But opponents of the legalization of marijuana will argue that there is no justification for the use of an illegal drug. Not even if it is being used by a person, who in every other way is a normal, reputable and fully functioning member of society, or to alleviate the suffering of a terminally ill person in their last days. The opposition's argument is circular. It amounts to "Marijuana is illegal. Since marijuana is illegal, no one should use it. Period." But the opposition can not offer a scientifically substantiated reason why marijuana should be illegal. In fact, neither can the advocates of marijuana legalization.
The crux of the problem is that there have been no unbiased, reputable studies of the substance. It seems a relatively simple solution to the problem would be to conduct a comprehensive clinical study. It is my argument that the Federal government can not justify ruling out marijuana for recreational use or for medical treatment for certain illnesses until it authorizes and designates resources for significant and unbiased research into the hazards and benefits of the substance. It is apparent that the feds' rationale for demarking marijuana as a Schedule II Drug (dangerous and addictive, not appropriate for prescription) is based on an irrational phobia which began in the nineteen-thrities. During the prohibition marijuana became illegal because it was believed to cause violent crime, addiction and sexual excess (Grinspoon np).
During the years that have followed, particularly since the sixties, the debate about marijuana has raged on. Many claims have been made by both sides. The biggest argument for legalization is that there is a significant consensus among Americans that marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. Thousands of people with AIDS, spastic muscle disorders, glaucoma, and cancer will attest to the benefits of marijuana usage in alleviating their symptoms and/or pain (Hospitals and Health Networks np). For example, approximately one-third of cancer and AIDs patients stop treatment for their illnesses because they can not stand the side-effects. The would rather die. But they claim that pot use stops the pain and nausea and allows them to continue treatment (Griedelman np). Nurith Aizenman of the Nation Institute points out that opponents will argue that the only way to determine its safety is through the "FDA's scientific review process, not through a public vote" (np).
In addition, opponents of legalization, like the Clinton administration, fear that sanctioned, medical use will lead to further liberalization of drug laws and thus lead to more drug abuse (Rogers np). But William Stempsey, a professor of medical ethics at the College of the Holy Cross argues that "the availability of drugs on the streets is not a function of the availability of prescription drugs. Morphine and other narcotics are available at present only by prescription, and there is not widespread use of these drugs" (np). It is not a logical step that legalization for medical marijuana will lead to abuse of it as a recreational drug.
Along the same lines, authorities say they fear that allowing marijuana to be legally used with a prescription will send mixed messages to young people (McCaffrey np). This is clearly flawed logic, however. Could not the same be said about every other prescribed drug that has the potential to get the user or abuser high? Oddly, the federal government has somewhat arbitrarily sanctioned the use of marijuana for nine critically ill people in the United States (Grinspoon np). Surely this, if anything, sends a mixed message. What distinguishes the pain and suffering of these nine terminally ill people with that of the hundreds of thousands of others who suffer in the same fashion? The federal government is clearly contradicting itself by allowing a few people to use this supposedly dangerous and addictive drug.
Another theory that has been touted is that marijuana is a "gateway" drug that almost inevitably leads to the usage of harder drugs (Morganthau np). Anti-legalization arguments manipulate statistics to prove their point. For example, one "study" revealed that virtually all heroin and cocaine addicts started out with pot (Voth np). This argument sounds very convincing until you also discover that studies have shown that over eighty percent of pot smokers have never tried the drug cocaine. Moreover, it is not implied that the percent that did try it continued to use it, or became addicted. They only tried it. But careful wording has allowed anti-marijuana legalization proponents to skew the argument with half-truths.
Furthermore, to further their cause, opponents of marijuana use cheap ploys and inflammatory language to plead their case. They use images of children to appeal to the public's sentiment with phrases such as "more addiction will kill more kids." Additionally, they attack the credibility of supporters of medical marijuana as a distraction tactic. For example, presidential hopeful Steven Forbes claims that "medical marijuana is the stealth legalizer's Trojan Horse." "Knowing that most Americans would not countenance outright legalization, many promoters deceitfully profess their only goal is to help the seriously ill" (Forbes np). The implication is that every person fighting for legalization for the critically ill is merely a pot-head out for his own self-interest. But research illustrates that this view is largely inaccurate.
A Gallup pole taken in March of this year (1999) indicated that 73% of Americans are in favor of "amending federal law to allow for the use of marijuana as medicine" (NORML). A study by the American Medical Association showed that 60% of Americans support the legalization of marijuana for medical reasons. Only 14% of Americans support all out legalization, however (Alcohol & Drug Abuse Weekly np). In another study conducted by "Vegetarian Times" 62% of the respondent readers supported medical legalization, while only 10% favored total legalization (Marandino np). So surely, legalization for recreation is not on the horizon. Voters have made their opinion clear on the matter. The majority of voters favor the limited legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. Over the past few years, over one-fifth of the American electorate "has voted in the majority to give patients the right to use marijuana" (Griedelman np).
