What is your stance on legalizing marijuana? (or any other drug)

[DarkPoet]

Personally I feel that if cigarettes and alcohol are legal, why not marijuana? Marijuana is even used for medicinal purposes, I don't see cigarettes being used in such a way (probably because they cause medical problems not solve them *wink*).

Anyways in life we're all free to pick our own poison, those that really want to smoke marijuana are going to regardless of the laws. The "war on drugs" is costly in a time when we are in a recession, what better to boost our economy than sales of marijuana? Personally I'd never smoke pot but I know quite a few people around me who do/would and would pay decent money for it.

*shrugs*

[SWM]

this is a complex issue for sure. if we can choose alcohol or cigarettes why not cannabis? but then should we also be able to chose heroin, crack, meths, were should the line be drawn? should there even be a line?

my experience tells me that it is not so much the substance that is harmful, it is how the substance is used. the problem that we have with misuse of drugs incluing alcohol and tobacco is the paucity of infromation pertaining to the use and misuse of particular substance.

for example we know that there are benefits to substances such as alcohol and cannabis when used in a controlled manner. what we do not have is enough research backed information in the public domain that pertains to how to use these substance for the greatest benefit with the least amount of harm.

[Kallisti]

Crack, heroin et all are physically addictive though, once you've begun using them there simply isn't a choice anymore.  Marijauna can be addictive, but less so than alcohol.

[liza123]

I agree with Kallisti. Drugs such as marijuana, heroin, etc are addictive and detrimental to health in the shorter run, much more so than alcohol and cigarettes.

[Enigma]

FACEPALM@liza

Marijuana is psychologically addictive, NOT physically addictive.  Unlike cigarettes and alcohol, BOTH of which are physically addictive.  It is also impossible to overdose on marijuana.  Marijuana is one of the safest therapeutic substances in the world.  Many terminally ill patients are arrested and treated like criminals for using the only thing that helps ease their pain. 

Not to mention the massive waste of money wasted in prosecuting marijuana users.  Billions of dollars have been lost on the "war on drugs".  Billions more are wasted arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating non-violent drug offenders.  Because marijuana is kept illegal, it is a lucrative source of income for many violent criminal gangs.  If it were legalized, it would create jobs and generate substantial tax revenue.  Legalization would greatly improve this country. 

[saved]

First of all, I have not been high in 2 decades. As for legalizing it, I feel they should do a 1 yr trial in a place like california in which there is a huge tax on it. If the negatives are minimal, then legalize it according to the wishes of each state

[voodoo scientist]

All drugs should be legalized. By not allowing the members of our species who are too stupid to handle psychoactives to reduce their chances of procreation (i.e. by physical injury or mental deficiency), we are slowing down the progress of all of humanity and reducing overall long-term happiness. Inclusive eugenics is just as bad an idea as exclusive eugenics.

[liza123]

Enigma,


http://www.drugprevent.org.uk/New%20look%20of%20Website/papers_items/is%20cannabis%20addictive.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)

The link on drug prevent raises much doubt to your comments. Read the link from wiki as well for reference. Perhaps, you have proper links to support your comments?

[liza123]

Enigma, read Dark Poet 's post. If it is matter of using it for medicinal purpose, then, bear in mind that medical profession is using all sorts of drugs. But, they are trained doctors who have the knowledge to administer. Dark Poet was asking about legalization from a different perspective. Read her post.

[Enigma]

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/80408/

according to the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine -- which published a multiyear, million-dollar federal study assessing marijuana and health in 1999 -- "millions of Americans have tried marijuana, but most are not regular users [and] few marijuana users become dependent on it." The investigator added, "[A]though [some] marijuana users develop dependence, they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and nicotine), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs."

Fewer than 10 percent of those who try cannabis ever meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of "drug dependence" (based on DSM-III-R criteria). By contrast, the IOM reported that 32 percent of tobacco users, 23 percent of heroin users, 17 percent of cocaine users and 15 percent of alcohol users meet the criteria for "drug dependence."



pot's withdrawal symptoms, when identified, are "mild and subtle" compared with the profound physical syndromes associated with ceasing chronic alcohol use -- which can be fatal -- or those abstinence symptoms associated with daily tobacco use, which are typically severe enough to persuade individuals to reinitiate their drug-taking behavior.

The IOM report further explained, "Under normal cannabis use, the long half-life and slow elimination from the body of THC prevent substantial abstinence symptoms" from occurring. As a result, cannabis' withdrawal symptoms are typically limited to feelings of mild anxiety, irritability, agitation and insomnia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis

A 1998 French governmental report commissioned by Health Secretary of State Bernard Kouchner, and directed by Dr. Pierre-Bernard Roques, classed drugs according to addictiveness and neurotoxicity. It placed heroin, cocaine and alcohol in the most addictive and lethal categories; benzodiazepine, hallucinogens and tobacco in the medium category, and cannabis in the last category. The report stated that "Addiction to cannabis does not involve neurotoxicity such as it was defined in chapter 3 by neuroanatomical, neurochemical and behavioral criteria. Thus, former results suggesting anatomic changes in the brain of chronic cannabis users, measured by tomography, were not confirmed by the accurate modern neuro-imaging techniques. Moreover, morphological impairment of the hippocampus [which plays a part in memory and navigation] of rat after administration of very high doses of THC (Langfield et al., 1988) was not shown (Slikker et al., 1992)." Health Secretary Bernard Kouchner concluded that : "Scientific facts show that, for cannabis, no neurotoxicity is demonstrated, to the contrary of alcohol and cocaine."



THC has an extremely low toxicity and the amount that can enter the body through the consumption of cannabis plants poses no threat of death. In lab animal tests, scientists have had much difficulty administering a dosage of THC that is high enough to be lethal. It also appears that humans cannot die from ingesting too much THC, unless it were introduced into the body intravenously (See also: Intravenous Marijuana Syndrome).[citation needed] Indeed, a 1988 ruling from the United States Department of Justice concluded that "In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity."[13]

Enigma, read Dark Poet 's post. If it is matter of using it for medicinal purpose, then, bear in mind that medical profession is using all sorts of drugs. But, they are trained doctors who have the knowledge to administer. Dark Poet was asking about legalization from a different perspective. Read her post.

What the hell is this babble?  

[Kallisti]

Cannabis is addictive, but so is almost everything, I've read papers on people being addicted to the internet, stealing, video games, sex, alcohol, drugs, and exercising, at least some of those we can probably agree shouldn't be illegal.  The addiction level of marijuana is about on the same par as alcohol (there are ~1600 people a year treated for weed addiction in Maine (just under 1%), and ~8000 treated for alcohol, but alcohol is about 5 times higher in use).

