something to think about. but more importantly, something i wrote 6 years ago that will make it look like i’m activly writing all this stuff. if you dont like it then its working.

PolySci 100.07
April 10, 1998

The Medical Utility of Marijuana
The Declaration of Independence states that Americans are, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” For people suffering from disease and chronic disorders, marijuana may hold the key to their pursuit of a life absent of chronic pain. Chronic pain which inhibits these people’s Life and Pursuit of Happiness. Currently marijuana is a Schedule I substance that is federally illegal to dispense or manufacture. What this does, in effect, is put a limit on some peoples ‘unalienable’ right pursue a life void of chronic pain. In the United States, where all men are created equal, how can we selectively choose to limit the life and prolong the suffering of those in pain? Marijuana should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule II and at the very least be available to those in pain for which marijuana has been proven to remedy. Marijuana is a cost effective and relatively safe medicinal substance.

The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, also know as the Controlled Substances Act, set up a standard way in which to classify drugs (Drugs, Society, and Human Behavior, p 68). A series of five Schedules were created. For a substance to be classified as a Schedule I drug it must meet three requirements: one, it has a high potential for abuse; two, there is no current acceptable medical use in treatment in the United States; and three, there is a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Some examples of drugs currently in Schedule I include heroin, LSD and marijuana. Schedule II drugs are classified as; one, possessing a high potential for abuse; two, has current accepted medical use; and three, abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. Examples of some Schedule II drugs include morphine, injectable methamphetamines and cocaine. The remaining three schedules pertain mainly to different classes of prescription drugs. It is interesting to note that cocaine is a Schedule II drug whereas marijuana is Schedule I. The fight to move marijuana to a prescribable Schedule II is contingent upon several factors. Abuse is possible for all drugs, thus abuse is not a factor in moving marijuana to Schedule II. Safety and medicinal purposes are the factors that the FDA must address to reevaluate marijuana.

The debate over marijuana’s medicinal value is a heated one. Many studies have been done and marijuana has been found to have many noteworthy medicinal purposes. Medical uses include relief of muscle spasms of multiple sclerosis and cerebral palsy plus the relief of pressure in the eye for patients with glaucoma (Dean, Malcolm: Lancet, Vol. 346 (8977) Sept 16 1995 p 761Recreational and Medicinal Cannabis Wars). There have been other studies that suggest that cannabis can help in the treatment of glaucoma and asthma and that during chemotherapy it can prevent nausea and vomiting (Muder, Ganapati: BMJ Vol. 313(7054) Aug 17, 1996 p 384 Doctors Call for Law Change on Cannabis). In 1988 the DEA’s own administrative law judge, Francis L. Young, declared that marijuana in its natural form fulfilled the legal requirement of currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. He added that is was “one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” His order that marijuana be transferred to schedule II was overruled, not by any medical authority, but by the DEA itself, which issued a final rejection of all plead for reclassification in March 1992 (In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, Docket 86-22 Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of Administrative Law Judge. Washington, D.C.: Drug Enforcement Administration, Sep 6, 1988).

Some would argue that these benefits are not outweighing to the dangers of decriminalizing marijuana. Such opponents to marijuana’s decriminalization content that it is an addictive, harmful drug. These opponents are wrong, especially if they smoke cigarettes. In contrast to marijuana, cigarette tobacco has no proven medicinal effects whatsoever, is as addictive as cocaine and heroine (The Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: US Dept of Health and Human Services: 1988:15 US Dept of Health and Human Services publication CDC 88-8406), is Subsidized with tax dollars, and costs the US an estimated $100 billion dollars in health care expenditures and lost productivity (Mackenzie TD, Bartecchi CE, Schrier RW; The Human Cost of Tobacco Use. N Engl. J Med. 1994: 330: 975-980). It seems ironic that nicotine, which is used by millions, is used legally and has absolutely no medical benefits whereas marijuana can potentially be used to help the people who suffer from the ailments listed above and is legal.

