Marijuana: Medical Use and Beyond

Update: US Attorney General John Ashcroft has made it clear that the Bush Administration feels medicinal marijuana use supported by state law violates national drug laws. This is a bit hypocritical coming from an administration claiming to support state rights and a weaker federal government, but it shows in questions of morality, many times they are willing to make an exception. Also, an interesting case is pending in which Guam's highest court interpreted its own constitutional protection of freedom of religion to include Rastafarian use of marijuana. It also was said to be a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (struck down by the US Supreme Court as too broad of a national regulation of state action, an argument that would not cover federal territories). Let's see if national overreaching in this area will reach even far off US territories.

Marijuana in its various forms has had a long history as medicine, recreational drug, and even religious use. Hemp comes from the same plant, though having nearly no mind altering effects, and has many other uses. The fact that the drug known as marijuana comes from different types of the same plant has led the federal government to be wary of hemp's use. Thus, its potential as paper, clothing, food (seeds), as well as various other uses (including body oil, building material, and so on) is mostly wasted. If hemp scares the government (though in the past, including during WWII, it was recognized as a valuable resource), imagine how clear evidence that marijuana has medicinal use is handled, or (perish the thought!) other uses of marijuana.

Various states** have by state voter referendum or court ruling allow marijuana to be used for certain medical reasons. It is especially valuable to deal with nausea in cancer and AIDS patients, as well as sufferers of glaucoma. Alternatives, such as Marinol, are found by many to be poor substitutes, with harder to regulate dosages, and hard to keep down (especially by those with nausea or poor appetite). The side effects of Marinol also belie the claim that marijuana is imperfect medicine because of its contaminants, as if many medicines are not flawed in some way (e.g. chemotheraphy or psychiatric drugs). Though several studies as well as word of mouth has shown its value, marijuana research has long been disfavored, so evidence hard enough to overcome drug hysteria has been hard to come by. Breast implants are allowed, even with questions on their safety, but treatment of serious ailments apparently needs a higher degree of safety concerns than cosmetic devices.

The federal government currently regulates marijuana as a "Schedule One" drug with no accepted medicinal use, making it more akin to heroin than morphine or opium. Nonetheless, a federal law that "2+2=5" does not make it true, no matter how loudly it insists that it is. The federal government's stance is more akin to those who object to evolution on religious grounds, no matter how clear the facts might be, so they use denial or questionable science to reject it.

The passion involved was shown in the federal government's opposition to a California cooperative that distributed medicinal marijuana by a referendum supporting such use. It not only rejected such democratically motivated local humane drug policy experimentation, but did not even allow a judge or jury to hear a health defense. This drive to use the limited resources of the executive and judicial departments against people helping sick people continued up to the Supreme Court. US v OAKLAND CANNABIS BUYERS' COOPERATIVE (upholding the government's argument 8-0) suggests the lengths taken to continue a tired hard line drug policy, no matter how unpopular, unsuccessful, and harmful it might be. The case did arguably leave open such issues as state's powers to allow intrastate medicinal marijuana use, since only the federal injunction of the cooperative was at issue.

A few justices made it clear that they were only saying that the production and distribution (sale) of marijuana are illegal; personal medicinal use still might justify an exception to the law. Nonetheless, do we grow our own medicine? Personal medicinal use requires production and distribution from cannabis distribution clubs such as the one involved in the litigation. A good comparison is abortion: protections of providers are necessary for the protection of women who require their services. Abortion rights also suggest the limits put on the government when it comes to taking care of one's own body, especially if the procedure (or drug) is as or more safe than the alternative. The comparison is not exact to be sure, but if forcing women to have unwanted children is horrible, is the unnecessary suffering of those refused the use of medicinal marijuana that much less so?

Federal attempts to stop reform movements does not make them total failures. The message of reform is being discussed and spread, state officials and judges/juries are starting to see the old ways are misguided, and there is more hope that a more sensible drug policy will some day be in place. For instance, even if the federal government steps in certain cases, much of the enforcement of drug laws are on the local level, and it is up to local law enforcement most of the time to uphold them. Therefore, if state law (or state or local policy) does not allow such local officials on its own authority to seek out medical marijuana use, it is a big deal. Likewise, the public at large can by pressure, referenda, voting for candidates, and jury service (not indict in grand juries, not convict at trial) make their voices heard: we are sick of hurtful failed policies that violate our rights and liberties.

Marijuana is arguably safer in many ways than alcohol, which has long been a source of accidents, deaths, and perhaps (many say probably) serious birth defects arising from mothers drinking too much while pregnant. Marijuana on the other hand has not on its own killed anyone, relaxes people (compare its users to angry drunks), and clearly is seen as intoxicating (compare it to alcohol or pills, which people take and go about their business). It surely is not totally benign, but neither is alcohol, various over the counter stimulants, or mind altering prescription drugs. At the very least, it is not any where equal to hard drugs, which is recognized by many local laws that treat possession of small amounts as misdemeanors or akin to traffic violations. Nonetheless, the federal government and many states (as well as businesses) still see it as a serious evil, which explains the heavy-handed way used at times to get rid of it.