[Kallisti]

The IOM report further explained, "Under normal cannabis use, the long half-life and slow elimination from the body of THC prevent substantial abstinence symptoms" from occurring. As a result, cannabis' withdrawal symptoms are typically limited to feelings of mild anxiety, irritability, agitation and insomnia.

Interesting.  One of the biggest problems with weed is actually its long half life (it can take a month for a heavy user to return to pre use levels of function, part of why I don't use more than a few times a year).  A trade off it seems.

[liza123]

Enigma, it is not babble. It was related to my links in my first post, that marijuana should not be legalised although they are being used. That was the context of Dark Poet 's post. That also refers to your comment about the one of the safest therapeutic substances in the world.

[Kallisti]

Context

"Personally I feel that if cigarettes and alcohol are legal, why not marijuana?"

[liza123]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T63-3YN9F0K-B&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F1995&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_cdi=5019&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1&_refLink=Y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9d32903daa87aba9b04cc48f1dc8edd2
The residual neuropsychological effects of cannabis: the current status of research : Drug Alcohol Depend. 38 (1995) 25–34




References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


Harrison G. Pope, Jr. *a, b, Amanda J. Grubera, b and Deborah Yurgelun-Todda, b

a Biological Psychiatry Laboratory, h4cLeM Hospital, 115 Mill Street, Belmont, MA 02178, USA

b Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA


Received 15 June 1994;  accepted 30 October 1994.  Available online 25 February 2000.

Refers to:  The residual neuropsychological effects of cannabis: the current status of research
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Volume 38, Issue 1, April 1995, Pages 25-34,
Harrison G. Pope Jr., Amanda J. Gruber, Deborah Yurgelun-Todd
 PDF (1084 K) 
Abstract
Evidence for the residual neuropsychological effects of cannabis must first be separated from evidence regarding (i) the acute effects of the drug, (ii) attributes of heavy cannabis users, and (iii) actual psychiatric disorders caused or exacerbated by cannabis. The remaining evidence must then be subdivided into (a) data supporting a ‘drug residue’ effect during the 12–24 h period immediately after acute intoxication and (b) data suggesting a more lasting toxic effect on the central nervous system which persists even after all drug residue has left the system. We reviewed the literature, comparing both ‘drug-administration’ studies in which known amounts of cannabis were administered to volunteers, and ‘naturalistic studies’ in which heavy marijuana users were tested after some period of abstinence. The data support a ‘drug residue’ effect on attention, psychomotor tasks, and short-term memory during the 12–24 h period immediately after cannabis use, but evidence is as yet insufficient to support or refute either a more prolonged ‘drug residue’ effect, or a toxic effect on the central nervous system that persists even after drug residues have left the body. We describe possible study designs to address these latter questions.

Author Keywords: Cannabis; Marijuana; Neuropsychological effects; Residual effects

Article Outline

[liza123]

"Personally I feel that if cigarettes and alcohol are legal, why not marijuana? Marijuana is even used for medicinal purposes, I don't see cigarettes being used in such a way (probably because they cause medical problems not solve them *wink*)" quote from Dark Poet

[liza123]

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/178/2/101
ABSTRACT

Background Increasing prevalence of recreational cannabis use among the young population has stimulated debate on the possible effects of acute and longterm use.

Aims To highlight recent knowledge of mechanisms of action, effects on psychomotor and cognitive performance, and health risks associated with cannabis consumption.

Method A brief review of recent literature on the prevalence of recreational cannabis use, the potency of modern cannabis preparations and the pharmacological actions of cannabis.

Results Cannabinoids derived from herbal cannabis interact with endogenous cannabinoid systems in the body. Actions on specific brain receptors cause dose-related impairments of psychomotor performance with implications for car and train driving, aeroplane piloting and academic performance. Other constituents of cannabis smoke carry respiratory and cardiovascular health risks similar to those of tobacco smoke.

Conclusions Cannabis is not, as widely perceived, a harmless drug but poses risks to the individual and to society.

[liza123]

CANNABIS - INFORMATION

Cannabis information for parliamentary briefings, leaflets and general articles needs to be clearly stated and simple - but with scientific references to source materials. The general public, and young people in particular, have been, and are being, given misinformation, insufficient information or totally incorrect information in many of the leaflets issued by other agencies. Most of these leaflets repeat messages from large organisations such as DrugsScope, (an organisation which was formed from the merging of two other groups ISDD and SCODA) or Connexions.   ISDD had been disseminating out of date information for years yet an offer of help with updating the ISDD information on cannabis by a biology teacher specialising in the subject was refused.

HARMFULNESS OF CANNABIS

Given the known harmfulness of cannabis it would be unethical to try to replicate some of the small scale studies which showed significant harm from the use of the substance, The claim that millions worldwide use cannabis is no reason to ignore the harm which the small studies identify, and there are other quite large scale studies showing different elements of possible harm. In the USA there were 77,000 admissions to hospital emergency rooms in 1998 due to the use of cannabis. In the last year or two more and more psychiatrists and doctors have been publicising the fact that thousands of people are suffering from mental illness due to their use of cannabis. In the National Health Service in Britain there is a ‘yellow card scheme’ where GPs who come across even a few examples of contra-indications to prescribed drugs send in the card to flag up ‘caution'. These cautions are taken very seriously since the widespread prescribing of certain drugs could result in another situation Like thalidomide if not identified early on. This scheme could be adopted to note any physical or mental illness which doctors believe is due to their patient’s use of cannabis. We should take notice of any studies showing harm in so many areas from the use of cannabis. The fact that thousands may use and have no apparent adverse effects is of no consequence - many pharmaceutical drugs are withdrawn from general use when they harm a few - even though they may help many others. Professor Gabriel Nahas writes very eloquently on this very point:
 

The protagonists of the free availability of cannabis who are convinced that this drug does not constitute a serious health hazard will claim that those who wish to ban cannabis must produce convincing reasons before we restrict the individual’s right to choose (Schofield. 1971) - This view is a transposition of a legal concept regarding man’s innocence until proven guilty into the field of medicine, where a different viewpoint prevails in respect to drug usage. indeed, physicians have to take a guarded view of all drugs. which are considered guilty until proven innocent. The state which has the mandate to protect the health of the people, must hold a view similar to that of the physician.
Professor G. Nahas ‘Marijuana - Deceptive Weed’ 1975 Published by Raven Press

It is clear therefore that saying ‘millions use cannabis’  or ‘ I use and it never did me any harm’ is the same as saying that millions drink alcohol and they are not all alcoholics. True. But many are - and the younger they are when they begin to use alcohol the more likely they are to become problem drinkers. Cannabis is no different and more and more research is being published which shows that early onset use of cannabis and other illegal drugs leads to more problematic and chaotic drug use in later life.
 