In regards to addiction and dependence let us first look at cigarettes. The federal government has recently demanded that tobacco companies admit that for years they have known that nicotine was addictive. Any smoker can tell you this, although some may be reluctant to admit to their addiction. Marijuana on the other hand is much less addictive that nicotine. Cannabis is a frequently used “social drug” in which physical dependence is rarely associated. (Benson, Malcolm K.: Thorax Vol. 50(11) Nov. 1995 pp1125-27). Cannabis has the capacity to produce habituation, but its potential to cause dependence is much lower than substances like opiods, alcohol, and nicotine (Muder, Ganapati: BMJ Vol. 313(7054) Aug 17, 1996 p 384 Doctors Call for Law Change on Cannabis). Some argue that marijuana is a poison to the human body. However, the toxicity of marijuana is very low. A smoker would theoretically have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette, nearly 1500 pounds within about 15 minutes to induce a lethal response (Annas, George J.: N Engl. J Med. Vol. 336(6) Aug 7, 1997: Reefer Madness – The Federal Response to California’s Medical-Marijuana Law). It is safe to say that the decriminalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes is not going to result in an increase in overdose cases. Alcohol, cocaine, heroin/morphine, codeine, valium, methadone and Tylenol (with alcohol) all kill more people and are responsible from more emergency room visits than marijuana. The fact that the mixture of alcohol and Tylenol, both of which are available over the counter, kills more people that marijuana shows just how misinformed people are on marijuana and its effects.

California and Arizona took initiative in 1996 when Proposition 215 and 200, respectively, were passed with flying colors. They passed 56% to 44% in California and 65% to 35% in Arizona (Voelker, Rebecca: JAMA Vol. 276(22) Dec. 11, 1996 New Marijuana Laws Passes in 2 States Prompt Caution). California’s Medical Marijuana Initiative (Prop 215) states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes. Existing California law relating to the possession of marijuana and the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, of to a patient’s primary caregiver who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purpose of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician (California Code Sec. 11362.5 1996).

This law was passed to help in the treatment of pain. For some, marijuana is the only known remedy for them. Now sufferers of AIDS, MS, glaucoma and other ailments can, in the states of California and Arizona, legally used marijuana, or can they? Janet Reno announced that physicians who followed the terms of the California law would be the new targets of federal law enforcement (instead of drug dealers) and threatened physicians with loss of their registrations with the DEA and with exclusion from participation in Medicare and Medicaid. (Annas, George J.: N Engl. J Med. Vol. 336(6) Aug 7, 1997: Reefer Madness – the Federal Response to California’s Medical-Marijuana Law). This is cold-hearted of the federal government and unconstitutional of people’s right to life. It is a waste of federal resources to go after innocent doctors that are executing what they know best, giving proper information to their patients regarding treatments which include marijuana. The constitutional right of free speech should guarantee physicians the ability to recommend what’s best for patients, based on their clinical decision-making skills (Voelker, Rebecca: JAMA Vol. 276(22) Dec 11, 1996 New Marijuana Laws in 2 States Prompt Caution). A federal policy that prohibits physicians from alleviating suffering by prescribing marijuana for seriously ill patients is misguided, heavy-handed, and inhumane. (Kassirer, Jerome P.: N Engl. J Med. Vol. 226(5) Jan 30, 1997 p 366-67 Federal Foolishness and Marijuana).

Marijuana is also economical when it comes to treating chronic pain and ailments. For example, the cost of other effective appetite stimulants and antiemetics in excess of $200 per month per patient with nausea and/or anorexia, marijuana would likely would constitute a relative cost saving to patients and families dealing with financial burden of terminal care (Lowenthal, Elizabeth A.: JAMA Vol. 274(23) Dec 20, 1995 p1837). If decriminalized, as in California, those that have been granted by their doctors, could grow marijuana for themselves at relatively no cost. This comes to quite a savings when one looks at Medicare and Medicaid. In effect, it would lessen the burden on future generations to pay for the elderly and sick that could be treated for no cost at home.