The criminalization of such a product, even though millions of consenting adults buy and/or use if daily, is ridiculous. An apartment a few blocks from my job was the location of a mob-like massacre of six people arising from a dispute over marijuana. Such a needless loss of life because we cannot bring ourselves to legalize something a majority of us really do not think is that bad. If we think owning a small amount of marijuana (especially for medicinal use) is not a big deal, we should not really be upset at those who sell it. Where after all will the marijuana come from, plants at home? After all, this is rather risky since it could mean forfeitures of the whole house or even jail time, especially with questionable interpretations of the Fourth Amendment that supposedly protects our privacy.

The personal nonmedical use of marijuana is not supported by so many, but either way, it should not be just allowed because criminalization brings so many (often unintended) costs. First of all, the freedom to make such a personal (private) decision concerning one's own body is central to personal freedom. Furthermore, substances that relax and alters the mind in some fashion have had a long history, both because they feel good, but because of their overall social value. For instance, when coffee houses were first popularized in the Arab World (c. 1500s), they served as a primary location of public life and discussion. The same function was evident in the 1770s and 1780s in the pubs of America and in some form continues to this day. The use of caffeine and alcohol to relax and further social interaction has a long history, and its mind altering effects only furthered this end.

Marijuana fits right in. The use of marijuana and other plants (e.g., chewing of coca leaves) for relaxation has a long history, while marijuana clearly was a symbol in itself. Marijuana was and still in many cases is a symbol of the counterculture, first in the Jazz Age and later in the 1960s. This made it especially scary to some, which only reaffirms its symbolic value. Such use therefore sends a certain message and suggests a membership in a certain group of people, which clearly has First Amendment values(especially freedom of speech and association), down to the habit of many users to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (use was popular among 1960s and even many current day protesters). If nothing else, the amendment truly ideally respects the importance of the rebellion against regular thought/society and the new reality for which the drug is known (and often feared).

Finally, in regards to the mind altering effects, let us not forget the long history of drugs in religious practices. For instance, peyote is still used by some Native Americans, while on a smaller scale, alcohol is used by Christians (and less often, Jews). The fact that some of these drugs alter reality is not the problem, but the very point of their use. A few religions have a tradition of marijuana use (including certain Ethiopian Christians), and alternative religions can (and are) easily be practiced by individuals not part of a larger organization. If someone believes marijuana will help in the discovery of the ultimate reality, who are we to doubt it? After all, prayer, chants, mediation, fasting, and many other methods are used to alter our states to achieve true spiritual understanding.

The use of hemp and medicinal marijuana are each fairly easy calls. Hemp is too useful to limit its production because there is a small chance that some of the plants could be used for illegal uses. Medicinal marijuana is no less worthy as other potentially dangerous regulated drugs to be used and studied. The legalization of marijuana itself is a bigger step, though its use for relaxation is always in some way somewhat medicinal. It also has various personal, societal, and even religious values. Even if we partly criminalize marijuana, let us not demonize it. If we do, the extended jail time, loss of student loans, disregard for privacy and other constitutional rights, and so on that follows is worse than the perceived problem.

Marijuana was the symbol of freedom and rebellion from society in the 1960s, a purpose that it still holds to a certain extent to this day. This makes it a rather potential symbol, as well as an easy scapegoat for those who are concerned with those who partake in it. Furthermore, its mind altering possibilities are a threat to those who are afraid of the threat to ordinary society it necessarily suggests. The problem is that the "solution" is worse than the disease itself, leading to violence, unnecessary further crowding in prisons, loss of property and privacy, suffering by sick people, and so on. Furthermore, would it be a "gateway" to harder drugs, drugs many users of marijuana want as little to do with as alcohol users, if it was legal and therefore apparently comparable to them? Once someone has to start being a criminal (perhaps just to alleviate suffering), even for a behavior of little harm to the rest of us, the road to further ruin is wide open.

* This essay concerns marijuana, but clearly the libertarian and practical themes found in it need not stop at this particular illegal drug. Its relative safety and breadth of uses makes it unique nonetheless, so it is wrong to suggest that legalization and/or medicalization of marijuana necessarily will (or should) lead to other drugs having the same fate. Each drug has its unique value and complications, and really is not my concern here, but suffice to say that (to take an obvious example) controversy over distribution of clean needles (AIDS and other diseases are passed in part by dirty needles) shows drug policy across the board is in need of reform. See also, this article on illegal "soft drugs" vs legal drugs.

** Voters in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington have approved ballot initiatives allowing the use of medical marijuana. In Hawaii, the governor signed such legislation in 2000. Arizona's referendum is broad enough that under certain conditions it would allow other illegal drugs found to be medically suitable to be used as well. Recently, Canada also joined this liberal movement as well.