MILLIONS USE CANNABIS WORLDWIDE

The often quoted figures that millions’ use cannabis world-wide or’ 2 -6 million have used cannabis in the UK - are themselves very misleading. Several years go the figure of 2 million users in the UK was bandied about - now one reads ‘Up to 6 million users’. Firstly, where is the hard evidence? The activity is illegal and therefore difficult to portray accurately. Were they users in their youth and are they now non-users ? Have these users tried the drug once, twice or many times ? Did they use daily, weekly, monthly, three times a year or once every five years? Did they smoke ditchweed, grass, ganja, resin, sinsemilla, skunk or chaw? These questions are important because the very real harms from the use of cannabis will vary from person to person and are dependent upon the age of onset of use, the length of time used, the frequency of use, the type and purity of the drug used, the strength of the drug used. Thus it is not possible to compare a 50 year old intelligent male who has occasionally smoked an 0.5% THC joint at parties - from the age of 18 - perhaps a total of 100 low potency joints in his life, to an unemployed and alienated young man of 18 who started smoking  0.5% THC joints at 13 years of age and was a daily smoker of skunk (15 - 27% THC) by 15 - which could be well over 700 joints in 2 years. The risks to their health, their education, their employment prospects, their family and social life and their relationships with the opposite sex will be very different.
 

IS CANNABIS ADDICTIVE?

There is plenty of research that shows cannabis to be an addictive substance. The following authors have all written affirmatively on the subject of addiction.

One of the single most important reasons why there has been an upsurge in the use of illegal drugs by Western youth is the mistaken belief that marijuana is a ‘soft’ drug. not physically addictive, and mood-altering rather than mind altering. Studies of the characteristics of drugs and patterns of their use and the observations of patients, doctors, teachers and ex-drug users have made it clear how misleading these assumptions have been.
Elaine Walters Marijuana - An Australian Crisis’ 1993

 Cannabis is readily available on the streets. Were it to be legalised the addiction rate would inevitably he greater.  The following quotation concerned narcotics but the point is made that greater availability of drugs leads to greater addiction.
‘The addiction rate to narcotics among the medical profession is estimated to be 30-50 times greater than that of the general population. These statistics suggest that easy availability and the inherent addictive properties of narcotics are important factors…….
Nils Bejerot, ‘Addiction. An Artificially Induced Drive’ published by Charles Thomas. USA

 Like all addictive substances, cannabis is not easy to give up. Some believe that it is more difficult to stop all use of cannabis than it is to stop the use of most other drugs.
A marked and rapid tolerance to most of the physiological and neuropsvchological effects of THC occurs.  Withdrawal symptoms occur after cessation of heavy daily cannabis administration.  As is the case for other drug dependencies, there is no pharmacological cure for cannabis dependency. Therefore, as for treatment of other dependencies,  that of cannabis should employ methods that aim at  abstinence from the drug so as to foster a drug-free life. Long-term cannabis smokers are difficult to treat because of their denial of the progressive and subtle negative effects of their dependency.
Gabriel G. Nahas, MD. Ph.D. D.Sc. ‘A Manual on Drug Dependence’ 1992
published by Essential Medical Information Systems.  Durant. USA
In a study including people who used both cocaine and marijuana, many stated that giving up the use of marijuana was in some ways more difficult than giving up cocaine.
Strategies for breaking marijuana dependence. Zweben & O 1992 (2):165-71
Published in Journal Psychoactive Drugs
Clinically there is no doubt that psychological dependence on marijuana can and does occur. It is the drug of choice of many of the adolescents in our clinic.   … Symptoms of psychological dependence parallel those seen in classic adult-onset alcoholism, and, in fact, such a model seems to serve very well for marijuana dependence. Symptoms such as increasing use to the point of tolerance, solitary use, surreptitious use, symptomatic use, blackouts, personality  change when intoxicated,  inability to control the amount used, preoccupation with use, inappropriate use, and use despite adverse consequences are seen regularly in our adolescent patients… irritability, anorexia, insomnia, and intensive drug seeking  behaviour upon cessation of marijuana use (with) relief of these by return to marijuana use.
…a major clinical issue (is that) many children are referred to paediatricians, child psychiatrists  and other health care workers for problematic behaviours and the child is not recognised as an extensive marijuana user.., because health care personnel often do not inquire about such drug use, or if they do inquire the child will minimize the extent of use.. there  is extensive enabling behaviour , of both an active and passive nature, among school officials, parents and some professionals who deal with children.  There appears to be a need for research and education regarding this behaviour if we are to increase our effectiveness in identifying those individuals whose drug use is problematic and in intervening  as early as possible.

Marijuana and Youth - Clinical Observations on Motivation and Learning. pages 98-99 Robert Niven  M.D.
Published by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. 1982
The prevalence and severity of psychiatric problems and addiction associated with cannabis, has resulted in ‘marijuana-related-dysfunctioning’  being one of the most frequent admission diagnoses in drug treatment facilities.
TheCannabis Connection by Elaine Walters Australia. 1989
Surveys indicate that the percentages of excessive consumers of illegal dependence producing drugs are related to the respective addictive properties of the drugs. Experts have concluded that marijuana addiction frequency,  though not as high as cocaine or heroin,  is far higher than alcohol. Still when someone has become dependent on marijuana the addiction is as severe and difficult to treat.
Ibid
In 1968 the official classification of psychiatric disorders did away with the term addiction, replacing it with dependence… The result of a sudden termination in use of the drug of addiction,  the withdrawal reaction, is well known in the cases of heroin and alcohol. That it occurs with the marijuana discontinuation, to a different degree, is not generallv appreciated.
Bitter Grass - The Cruel Truth About Marijuana by Roy Hanu Hart M.D. Published by Psychoneurologia Press
in Cooperation with the American Academy of Psychiatry &Neurology (AAPN). Kansas.

