The discussion about marijuana has been in the public limelight for a long time. For many years, the drug has been under one of the prohibited with users and suppliers prosecuted for this offense. However, recent research has changed the perception of most Americans towards the drug. Keeping the drug as illegal does not help in reducing its usage, as deliveries happen in the black market. Research indicates that marijuana is helpful in the treatment of some conditions such as brain tumors and reduces the symptoms of seizures. These medical uses mean that use of marijuana for legal purposes should be legalized, which is also partly supported by the many states that have legalized it. This paper will address the various uses of marijuana in the medical scene as well as the other advantages of legalizing the use of medical marijuana. The counter arguments of those against its legalization will be useful in making the case complete.
Ethical Dilemma
According to Mark, Hansen and Rees (2013), the key issue arising from the use of medical marijuana stems from the question whether there is any possibility of its benefits exceeding its known risks. In the U.S. today, the discussion about medical marijuana has in many ways transcended the social divide with people from all walks of life chipping in with different viewpoints and ideas. Hill (2015) contends that the solution for the question whether marijuana should be used for medical purposes is founded on the balance between the potential benefits of using marijuana for medical purposes and the potential risks that accrue to recommending it to patients. In addition to this, the question whether it can be safely recommended to patients without the usual protections is also a point of contention (Hill, 2015). There are numerous benefits that accrue to the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes and for this reason, it should be legalized for medical use. On the other hand, whether it should be used for recreational purposes is another matter altogether that should be discussed objectively by all stakeholders involved.
The term “medical marijuana” alludes to the use cannabis in the health industry. The debate about the use of marijuana in any circumstances stems from the fact that smoking or using any drugs leave, alone marijuana, is considered to be antisocial for that individual who do not smoke. Granted, the abuse of drugs is unacceptable because of the dire consequences that arise as a result of such behavior (Cerda et al. 2012). Marijuana is no different from these other drugs and abusing it usually carries with its disastrous outcomes. When abused, it yields undesirable results both for the individuals that use it. However, of late, there have been developments in the medical field that point to other beneficial aspects of marijuana (Mark, 2013). These developments point towards characteristics about marijuana that are useful in the medical field. To this effect, heated debates have come about regarding whether marijuana should be legalized for use in the medical scene or not. There is a multitude of arguments as to why marijuana should not be legalized under any circumstances despite the significant financial and human costs of keeping marijuana illegal.
Under federal law, cannabis remains an illegal drug and is listed by the CSA as a "Schedule One" unlawful drug. Despite this fact, the current administration has adopted an approach christened "non-enforcement approach" in states that have ratified laws that legalize the use of marijuana. Consequently, the United States Department of Justice issued guidance in 2013 directing that federal prosecutors should not utilize their limited resources prosecuting personal marijuana use (Mark, Hanse " Rees, 2013). This directive was to be observed mostly in areas where marijuana use is legal under state law. This directive was reiterated in 2014 by The Justice Department.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) shields qualified people with disability from being discriminated against in their places of work. In addition to this, it also requires that employers take affirmative action in accommodating individuals with a disability (Mark, Hansen " Rees, 2013). The Act, however, contains an apparent omission for people who currently engaged in the unlawful substance use. Even though an individual might be suffering from an ailment that can be categorized as a disability, the legal requirement about exception potentially leaves out individually who are perceived to be engaged in illegal substance use (Clark, 2000). However, as discussed below, the law is not settled on the query as to whether individuals using cannabis for medical purposes under state law might be exempted from protection under the ADA.
The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (DFWA) creates a provision which gives companies holding government contracts an obligation to bar the usage, circulation, or production of illegal substances in the workplace (Khatapoush et al., 2004). This Act also requires employers covered to avail drug counseling services and also advise employees who are convicted of drug related offenses in the workplace, they shall be subjected to rehabilitation programs.
As of today, despite the fact that medical cannabis laws have been passed in around 40 states in the United States, under federal law it is still classified as a banned substance (Anderson et al., 2013). The federal government is empowered under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to enforce regulations on drugs as needed. The CSA does not account for the medicinal and leisure use of cannabis. The laws mentioned above affect individuals found in possession, cultivate, and distribute large quantities of marijuana. The seriousness attached to the use of cannabis is very profound, and the provisions of the federal law are grave and excessive punishment is preferred for individuals found to have contravened these laws.
Several government institutions have issued guidelines and other policy memoranda in a bid to cope with the conundrum brought about by differences between federal and state laws. The Department of Justice as indicated above makes it clear that it is no longer a priority to prosecute state legal medical marijuana cases (Cerda et al. 2012). It highlighted the specific guidelines that are to be used by prosecutors in determining the enforcement priorities as pre-determined by the federal government. Luckily, most regulations affecting marijuana programs are dependent on these guidelines.
Many states have accepted the medical value that lays in marijuana and thus, have either approved legislation or embraced them through other processes. Many states have assumed responsibility for the welfare and healthy well-being of their constituents and have pioneered the implementation of medical marijuana laws, and the numerous protagonists of the enactment of this rule are fighting for the states' capability to pass and enforce laws that they have created on their accord regardless of the federal law (Hill, 2015).
In 2014 and 2015, a ceasefire on the national opposition on medical marijuana was called. During this time, Congress gave approval to a budgetary adjustment which prevented the Justice Department from using the money to prevent the states from instituting medical cannabis laws (Anderson, Hansen " Rees, 2013). This amendment can also be referred as the Rohrabacher-Farr or CJS bill and was enacted into law for the first time in 2014 and again in 2015 (Hill, 2015). The amendment does not only curtail direct intrusion on state implementation by the federal government, but it also aims at ending federal raids on medical marijuana, arrests, prosecutions and even civil forfeiture suits and providing present-day medical marijuana prisoners a way to petition for their release.
