Medical MariguanaJoin now to read essay Medical MariguanaThe use of medical marijuana has been a controversial issue in the United States for a large part of the last decade. In 1994 a bill was passed through both houses in California which would allow the medicinal use of marijuana in critically ill patients; however the bill was vetoed by Governor Wilson. The following year a similar bill was created which protected both the patient and the doctor whom prescribed the marijuana therapy, but again Wilson axed the bill when it landed on his desk. The supporters of medicinal marijuana changed their approach. The 1996 ballot contained Initiative Prop 215 which passed, leaving Wilson with his hands tied. Despite wide federal disapproval prop 215 has helped thousands of severally ill people face their dieses and comfort them in a time of agony and despair.
The marijuana plant has been used for thousands of years for a multiple of purposes. Hemp was used for making ropes, paper, clothing and curing or improving several different aliments. At first it was used to ease nausea and vomiting but as time passed scientists discovered more applications for its unique effect. Its most common use is in the treatment of chemotherapy patients. An average chemotherapy patient will return home feeling violently ill and have a severely suppressed appetite. Marijuana is the most effective drug at making the nausea disappear and at bring back ones appetite. Its the same situation with people who suffer from HIV or AIDS. Marijuana allows the person to ingest food which contains the vitamins and minerals that will ultimately help them heal or in an HIV/AIDS case prolong their current health status. In people that suffer from Glaucoma, marijuana lowers the unbearable pressure that mounts in their eyes. Marijuana helps to relieve brain tumors and prevents any further loss of muscle coordination in Multiple Sclerosis patients along with temporarily relieving of urinary incontinence and helping them sleep more efficiently. Marijuana also helps with inflammation and prevents the destruction of joint tissue in arthritis patients. Migraine headaches, menstrual cramps and rare cases of phantom limb pain are all made more tolerable with the proper use of marijuana. There are five main therapeutic uses for marijuana: 1 analgesia (pain killer), 2 neuralgic / 3 movement disorders (MS and epilepsy), 4 Nausea/ vomiting (associated with chemotherapy), and 5 appetite stimulation (chemotherapy patients, anorexia and AIDS). These five therapeutic uses of marijuana were the foundation of prop 215.
Throughout California a doctor may recommend the usage of marijuana to a patient when there is no possible substitute and it will greatly improve the quality of the patient’s life by easing the suffering. The patient, the doctor and the primary caregiver are exempt form laws pertaining to the recommendation, use, cultivation and possession of marijuana. Proposition 215 is left fairly vague and undefined which has caused the government and the opponents to question the validity and motives behind prop 215.
“Cancer, anorexia, aids, chronic pain, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine or any illness for which marijuana provides relief” this is just one statement out of prop 215 that denotes elusiveness and leaves it open to different interpretations. One could assumedly ask a doctor for a marijuana prescription for his back pain or tooth ache and by definition it falls under “any illness”. Ambiguities are prevalent throughout prop 215; it uses word like physician and caregiver. It does not define a physician as one who holds a degree in medicine which leaves the door open for chiropractors and practitioners to be able to prescribe marijuana. This vagueness is clearly what gets prop 215 in trouble. It is questioned with great suspicion if the supporters meant to leave so many loop holes in their “quest” to provide the sick medical marijuana.
The reaction of the Clinton administration after prop 215 passed stated that prop 215 would not change the governments stance on drug policies. While Barry McCaffrey, appointed drug czar, warned that the federal government would prosecute patients using medicinal marijuana along with the physicians who recommending its use. The government took a strong position against prop 215 basing it on the rational that marijuana is addictive and a gateway to other drugs such as heroin and cocaine. It is theorized that the government took this stance not because they believed medicinal marijuana doesnt have value but on grounds of looking “soft” on drugs which makes them look week and a target for criticism. The supporters of prop 215
and the supporters of the policy positions are always against medical marijuana, and the public at large, are as open as the press and their detractors. The policy positions on Prop 215 reflect a “long-standing, principled belief” with many in the cannabis community “that if there is a medical need for these drugs and there is only one legitimate treatment, then that need should be seen as genuine.” This stance is clearly contradicted by facts which are of little value for our own health: when the government’s position is adopted by the U.S. Congress (i.e., that medical marijuana should not be used in medical contexts), the public can and should view the decision as a political one, even if it would not be public policy.
Cannabis is so commonly used and regulated that it is not considered a “drug” in the sense that it would have a medical value with no potential for abuse.
Proponents of medical marijuana in this country have a very different view of what should and should not be seen as a legitimate use of marijuana, because they have very different views on the efficacy and the risks of cannabis use. For example, marijuana use is a serious public health threat. There is not a clear scientific evidence for cannabis use, but it is certainly addictive, and the effects can occur quickly. For medical marijuana use to be considered a legitimate use of marijuana would have the potential to disrupt the clinical, scientific and philosophical research on marijuana use, or possibly lead to serious medical harm.
The current attitude of the federal government around marijuana legalization is based on the notion that medical marijuana should not receive federal funding and therefore not be part of federal drug policy at all. The current position of the federal government on medical marijuana is based on the notion that these drugs have significant health risks, but that it is more important than that to look for new treatments or to treat the problems they have created so that there is a need for alternatives. Proposed medical marijuana will not be part of the federal budget, nor will it be used for drugs which are legal in California, Massachusetts or New York. It should be left up to the states to decide what they do with this pot, and if any of them want to treat the problem, it is up for them to decide whether to act, and to decide how much they want them to pay. The DEA will take the best interest of the public interest with it, and it may help those state governments which already have been involved in medical marijuana to take action that protect the public safety and the money they have invested financially to treat this dangerous drug once and for all.
It is important to note that there is nothing about the pot that is criminal or unethical to begin with. I have stated that pot has a “substantial danger” of harming both healthy humans and the general public. We have not discovered any “medical marijuana is for use by children” statements. We have never found drug use to be harmful. We have never done any research on