[liza123]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

One of the single most important reasons why there has been an upsurge in the use of illegal drugs by Western youth is the mistaken belief that marijuana is a ‘soft’ drug. not physically addictive, and mood-altering rather than mind altering. Studies of the characteristics of drugs and patterns of their use and the observations of patients, doctors, teachers and ex-drug users have made it clear how misleading these assumptions have been.
Elaine Walters Marijuana - An Australian Crisis’ 1993

"Marijuana is psychologically addictive, NOT physically addictive"-quote from Enigma. Where is your evidence for this, Enigma?

[liza123]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn734-illegal-medicine.html...
"Personally I feel that if cigarettes and alcohol are legal, why not marijuana? Marijuana is even used for medicinal purposes, I don't see cigarettes being used in such a way (probably because they cause medical problems not solve them *wink*)" quote from Dark Poet

Doctors are allowed to administer marijuana if they feel it is necessary, references can be found in Google Search.  Legalizing this drug like other pharmaceutical drugs is like putting them on the market for access by anyone. That is what I understood from Dark Poet 's post ...unless you are telling me that we use cigarrettes for medicinal purpose as well(Dark Poet made a joke out of this). That why I used the word context.

Reading and understanding would be a good idea

[liza123]

Come to think about it, have you used marijuana or are you using it, Enigma? Is that why you feel so strongly about marijuana legalization?

[Kallisti]

 There are no links between long term mental illness and cannabis.  A recent study (which I'll link as soon as the drug counselor who I use for a source wakes up), showed that marijuana users who quit the habit recovered to normal function after a month, no matter how impaired they were beforehand.

[Enigma]

Jesus H. Christ have you ever heard of the edit post button?

Drugs such as marijuana, heroin, etc are addictive and detrimental to health in the shorter run, much more so than alcohol and cigarettes.

Since you've equated marijuana with heroin and think it's worse than alcohol or cigs then it is clear that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, therefore I'm not even going to attempt to respond to your jumble of ill-contrived posts.

And yes, I do smoke marijuana.  And it's misinformed people like liza that are hampering the legalization effort in this country.  Grow a fucking brain people.

[crash]

I am OK with weed being legalized, but heroin and crack...not so much. I will not bother posting any links because for every link that is Anti-pot, there is a link that is pro-pot. I guess the findings all depend on who is funding the study itself; I have given up hope finding an objective study.

As a personal observation, I think pot is less detrimental to society. You do not often hear of people smoking pot and getting behind the wheel, causing an accident. If anything, they get high and drive at the speed limit or 5mph below. People on pot seldom get high and shoot their mother-in-law over a meatloaf dispute; they usually want to watch The Chapelle Show, eat a pizza, and go to sleep. Alcohol seems to be synonymous with violence; when I think pot, I think Leo from That 70's Show.

Just my .02; I realize other people have other opinions.

[Enigma]

I will not bother posting any links because for every link that is Anti-pot, there is a link that is pro-pot. I guess the findings all depend on who is funding the study itself; I have given up hope finding an objective study.

Too true.



I am totally for decriminalizing LSD and other psychedelics for research and therapy under trained psychologists.  Psychedelic drugs are powerful tools for exploring the mind and have many therapeutic uses.  Stanislav Grof did an experiment in which he administered LSD to terminally ill cancer patients in guided sessions to induce a transcendent spiritual experience.  The experiences cured pain that which drugs, many with ravaging side effects, could not.  Many patients were able to reconcile with confused and distraught family members.  As a result, some patients reported being at peace with death, seeing it as a next great adventure.  More research needs to be done into the therapeutic benefits of psychedelic drugs but is hampered by the current drug laws.  Evidence has shown that MDMA (aka ecstacy) can be used to help treat PTSD.  The psychological uses of these drugs cannot be ignored. 

www.maps.org
The Human Encounter With Death - By Stanislav Grof (pick it up.  only $4)

[liza123]

Jesus H. Christ have you ever heard of the edit post button?

Drugs such as marijuana, heroin, etc are addictive and detrimental to health in the shorter run, much more so than alcohol and cigarettes.

Since you've equated marijuana with heroin and think it's worse than alcohol or cigs then it is clear that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, therefore I'm not even going to attempt to respond to your jumble of ill-contrived posts.

And yes, I do smoke marijuana.  And it's misinformed people like liza that are hampering the legalization effort in this country.  Grow a fucking brain people.

People who are stuck somewhere come out with such comments, using such words

[liza123]

Enigma,

Dark Poet asked for opinions. If you do not agree with my opinion, then, fine! Do not get personal and use such language.

PS- If you are so confident, you should have posted evidence. Instead, you have just agreed to "crash". I only gave my opinion and did not use FACEPALM or any other words as though I was a genius like Einstein. My purpose for posting the abstracts is to prove to you that there is no objective evidence. When I posted the links initially, I do not know if you read the linked articles. The abstract from drugprevent clearly states what "crash" mentioned, there is no obejective evidence for conclusion. The US Supreme Court Judgement in 2001?


PSS- It will only take a few seconds to go down to your level but, I am not going to do so

[crash]

. The US Supreme Court Judgement in 2001?

Unfortunate that the court even got involved, but I can see where the judgement upholding the U.S. Commerce clause applies.

Wait we are talking about the ruling that it could be legalized for medicinal use, but the feds could arrest those with medicinal maryjane as it violated the commerce clause, or am I off here?

[Enigma]

I posted FACEPALM because this quote:

I agree with Kallisti. Drugs such as marijuana, heroin, etc are addictive and detrimental to health in the shorter run, much more so than alcohol and cigarettes.

is flatout untrue and demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of the subject.  Also, this is the internet.  If you can't deal with occasional flaming than I suggest you avoid forums all together.  



Also, since your so concerned about evidence here you go:

Myths About the Harmful Effects of Marijuana

Table of Contents: Further Readings

Reprinted, with permission, from "Marijuana Myths," by Paul Hager, The Libertarian Corner, www.cs.indiana.edu/hyplan/hagerp/drugwar.html, 1996.

Many claims against marijuana are either false or misleading, writes Paul Hager in the following selection. Hager reveals, for example, that the Partnership for a Drug-Free America fabricated evidence that marijuana use flattens brainwaves. Moreover, he asserts, in several studies—such as those that claim marijuana damages the reproductive system—animals were given extremely high doses of the drug, and researchers have not been able to duplicate similar results in human beings. Other claims about marijuana are true, Hager concedes, but he argues that they are often interpreted in misleading ways: For example, although marijuana does impair short-term memory, the effect is not permanent. Hager, who advocates the legalization of marijuana and other drugs, is a software engineer in Indianapolis, Indiana, and an active member of the Libertarian Party.