Yet, despite the majority's desire for medical marijuana to be legal, the federal government disregards this. Recently a referendum was almost passed in Washington D.C., which would have legalized medical marijuana. However, conservatives tacked on a rider onto another bill, which prevented the votes from being officially counted, and the entire vote became null (Greidelman np). It is unclear why the federal government goes to such lengths to suppress a substance when they can not justify doing so.
Dr. Grinspoon, a renown psychologist and supporter of marijuana argues that for no rational reason, otherwise law abiding citizens are "being criminalized for using a substance that has been known from ancient times to be remarkable safe and useful" (np). Research and subsequent legalization would also make the product safer. It would facilitate the development of filtering systems to remove the unfavorable elements in marijuana (Grinspoon np).
The simple, obvious solution is to conduct scientific studies on marijuana. Time and again the federal government has suppressed attempts at clinical research with marijuana (Conant np). This policy must abandoned so that the questions about marijuana can be definitively answered. There is nothing to lose; the government is just wasting time. And in the mean-time, "the war on marijuana keeps the full fury of the War on Drugs... aimed at the widest segment of the population" (Baum np). Within this population of people are the terminally ill, people who feel and can function better when they use marijuana. These people should be given the opportunity to live their last days without fear of criminalization or imprisonment.
The question of what should be done in the interim period also remains to be answered. Clearly, much of the medical community is calling for the relaxation of laws concerning marijuana. Doctors all over American are putting their licenses in jepoardy by prescribing and recomminding marijuana, despite threats by the federal government. Temporarily relaxing these laws while research is being conducted would easily alleviate the problem. The New England Journal of Medicine recommended that "Research should go on, and while it does, marijuana should be available to all patients who need it to help them undergo treatment for life-threatening illnesses. There is certainly sufficient evidence to reclassify marijuana as a schedule II drug… as long as therapy is safe and has not been proven ineffective, seriously ill patients (and their physicians) should have access" (NORML np). In the past, the FDA has allowed terminally ill people to use drugs that were still under investigation. These people are dying, have nothing to lose and should have the benefit of hope (Stempsy np).
Disclaimer:
I do not claim to be an expert on these matters, this was a paper I wrote in 1999 for a college composition class.
And, in case you're wondering, NO, I'm not a recreational drug user, nor am I a bleeding-heart liberal.
Dr. Grinspoon has spent most of his life researching different aspects of marijuana, its usage and effects on the human body. Over the years he has compiled considerable information on the subject and well-formed opinion. His immersion in the subject, however, has caused skepticism concerning his bias. Some opponents of marijuana legalization have attacked his credibility. Regardless, his expertise in the field is recognized. For example, he has been called to speak before the House Judiciary subcommittee on crime about marijuana. Although Dr. Grinspoon does exhibit a pro- marijuana bias in his argument it is founded upon years of research.
The article "Should Marijuana Be Legalized as Medicine? Yes it is a Beneficial Drug" certainly reflects Dr. Grinspoon's bias. It is a argument focused article divided into sections about the history of marijuana's criminalization, the medical and psychological benefits of the drug, and a discussion of the principals involved in the debate. The article focuses largely on the positive aspects of marijuana, but does briefly address some of the harmful effects of marijuana. It does present some information, but Dr. Grinspoon's argument hinges mostly upon eliciting an emotional response. He rarely refers to research other than his own. Credible scientific research is scarcely referenced, other than on a few sketchy points.
Other sources I accessed made references to Dr. Grinspoon's research. Some of them treated him as a credible and reliable source. On the other hand, others openly attacked his credibility, such as Eric Voth and Steven Forbes. It must be added, though, that their bias is significant and both are prone to irrational argument. None-the-less, from a scientific standpoint they are correct in questioning his credibility. He can not substantiate the claim that marijuana does not have significant side effects. Much of Dr. Grinspoon’s argument is based on countless interviews he has gathered over the years, not research in a laboratory. Additionally, much of his claim rests on his belief that because marijuana has been used for thousands of years, the discovery of an unknown health hazard is highly unlikely. This surely is not an unreasonable argument.
I approach it with skepticism, however, because of his failure to substantiate some of his claims. I have difficulty understanding why in all the years he has spent researching and arguing about it marijuana’s benefits, he has not developed a more convincing argument. Surely he must recognize that the main obstacle to his credibility is his failure to address people’s need for scientific proof. But all in all, despite the article’s bias I found it helpful in my research because it touched on many of the issues, organizations and people involved in the marijuana debate.
