FREE ESSAY ON MARIJUANA REFORM

MARIJUANA REFORM

Stop Punishing the Sick
The advanced stages of many illnesses and their treatments are often unbearable;
intractable nausea and pain frequently accompany them. Medications prescribed, at times,
cause more distress then the ailment in which they are intended to remedy. Many patients
suffering from such debilitating diseases as cancer, AIDS or Multiple Sclerosis have
turned to a more natural source of pain reliever and choose to smoke marijuana. The
American government has held a prohibition of marijuana for the past seventy years; this
means the possession of marijuana is unlawful (Fratello, 721). Patients tormented by
excruciating afflictions and their families have risked fines and jail time in the effort
of relieving their discomfort. These patients should be able to utilize the treatment of
their choice, free from the fear of persecution and without the stigma of being
considered a criminal. This may be possible with the pharmacological reclassification of
the drug marijuana.
Eight states so far have passed initiatives making it legal for physicians, in these
states, to prescribe marijuana to seriously ill patients, California (with prop 215) and
Arizona being the first in 1996 and Hawaii being the most recent, passing its bill in
April 2000. This was a signal of progress in an area that has long been in need of
reform. Within weeks after voters approved the propositions in California and Arizona
protecting doctors and patients from persecution for prescribing medical marijuana, the
federal government stepped in. Attorney General Janet Reno threatened that any physician
who prescribed marijuana to patients could have the privilege of writing prescriptions
revoked and be denied Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. President Clinton asserted
that doctors would be committing a federal offence and be open to fines and possibly
imprisonment (Kassirer, 366). According to a poll commissioned by the American Civil
Liberties Union in 1998 79% of the American public said they thought it "would be a good
idea to legalize marijuana to relieve pain and for other medical uses if prescribed by a
doctor." (Glasser, ACLU) It is wrong for the government to counteract a bill that is so
overwhelmingly supported by society.
The government has long contended that marijuana has adverse long-term effects on organs
in the body and that it is highly addictive. For many patients employing marijuana as
alleviation to their distress, this is not applicable because most of the diseases being
treated are fatal. The person would most likely have passed on when the negative effects
are said to show up. It should not be too concerning also for those patients employing
marijuana for relief from a nonfatal impairment such as glaucoma or arthritis. The claim
that marijuana kills brain cells and is harmful to body organs has been traced back to a
study conducted in 1970 where scientists continuously exposed Rhesus Monkeys to high
concentrations of marijuana smoke for six months. The study was found to have many
methodological errors. A repeat study conducted by the National Center for Toxicology
Research in 1991, again using Rhesus Monkeys, failed to turn up any marijuana related
brain damage at all (Fratello, 721). These claims constitute false drug war rhetoric used
as scare tactics.
Drugs are classified into five degrees, ranging from highly dangerous drugs in Schedule I
to over the counter medications and vitamins in Schedule IV. Schedule I drugs are defined
by the Drug enforcement Administration as "unsafe, highly subject to abuse and possessing
no medical value"(Schleichert, 54). These drugs include Heroin, Cocaine and marijuana.
Schedule II drugs are considered to be potentially addictive but with some accepted
medical value, these drugs are available by prescription. It seems hypocritical to
classify morphine and Taxifimil, which carry such negative side effects as vomiting,
dependency and withdrawals, as a Schedule II drug while leaving marijuana as a Schedule I
drug. There is also a risk of death associated with taking high doses of such drugs as
Morphine. There is no such risk associated with smoking marijuana. Dr Jerome P. Kassirer
from the New England Journal of Medicine proposes a change in laws in the fallowing:
"The government should change marijuana's status from that of a Schedule I drug to that
of a Schedule II drug and regulate it accordingly. To ensure proper distribution and use,
the government should declare itself the only agency sanctioned to provide the marijuana.
I believe that such a change in policy would have no adverse effects. The argument that
it would be a signal to the young that "marijuana is OK" is, I believe, specious."(366)
This is a practical proposition, although pharmacies would have to be involved in
relegating the marijuana. Also, just as children know that it is inappropriate and
dangerous at times to take another persons prescription pills, they would also be taught
that marijuana is by prescription and only for therapeutic purposes. 
A main concern of opponents to medical marijuana is the belief that it is a gateway drug.
Some are claiming a slippery slope will occur. Some believe that if marijuana is
legalized for medical use then the public will argue for full legalization of the drug or
maybe medical cocaine could be next. According to the Center for Addiction and Substance
Abuse (CASA), a young marijuana smoker supposedly has a 85 times higher chance of going
on to try harder drugs such as heroin and cocaine then that of a non smoker. This figure
is deceiving as shown by Lynn Zimmer and John Morgan, authors of Marijuana Myths,
Marijuana Facts, "To obtain the 85 times 'risk factor', CASA divided the proportion of
marijuana users who have ever tried cocaine (17%) by the proportion of cocaine users who
have ever tried marijuana (0.2%). The 'risk factor' is not high because so many marijuana
users experiment with cocaine but because very few people try cocaine without first
trying marijuana (24)." This shows that the government is stacking the deck in the favor
of the government's position. If marijuana is legalized for medical purposes it does not
show a decline in the values and morals of the government or the public. It is an act of
clemency to the patient and a safer alternative to many of the medications being
prescribed today. 
A few physicians will have the courage to stand up to the governments misguided ideology,
while most will likely remain compliant to the government's political correctness.
Eventually the courts will have to decide between compassion and the rights of those
knocking on deaths door and the principles of bureaucrats whose decisions are based on
false claims and deceptive propaganda. Our government is spending too much money fighting
a battle that contrasts the interest of society. The existing laws give cancer and AIDS
patients little choice but to live like outlaws in the attempt to dull the pain they
suffer. These patients are not deviant people who live on the fringes of society. If
marijuana is reclassified as a Schedule II drug it would be available for prescription by
a physician while still remaining restricted to the public and still be considered
potentially addictive. The purpose of pain medications is to numb the pain, if we have
something, such as marijuana, that does this effectively and with little side effects we
should not let legal discourse prevent the use of it. Reform is needed to make marijuana
an acceptable medication. 
Fratello, Dave. "Should the Medical Use of Marijuana be Decriminalized". CQ Researcher.
9. (1999) 721-723 
Glasser, Ira. "Why Marijuana Reform Laws Should Matter To You." Members' 
Bulletin. 1998. 8 May 2000. *http://www.aclu.org/library/spring98.html* 
Kassirer, Jerome P. "Federal Foolishness and Marijuana." New England Journal of Medicine.
336. (1998): 366-368
Russell Connelly, Elizabeth. Through a Glass Darkly, the Psychological Effects of 
Marijuana and Hashish. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers: 1998. Schleichert,
Elizabeth. The Drug Library: Marijuana. New Jersey: 
Enslow Publishers, Inc, 1996.
Bibliography
Fratello, Dave. "Should the Medical Use of Marijuana be Decriminalized". CQ Researcher.
9. (1999) 721-723 
Glasser, Ira. "Why Marijuana Reform Laws Should Matter To You." Members' 
Bulletin. 1998. 8 May 2000. 
Kassirer, Jerome P. "Federal Foolishness and Marijuana." New England Journal of Medicine.
336. (1998): 366-368
Russell Connelly, Elizabeth. Through a Glass Darkly, the Psychological Effects of 
Marijuana and Hashish. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers: 1998. Schleichert,
Elizabeth. The Drug Library: Marijuana. New Jersey: 
Enslow Publishers, Inc, 1996.