1. Marijuana causes brain damage.

The most celebrated study that claims to show brain damage is the rhesus monkey study of Dr. Robert Heath, done in the late 1970s. This study was reviewed by a distinguished panel of scientists sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. Their results were published under the title Marijuana and Health in 1982. Heath's work was sharply criticized for its insufficient sample size (only four monkeys), its failure to control experimental bias, and the misidentification of normal monkey brain structure as "damaged." Actual studies of human populations of marijuana users have shown no evidence of brain damage. For example, two studies from 1977, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed no evidence of brain damage in heavy users of marijuana. That same year, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially came out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. That's not the sort of thing you'd expect if the AMA thought marijuana damaged the brain.

2. Marijuana damages the reproductive system.

This claim is based chiefly on the work of Dr. Gabriel Nahas, who experimented with tissue (cells) isolated in petri dishes, and the work of researchers who dosed animals with near-lethal amounts of cannabinoids (i.e., the intoxicating part of marijuana). Nahas' generalizations from his petri dishes to human beings have been rejected by the scientific community as being invalid. In the case of the animal experiments, the animals that survived their ordeal returned to normal within 30 days of the end of the experiment. Studies of actual human populations have failed to demonstrate that marijuana adversely affects the reproductive system.

3. Marijuana is a "gateway" drug—it leads to hard drugs.

This is one of the more persistent myths. A real world example of what happens when marijuana is readily available can be found in Holland. The Dutch partially legalized marijuana in the 1970s. Since then, hard drug use—heroin and cocaine—have declined substantially. If marijuana really were a gateway drug, one would have expected use of hard drugs to have gone up, not down. This apparent "negative gateway" effect has also been observed in the United States. Studies done in the early 1970s showed a negative correlation between use of marijuana and use of alcohol. A 1993 Rand Corporation study that compared drug use in states that had decriminalized marijuana versus those that had not, found that where marijuana was more available—the states that had decriminalized—hard drug abuse as measured by emergency room episodes decreased. In short, what science and actual experience tell us is that marijuana tends to substitute for the much more dangerous hard drugs like alcohol, cocaine, and heroin.

4. Marijuana suppresses the immune system.

Like the studies claiming to show damage to the reproductive system, this myth is based on studies where animals were given extremely high—in many cases, near-lethal—doses of cannabinoids. These results have never been duplicated in human beings.

5. Marijuana is much more dangerous than tobacco.

Smoked marijuana contains about the same amount of carcinogens as does an equivalent amount of tobacco. It should be remembered, however, that a heavy tobacco smoker consumes much more tobacco than a heavy marijuana smoker consumes marijuana. This is because smoked tobacco, with a 90% addiction rate, is the most addictive of all drugs while marijuana is less addictive than caffeine. Two other factors are important. The first is that paraphernalia laws directed against marijuana users make it difficult to smoke safely. These laws make water pipes and bongs, which filter some of the carcinogens out of the smoke, illegal and, hence, unavailable. The second is that, if marijuana were legal, it would be more economical to have cannabis drinks like bhang (a traditional drink in the Middle East) or tea which are totally non-carcinogenic. This is in stark contrast with "smokeless" tobacco products like snuff which can cause cancer of the mouth and throat. When all of these facts are taken together, it can be clearly seen that the reverse is true: marijuana is much safer than tobacco.

6. Legal marijuana would cause carnage on the highways.

Although marijuana, when used to intoxication, does impair performance in a manner similar to alcohol, actual studies of the effect of marijuana on the automobile accident rate suggest that it poses less of a hazard than alcohol. When a random sample of fatal accident victims was studied, it was initially found that marijuana was associated with relatively as many accidents as alcohol. In other words, the number of accident victims intoxicated on marijuana relative to the number of marijuana users in society gave a ratio similar to that for accident victims intoxicated on alcohol relative to the total number of alcohol users. However, a closer examination of the victims revealed that around 85% of the people intoxicated on marijuana were also intoxicated on alcohol. For people only intoxicated on marijuana, the rate was much lower than for alcohol alone. This finding has been supported by other research using completely different methods. For example, an economic analysis of the effects of decriminalization on marijuana usage found that states that had reduced penalties for marijuana possession experienced a rise in marijuana use and a decline in alcohol use with the result that fatal highway accidents decreased. This would suggest that, far from causing "carnage," legal marijuana might actually save lives.

7. Marijuana "flattens" human brainwaves.

This is an out-and-out lie perpetrated by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. A few years ago, they ran a TV ad that purported to show, first, a normal human brainwave, and second, a flat brainwave from a 14-year-old "on marijuana." When researchers called up the TV networks to complain about this commercial, the Partnership had to pull it from the air. It seems that the Partnership faked the flat "marijuana brainwave." In reality, marijuana has the effect of slightly increasing alpha wave activity. Alpha waves are associated with meditative and relaxed states which are, in turn, often associated with human creativity.

8. Marijuana is more potent today than in the past.

This myth is the result of bad data. The researchers who made the claim of increased potency used as their baseline the THC content of marijuana seized by police in the early 1970s. Poor storage of this marijuana in unair-conditioned evidence rooms caused it to deteriorate and decline in potency before any chemical assay was performed. Contemporaneous, independent assays of unseized "street" marijuana from the early 1970s showed a potency equivalent to that of modern "street" marijuana. Actually, the most potent form of this drug that was generally available was sold legally in the 1920s and 1930s by the pharmaceutical company Smith-Klein under the name "American Cannabis."

9. Marijuana impairs short-term memory.

This is true but misleading. Any impairment of short-term memory disappears when one is no longer under the influence of marijuana. Often, the short-term memory effect is paired with a reference to Dr. Heath's poor rhesus monkeys to imply that the condition is permanent.

10. Marijuana lingers in the body like DDT.

This is also true but misleading. Cannabinoids are fat soluble as are innumerable nutrients and, yes, some poisons like DDT. For example, the essential nutrient, Vitamin A, is fat soluble but one never hears people who favor marijuana prohibition making this comparison.

11. There are over a thousand chemicals in marijuana smoke.

Again, true but misleading. The 31 August 1990 issue of the magazine Science notes that of the over 800 volatile chemicals present in roasted coffee, only 21 have actually been tested on animals and 16 of these cause cancer in rodents. Yet, coffee remains legal and is generally considered fairly safe.