There is some controversy over whether marijuana is a ‘gateway’ drug. A gateway drug is a drug that leads you into more physically and psychologically dependant drugs such as cocaine and heroine. Studies show that only one of 6 marijuana smokers has tried cocaine. So while marijuana may cause some people to try cocaine and other elicit drugs, the number is not a significant factor (Annas, George J.: N Engl. J Med. Vol. 336(6) Aug 7, 1997: Reefer Madness – the Federal Response to California’s Medical-Marijuana Law).

With all of the positive studies there have also been a fair share of studies that have shown that marijuana can be detrimental to one’s health. Specifically these studies focus on the development of schizophrenia. It has been shown that chronic use of marijuana for three to five years regularly will greatly increase the chance of developing schizophrenia. It is true that in excess almost all drugs can be harmful, even Vitamin E can kill you. Some studies my have errors built into them. There are methodological difficulties in examining the links between cannabis misuse and psychosis, principally: (i) diagnostic (whether a separate cannabis psychosis exists); (ii) confounding through undiagnosed use of other substances; and (iii) whether the link found represents cause or merely association. One can therefore argue that an association between psychosis and cannabis use represents no more than a comment on stresses and social milieu in which patients with severe mental illness find themselves (McEvedy Christopher: Lancet, Vol. 346(8991-8992) Dec 23, 1995 p 1709). It is difficult to show that schizophrenia is caused by marijuana or if it is just associated with many people who are schizo. Proper test must be used to determine the exact association and many tests fail to correctly measure these associations. Until these tests can be carried out in a more controlled manner, the results are to be received with skepticism.

In a country were the government’s job is to protect it’s citizens, the United States has failed to provide for its citizens. Marijuana use and dispension is currently a federal crime. The Federal government chooses not to recognize that marijuana does in fact have medicinal uses from glaucoma to nausea, that marijuana is less addictive than other legal products on the market, that it is virtually non-lethal, and that it has economic advantages to current products on the market. This abridges the rights of its citizens. Some states have elected to recognize these facts and have legalized marijuana for medical purposes. These states, California and Arizona, are now being put under scrutiny by the federal government. It is incorrect of the Fed to penalize the medical progress that these states have recognized. Marijuana should be moved to Schedule II and be legal for prescription and home cultivation for those that have a doctors prescription. In failing to do this, the federal government is effecting all the people who could benefit from marijuana’s uses with unnecessary pain.

Bibliography
Annas, George J. “Reefer Madness – The Federal Response to California’s Medical-Marijuana Law” N Engl J Med Vol. 336(6) Aug 7, 1997: 435-439.

Benson, Malcolm K. “Lung Disease Induced by Drug Interaction” Thorax Vol. 50(11) Nov 1995: 125-27.

California Code Sec. 11362.5 1996.

Dean, Malcolm. “Recreational and Medicinal Cannabis Wars” Lancet Vol. 346(8977) Sept 16, 1995: 761.

The Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: US Dept of Health and Human Services: 1988:15 US Dept of Health and Human Services publication CDC 88-8406.

In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, Docket 86-22 “Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of Administrative Law Judge” Washington, D.C.: Drug Enforcement Administration, Sep 6, 1988.

Kassirer, Jerome P. “Federal Foolishness and Marijuana” N Engl J Med Vol. 226(5) Jan 30, 1997: 366-67.

Lowenthal, Elizabeth A. “Marijuana as Medicine” JAMA Vol. 274(23) Dec 20, 1995. 1837.

Mackenzie TD, Bartecchi CE, Schrier RW. “The Human Cost of Tobacco Use” N Engl J Med Vol. 330 1994: 975-980.

McEvedy Christopher: Lancet Vol. 346(8991-8992) Dec 23, 1995: 1709.

Muder, Ganapati. “Doctors Call for Law Change on Cannabis” BMJ Vol. 313(7054) Aug 17, 1996: 384.

Ray, Oakley. Drugs, Society, and Human Behavior. New York, Mosby, 1996.

Voelker, Rebecca. “New Marijuana Laws in 2 States Prompt Caution” JAMA Vol. 276(22) Dec 11, 1996: 1786-88.

Share/Save