The battle for the ratification of the use of cannabis for marijuana for medical purposes has of late been gaining momentum with the recognition by the federal courts as seen in the case of the United States versus Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana (Cerda et al. 2012). In a ruling made in October 2015, San Francisco's Federal Court Judge Breyer gave a decision in which he stated that prosecutions of medical marijuana, the defendants ought to be in line with the CJS amendment (Cerda et al. 2012). In this case, the ruling delivered barred the Justice Department from imposing injunctions against Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana (MAMM) as long as MAMM operates in adherence to state California law.
As a Schedule 1 substance along with other more potent drugs, many anti-marijuana groups cite this as another reason marijuana should not be legalized (Khatapoush " Hallfors, 2004). Drugs in this category are known to have the latency for abuse, do not meet the safety standards for use under the supervision of a health practitioner, and cannot be used for treatment of ailments in the United States from a legal perspective. Despite all these arguments objecting the legalization of marijuana for use in the medical field, there remains numerous proponents who have endorsed the legalization of marijuana in the different states (Clark, 2000). The proponents of the need to legalize the use of marijuana give numerous reasons as to why this should be the case. Some of these reasons include:
The most prominent campaign about cannabis legalization in the United States focuses primarily on the use of the drug for medical purposes. Medical marijuana should be legal as it helps in the management of a host of illnesses such as muscle spasms caused by multiple sclerosis, cancer because it relieves nausea during chemotherapy, limit the spread of some of cancer tumors and seizure disorders (Anderson, Hansen " Rees, 2013). Marijuana increases appetite in patients having severe weight loss especially those suffering from HIV/AIDS, and nerve pain (Cerdá et al., 2012). Research has also shown marijuana to be a better alternative to prescription painkillers, the reason being it is less addictive. Studies have also shown that cannabis can be used in the treatment of autoimmune diseases such as arthritis because it is an extremely effective painkiller as compared to other prescription drugs.
Opponents of the War on Drugs advocate for the fractional or whole decriminalization of cannabis and combining this with a framework of regulations as is the case with drugs such as alcoholic drinks and medication drugs. The protagonists of this idea argue that by providing clean supplies of medicines classified as illegal the prices will fall which by extension will lead to a collapse of the illicit drug industry (Cerda et al. 2012). Therefore, crime levels perpetrated by both drug suppliers and users will be reduced. Some even hypothesize that in a market that is stringently controlled, the rate of drug use may reduce by curtailing the operations of cartels and drug dealers in the country (Hill, 2015).
Another reason that has been put forth by the proponents of marijuana legalization is that placing injunctions on it has significant social costs (Khatapoush " Hallfors, 2004). The dire outcomes of banning cannabis in all forms ranges from misused resources to damaged lives. This is evidences by the amount of manpower and resources law enforcement dedicates to arresting, and processing individuals found in possession of cannabis regardless of what it was meant for. The sad thing about this is that majority of these individuals arrested are otherwise law-abiding citizens. Those who are most unfortunate in the many crackdowns spearheaded by the police end up spending many years behind bars for petty offences like possession which is in cases meant for private use (Anderson, Hansen " Rees, 2013). The ripple effects of these arrests can go beyond having to appear in court. Most people arrested for possession most often than not end up suffering despite not going to jail. The reason for this is that a possession charge on their public record affects their chances of landing jobs, acquiring loans, and other benefits. Such a scenario leads to conditions of unemployment and underemployment which negatively affect the economy.
In conclusion, activists pushing for the legalization of marijuana also argue that marijuana enforcement is characteristically biased. They propose that no matter the justifications put forward when arrests are made for simple marijuana possession, black Americans, Mexicans, and Hispanics are more often than not the common offenders. The reason for this is that they are four times more probable to be apprehended for possession unlike the majority of the white population (Clark, 2000). This is an anomaly given that both the blacks and whites both use marijuana at similar rates. This is evident in majority states, even in the most progressive ones such as Oregon where black citizens are more likely to be arrested for low-level cannabis charges. From the discussion above, it is evident that the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes should take precedence owing to the fact that there are more benefits than risks that accrue to its legalization.
References
Cerdá, M., Wall, M., Keyes, K. M., Galea, S., " Hasin, D. (2012). Medical marijuana laws in 50 state: investigating the relationship between state legalization of medical marijuana and marijuana use, abuse and dependence. Drug and alcohol dependence, 120(1), 22-27.
Clark, P. A. (2000). The ethics of medical marijuana: Government restrictions vs. medical necessity. Journal of Public Health Policy, 40-60.
Hill, K. P. (2015). Medical marijuana for treatment of chronic pain and other medical and psychiatric problems: a clinical review. Jama, 313(24), 2474-2483.
Khatapoush, S., " Hallfors, D. (2004). “Sending the wrong message”: did medical marijuana legalization in California change attitudes about and use of marijuana?. Journal of Anderson, D. M., Hansen, B., " Rees, D. I. (2013). Medical marijuana laws, traffic fatalities, and alcohol consumption. Journal of Law and Economics, 56(2), Drug Issues, 34(4), 751-770.
Mark Anderson, D., Hansen, B., " Rees, D. I. (2013). Medical marijuana laws, traffic fatalities, and alcohol consumption. The Journal of Law and Economics, 56(2), 333-369.