12. No one has ever died of a marijuana overdose.

This is true. It was put in to see if you are paying attention. Animal tests have revealed that extremely high doses of cannabinoids are needed to have lethal effect. This has led scientists to conclude that the ratio of the amount of cannabinoids necessary to get a person intoxicated (i.e., stoned) relative to the amount necessary to kill them is 1 to 40,000. In other words, to overdose, you would have to consume 40,000 times as much marijuana as you needed to get stoned. In contrast, the ratio for alcohol varies between 1 to 4 and 1 to 10. It is easy to see how upwards of 5000 people die from alcohol overdoses every year and no one ever dies of marijuana overdoses.

FURTHER READINGS

Books

    * Dan Baum. Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure. Boston: Little, Brown, 1996.
    * Alan W. Bock. Waiting to Inhale: The Politics of Medical Marijuana. Santa Ana, CA: Seven Locks Press, 2000.
    * Dirk Chase Eldredge. Ending the War on Drugs. Bridgehampton, NY: Bridge Works, 1998.
    * Mark S. Gold. Marijuana. New York: Plenum, 1989.
    * Mike Gray. Drug Crazy: How We Got into This Mess and How We Can Get Out. New York: Random House, 1998.
    * Lester Grinspoon and James B. Bakalar. Marijuana, The Forbidden Medicine. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993.
    * Herbert Hendin, et al. Living High: Daily Marijuana Use Among Adults. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1987.
    * Jack Herer. Hemp and the Marijuana Conspiracy: The Emperor Wears No Clothes. Van Nuys, CA: Hemp Pub., 1995.
    * Leslie L. Iversen. The Science of Marijuana. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
    * Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson Jr., and John A. Benson Jr., eds. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.
    * Mark Kleiman. Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989.
    * Mary Lynn Mathre, ed. Cannabis in Medical Practice: A Legal, Historical and Pharmacological Overview of the Therapeutic Use of Marijuana. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1997.
    * National Institute on Drug Abuse. Marijuana: Facts Parents Need to Know. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1998.
    * Robert Randall and Alice O'Leary. Marijuana Rx: The Patient's Fight for Medicinal Pot. New York: Thunders Mouth Press, 1998.
    * Ed Rosenthal. Why Marijuana Should Be Legal. New York: Thunders Mouth Press, 1996.
    * Larry Sloman. Reefer Madness: The History of Marijuana in America. New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 1998.
    * Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Tips for Teens: The Truth About Marijuana. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, 2000.
    * Lynn Zimmer and John P. Morgan. Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence. New York: Lindesmith Center, 1997.


Periodicals

    * Nurith C. Aizenmann. "Smoked Out," New Republic, September 30, 1998.
    * George Annas. "Reefer Madness: The Federal Response to California's Medical Marijuana Law," New England Journal of Medicine, June 1997. Available from Massachusetts Medical Society, 860 Winter St., Waltham, MA 02451-1413.
    * Richard Brookhiser. "Lost in the Weed," U.S. News & World Report, January 13, 1997.
    * Jeffrey DeSimone. "Is Marijuana a Gateway Drug?" Eastern Economic Journal, Spring 1998. Available from the Department of Economics, Iona College, New Rochelle, NY 10801-1890.
    * Ben Dickinson. "What If Weed Is Exactly What You Need?" Esquire, October 1997.
    * Robert Dreyfuss. "Another Victory for Medical Marijuana," Rolling Stone, May 13, 1999.
    * Kathleen Fackelmann. "Marijuana on Trial: Is Marijuana a Dangerous Drug or a Valuable Medicine?" Science News, March 22, 1997.
    * Sarah Ferguson. "The Battle for Medical Marijuana," Nation, January 6, 1997.
    * Erika Fortgang. "Is Pot Bad for You? Six Questions Answered," Rolling Stone, March 4, 1999.
    * Wayne Hall and Nadia Solowij. "Adverse Effects of Cannabis," Lancet, November 14, 1998. Available from the Lancet Publishing Group, 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010, or at www.thelancet.com/journal/vol352/iss9140/contents.
    * Richard B. Heyman and Rina M. Anglin. "Marijuana: A Continuing Concern for Pediatricians," Pediatrics, October 1999. Available from American Academy of Pediatricians, PO Box 927, Elk Grove, IL 60009-0927.
    * John R. Hubbard and Sharone E. Franco. "Marijuana: Medical Implications," American Family Physician, December 1999. Available from 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211-2672.
    * Phil Jenkins. "Field of Opportunity," Canadian Geographic, March/April 1999.
    * J.P. Kassier. "Federal Foolishness and Marijuana," New England Journal of Medicine, June 1997.
    * J. Maira. "Marijuana: The Public Wants to Drag the Camel into the Tent," Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly, February 10, 1997. Available from Manisses Communications Group, 208 Governor St., Providence, RI 02906.
    * Brian Preston. "Vancouver's Pot Experiment," Rolling Stone, April 2, 1998.
    * Wayne J. Roques. "Medical Marijuana: Compassion or Cruelty?" Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly, November 17, 1997.
    * Ryan H. Sager. "Grass Roots: The Progress of Medical Marijuana," National Review, November 8, 1999.
    * Craig Savoye. "Move to Legalize Hemp Grows in Heartland," Christian Science Monitor, February 13, 2001.
    * Chef Scerra and Keith Green. "Marijuana: An Ineffective Way to Control Glaucoma," Ophthalmology Times, January 15, 1999. Available from Advanstar Communications, 7500 Old Oak Blvd., Cleveland, OH 44130.
    * Eric Schlosser. "The Politics of Pot: A Government in Denial," Rolling Stone, March 4, 1999.
    * Charles R. Schwenk. "Marijuana and Job Performance: Comparing the Major Streams of Research," Journal of Drug Issues, Fall 1998. Available from Florida State University, School of Criminology, and Criminal Justice, Journal of Drug Issues, PO Box 66696, Tallahassee, FL 32313-6696.
    * Donna E. Shalala. "Say 'No' to Legalization of Marijuana," Wall Street Journal, August 18, 1995.
    * Steve Sussman and Alan W. Stacy. "Marijuana Use: Current Issues and New Research Directions," Journal of Drug Issues, Fall 1996.
    * Andrew Peyton Thomas. "Marijuana and Mea Culpas," American Enterprise, May/June 1997.


