and research projects on marijuana and its potential use for medicinal purposes. In fact, many such studies have been FDA approved, and the evidential results have been consensual in support of marijuana’s medicinal qualities. Specifically, marijuana has been proven to be successful in aiding the treatment of cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and other conditions that cause pain or nausea8. In addition, studies have shown that marijuana smoking in regulated doses is less harmful than several medications prescribed today9.
Notably, in 1978 the Investigational New Drug (IND) access program was created in response to the demands of a 1976 court decision. The provisions of this project allowed for the medicinal distribution of marijuana from the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) for the patients deemed medically qualified. As a result of a mass pool of AIDS applicants to the program, in 1992 the Secretary of Health and Human Services disallowed the entry of new patients. However, a decision was made to continue to legally provide the substance to those patients already receiving medicinal marijuana via the IND program initiated in 1978. Today there are seven surviving patients who continue to obtain marijuana legally from NIDA10.
Furthermore, as prior mentioned, twelve states have reformed their marijuana laws to approve of the prescription of the substance for medicinal purposes. The first state to remove criminal penalties for the medicinal use of the substance (as recommended by a physician) was Washington in 1996, followed by California two days later that same year. Other states that have repealed criminal penalty for medicinal marijuana use include Oregon, Maine, Alaska, Hawaii, Colorado, Nevada, Montana, Vermont, and Rhode Island. New Mexico, being the twelfth and latest state to decriminalize the medicinal use of marijuana reformed its law in March of 2007. Additionally, two other states, Arizona and Maryland, have modified their laws to lessen penalty for medicinal use though complete legalization has not passed11. It is apparent that there is presently an issue at hand; an unsettled controversy. However, the view of medicinal marijuana’s supporters has been discussed, but not that of its opponents. We must ask what the challengers of medicinal marijuana have to say.
Those in opposition of the use of medicinal marijuana seem to all be responding consistently. They make a few major claims. First, marijuana is scientifically known to have addictive qualities and is considered to have high potential for abuse. Additionally, smoking marijuana is claimed to be damaging to the lungs, heart, and immune system. These factors coupled with high political pressures to maintain marijuana’s legal status has prevented the Food and Drug Administration from approving its medicinal use12. Despite supportive evidence of marijuana’s medicinal value found in FDA approved studies, no approval of its use has been granted. In fact, the FDA issued a statement in 2006 claiming that insufficient evidence has been produced to positively determine that the benefits of marijuana use outweigh the negative repercussions of smoking the substance. Additionally, a 2005 Supreme Court ruling justified the prosecution of medicinal marijuana users in those states with compassionate use laws13.
Certainly, these conflicting tensions have made a wild fire of controversy from a simple spark. But despite an unsettled battle, some common ground has been discovered. Capsules containing a synthetic version of the main active ingredient found in marijuana have been FDA approved and are out on the market by prescription. Marinol is one such product. It is a prescription drug used to treat nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy for those patients who have responded poorly to other treatments. In addition, Marinol is used to treat appetite loss for HIV/AIDS patients14. However, the effectiveness of Marinol has been questioned not long since it was approved by the FDA in 1985. Because of oral ingestion, Marinol is slower acting than marijuana and therefore dose control is claimed to be more difficult. Additionally, many patients choose marijuana over Marinol for economic reasons15. Certainly there still exist a myriad of stances and beliefs despite the FDA support of Marinol.
A reason that explains the decision of the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Health and Human Services department to keep marijuana completely illegal is tradition. Ever since the establishment of the FDA and the departments with which it networks, marijuana has been an illegal substance, and significant political as well as outside pressure has been present to maintain this policy. Regardless of the unwavering status of marijuana's illegality, several states have professed their disapproval with modifications to their marijuana laws. In fact some may consider this a mild succession of sorts considering the significant opposition to existing federal law. With every controversy there of course exist two sides of argument; both of which, to an extent, are responsible for this long lasting battle. There is certainly a clear conflict at hand, one with little working solution yet many contributing variable demands to be met.
References
1 "Summary of the Medical Marijuana Debate." Medical Marijuana ProCon. 30 Nov. 2007 2 "History of Medical Marijuana and the U.S. Government." Medical Marijuana ProCon. 2 Dec. 2007 3 "Top 10 Pros and Cons on the Medical Marijuana Debate." Medical Marijuana ProCon. 30 Nov. 2007 4 "The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937." Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 1 Dec. 2007 6 "History of Medical Marijuana and the U.S. Government." Medical Marijuana ProCon. 2 Dec. 2007 7 "Summary of State Medical Marijuana Laws." Medical Marijuana ProCon. 30 Nov. 2007 8 "Top 10 Pros and Cons on the Medical Marijuana Debate." Medical Marijuana ProCon. 30 Nov. 2007 9 Elders, Joycelyn. "Myths About Medical Marijuana." Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. 3 Dec. 2007 10 "What is the U.S. Government's Compassionate Investigational New Drug (IND) Program for Medical Marijuana?" Medical Marijuana ProCon. 2 Dec. 2007 11 "Summary of State Medical Marijuana Laws." Medical Marijuana ProCon. 30 Nov. 2007 12 "Summary of the Medical Marijuana Debate." Medical Marijuana ProCon. 30 Nov. 2007 13 Silberner, Joanne. "FDA on Medical Marijuana: Science or Politics?" National Public Radio. 2007. 2 Dec. 2007 14 "What is MARINOL and How Does It Work?" Marinol. 2006. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 30 Nov. 2007 15 "Is Marinol Better Than Marijuana?" Medical Marijuana ProCon. 2 Dec. 2007
Links