Sources

    * 1. Marijuana and Health, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, 1982. Note: the Committee on Substance Abuse and Habitual Behavior of the Marijuana and Health study had its part of the final report suppressed when it reviewed the evidence and recommended that possession of small amounts of marijuana should no longer be a crime (Time magazine, July 19, 1982). The two JAMA studies are: Co, B.T., Goodwin, D.W., Gado, M., Mikhael, M., and Hill, S.Y.: "Absence of cerebral atrophy in chronic cannabis users", JAMA, 237:1229-1230, 1977; and, Kuehnle, J., Mendelson, J.H., Davis, K.R., and New, P.F.J.: "Computed tomographic examination of heart marijuana smokers", JAMA, 237:1231-1232, 1977.
    * 2. See Marijuana and Health, ibid., for information on this research. See also, Marijuana Reconsidered (1978) by Dr. Lester Grinspoon.
    * 3. The Dutch experience is written up in "The Economics of Legalizing Drugs", by Richard J. Dennis, The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 266, no. 5, Nov. 1990, p. 130. See "A Comparison of Marijuana Users and Non-users" by Norman Zinberg and Andrew Well (1971) for the negative correlation between use of marijuana and use of alcohol. The 1993 Rand Corporation study is "The Effect of Marijuana Decriminalization on Hospital Emergency Room Episodes: 1975-1978" by Karyn E. Model.
    * 4. See a review of studies and their methodology in "Marijuana and Immunity", Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, vol. 20(1), Jan.-Mar. 1988.
    * 5. The 90% figure comes from Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction, Surgeon General's Report, 1988. In Health magazine in an article entitled, "Hooked, Not Hooked" by Deborah Franklin (pp. 39-52), compares the addictives of various drugs and ranks marijuana below coffeine. For current information on cannabis drinks see Working Men and Ganja: Marijuana Use in Rural Jamaica by M.C. Dreher, Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1982, ISBN 0-89727-025-8. For information on cannabis and actual cancer risk, see Marijuana and Health, ibid.
    * 6. For a survey of studies relating to cannabis and highway accidents see "Marijuana, Driving and Accident Safety", by Dale Gieringer, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, ibid. The effect of decriminalization on highway accidents is analyzed in "Do Youths Substitute Alcohol and Marijuana? Some Econometric Evidence" by Frank J. Chaloupka and Adit Laixuthai, Nov. 1992, University of Illinois at Chicago.
    * 7. For information about the Partnership ad, see Jack Herer's book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes, 1990, p. 74. See also "Hard Sell in the Drug War", The Nation, March 9, 1992, by Cynthia Cotts, which reveals that the Partnership receives a large percentage of its advertizing budget from alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies and is thus disposed toward exaggerating the risks of marijuana while downplaying the risks of legal drugs. For information on memory and the alpha brainwave enhancement effect, see "Marijuana, Memory, and Perception", by R.L. Dornbush, M.D., M. Fink, M.D., and A.M. Freedman, M.D., presented at the 124th annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, May 3-7, 1971.
    * 8. See "Cannabis 1988, Old Drug New Dangers, The Potency Question" by Tod H Mikuriya, M.D. and Michael Aldrich, Ph.D., Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, ibid.
    * 9. See Marijuana and Health, ibid. Also see "Marijuana, Memory, and Perception", ibid.
    * 10. The fat solubility of cannabinoids and certain vitamins is well known. See Marijuana and Health, ibid. For some information on vitamin A, see "The A Team" in Scientific American, vol. 264, no. 2, February 1991, p. 16.
    * 11. See "Too Many Rodent Carcinogens: Mitogenesis Increases Mutagenesis", Bruce N. Ames and Lois Swirsky Gold, Science, vol. 249, 31 August 1990, p. 971.
    * 12. Cannabis and alcohol toxicity is compared in Marijuana Reconsidered, ibid., p. 227. Yearly alcohol overdoses was taken from "Drug Prohibition in the United States: Costs, Consequences, and Alternatives" by Ethan A. Nadelmann, Science, vol. 245, 1 September 1989, p. 943.

Medical Marijuana Should Be Legalized

Table of Contents: Further Readings

Marijuana Policy Project, “Medical Marijuana Briefing Paper—2005,” www.mpp.org, 2005. Copyright © 2005 by the Marijuana Policy Project. Reproduced by permission.

        "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known."

    According to the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) in the viewpoint that follows, marijuana could help ease the suffering of millions of Americans if it were legalized. Although cannabis can safely relieve the symptoms of many ailments, the organization asserts, the U.S. government refuses to recognize its medical potential and continues to classify it as an addictive, dangerous drug. MPP, which educates Americans about marijuana legislation and lobbies to decriminalize marijuana, maintains that the majority of Americans supports legalizing cannabis for medicinal purposes.

As you read, consider the following questions:

   1. How can marijuana benefit multiple sclerosis patients, in the MPP's contention?
   2. In the author's opinion, what two discoveries resulted from the surge in recreational marijuana use in the 1970s?
   3. According to the MPP, what were the findings of the CNN/Time poll published in 2002?

For thousands of years, marijuana has been used to treat a wide variety of ailments. Until 1937, marijuana (Cannabis sativa L.) was legal in the United States for all purposes. Presently, federal law allows only seven Americans to use marijuana as a medicine.

On March 17, 1999, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that "there are some limited circumstances in which we recommend smoking marijuana for medical uses." The IOM report, the result of two years of research that was funded by the White House drug policy office, analyzed all existing data on marijuana's therapeutic uses. Please see http://www.mpp.org/science.html.

Marijuana is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known. No one has ever died from an overdose, and it has a wide variety of therapeutic applications, including:

    * Relief from nausea and appetite loss;
    * Reduction of intraocular (within the eye) pressure;
    * Reduction of muscle spasms; and
    * Relief from chronic pain.

Marijuana is frequently beneficial in the treatment of the following conditions:

    * AIDS. Marijuana can reduce the nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite caused by the ailment itself and by various AIDS medications.
    * Glaucoma. Marijuana can reduce intraocular pressure, alleviating the pain and slowing—and sometimes stopping—damage to the eyes. (Glaucoma is the leading cause of blindness in the United States. It damages vision by increasing eye pressure over time.)
    * Cancer. Marijuana can stimulate the appetite and alleviate nausea and vomiting, which are common side effects of chemotherapy treatment.
    * Multiple Sclerosis. Marijuana can limit the muscle pain and spasticity caused by the disease, as well as relieving tremor and unsteadiness of gait. (Multiple sclerosis is the leading cause of neurological disability among young and middle-aged adults in the United States.)
    * Epilepsy. Marijuana can prevent epileptic seizures in some patients.
    * Chronic Pain. Marijuana can alleviate the chronic, often debilitating pain caused by myriad disorders and injuries.

Each of these applications has been deemed legitimate by at least one court, legislature, and/or government agency in the United States.

Many patients also report that marijuana is useful for treating arthritis, migraine, menstrual cramps, alcohol and opiate addiction, and depression and other debilitating mood disorders.

Marijuana could be helpful for millions of patients in the United States. Nevertheless, other than for the seven people with special permission from the federal government, medical marijuana remains illegal under federal law!

People currently suffering from any of the conditions mentioned above, for whom the legal medical options have proven unsafe or ineffective, have two options:

   1. Continue to suffer without effective treatment; or
   2. Illegally obtain marijuana—and risk suffering consequences directly related to its illegality, such as:
   3.
          * an insufficient supply due to the prohibition-inflated price or scarcity;
          * impure, contaminated, or chemically adulterated marijuana;
          * arrest, fines, court costs, property forfeiture, incarceration, probation, and criminal records.

Marijuana Prohibition
Prior to 1937, at least 27 medicines containing marijuana were legally available in the United States. Many were made by well-known pharmaceutical firms that still exist today, such as Squibb (now Bristol-Myers Squibb) and Eli Lilly. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 federally prohibited marijuana. Dr. William C. Woodward of the American Medical Association opposed the Act, testifying that prohibition would ultimately prevent the medicinal uses of marijuana.The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 placed all illicit and prescription drugs into five "schedules" (categories). Marijuana was placed in Schedule I, defining it as having a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.This definition simply does not apply to marijuana. Of course, at the time of the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana had been prohibited for more than three decades. Its medicinal uses forgotten, marijuana was considered a dangerous and addictive narcotic.A substantial increase in the number of recreational users in the 1970s contributed to the rediscovery of marijuana's medicinal uses:

    * Many scientists studied the health effects of marijuana and inadvertently discovered marijuana's medicinal uses in the process.
    * Many who used marijuana recreationally also suffered from diseases for which marijuana is beneficial. By accident, they discovered its therapeutic value.

As the word spread, more and more patients started self-medicating with marijuana. However, marijuana's Schedule I status bars doctors from prescribing it and severely curtails research.

In 1972, a petition was submitted to the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs—now the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—to reschedule marijuana to make it available by prescription.

After 16 years of court battles, the DEA's chief administrative law judge, Francis L. Young, ruled:

    "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known....

    "... The provisions of the [Controlled Substances] Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II.

    "It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance...." (September 6, 1988)

Marijuana's placement in Schedule II would enable doctors to prescribe it to their patients. But top DEA bureaucrats rejected Judge Young's ruling and refused to reschedule marijuana. Two appeals later, petitioners experienced their first defeat in the 22-year-old lawsuit. On February 18, 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) ruled that the DEA is allowed to reject its judge's ruling and set its own criteria—enabling the DEA to keep marijuana in Schedule I.

However, Congress has the power to resehedule marijuana via legislation, regardless of the DEA's wishes.

Temporary Compassion

In 1975, Robert Randall, who suffered from glaucoma, was arrested for cultivating his own marijuana. He won his case by using the "medical necessity defense," forcing the government to find a way to provide him with his medicine. As a result, the Investigational New Drug (IND) compassionate access program was established, enabling some patients to receive marijuana from the government.

The program was grossly inadequate at helping the potentially millions of people who need medical marijuana. Many patients would never consider the idea that an illegal drug might be their best medicine, and most who were fortunate enough to discover marijuana's medicinal value did not discover the IND program. Those who did often could not find doctors willing to take on the program's arduous, bureaucratic requirements.

In 1992, in response to a flood of new applications from AIDS patients, the George H.W. Bush administration closed the program to new applicants, and pleas to reopen it were ignored by subsequent administrations. The IND program remains in operation only for the seven surviving, previously-approved patients.

Support for Legalizing Medical Marijuana Is Strong

There is wide support for ending the prohibition of medical marijuana among both the public and the medical community:

    * Since 1996, a majority of voters in Alaska, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington state have voted in favor of ballot initiatives to remove criminal penalties for seriously ill people who grow or possess medical marijuana. Polls have shown that public approval of these laws has increased since they went into effect.
    * A CNN/Time poll published November 4, 2002, found that 80% of Americans believe that "adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if their doctor prescribes it...." Over the last decade, polls have consistently shown between 60% and 80% support for legal access to medical marijuana. Both a statewide Alabama poll commissioned by the Mobile Register, published in July 2004, and a November 2004 Scripps Howard Texas poll reported 75% support.
    * Organizations supporting some form of physician-supervised access to medical marijuana include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, and many others.
    * A 1990 scientific survey of oncologists (cancer specialists) found that 54% of those with an opinion favored the controlled medical availability of marijuana and 44% had already suggested at least once that a patient obtain marijuana illegally.


FURTHER READINGS

Books

    * Joan Bello The Benefits of Marijuana: Physical, Psychological, and Spiritual. Boca Raton, FL: Lifeservices Press, 2001.
    * Alan Bock Waiting to Inhale: The Politics of Medical Marijuana. Santa Ana, CA: Seven Locks Press, 2000.
    * Mitch Earleywine Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at Scientific Evidence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2002.
    * M.A. ElSohly and S.A. Ross Quarterly Report: Potency Monitoring Project. Oxford: University of Mississippi, November 2004.
    * Jon Gettman and the NORML Foundation United States Marijuana Arrests. Part Two. Racial Differences in Drug Arrests. Washington, DC: National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, 2000.
    * Mike Gray Busted: Stone Cowboys, Narco-Lords, and Washington's War on Drugs. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press/Nation Books, 2002.
    * Lester Grinspoon and James B. Bakalar Marijuana, the Forbidden Medicine. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997.
    * Jalil Guillermo Street-Wise Drug Prevention: A Realistic Approach to Prevent and Intervene in Adolescent Drug Use. Reading, PA: No More Drugs, 1996.
    * ImpacTeen Illicit Drug Team Illicit Drug Policies: Selected Laws from the Fifty States. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 2002.
    * Leslie L. Iversen The Science of Marijuana. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
    * Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson Jr, and John A. Benson Jr, eds. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.
    * Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times, and Places. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
    * Marijuana Anonymous Life with Hope: A Return to Living Through the Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions of Marijuana Anonymous. Van Nuys, CA: A New Leaf, 1995.
    * George McMahon and Christopher Largen Prescription Pot: A Leading Advocate's Heroic Battle to Legalize Medical Marijuana. Far Hills, NJ: New Horizon Press, 2003.
    * National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University Non-Medical Marijuana II: Rite of Passage or Russian Roulette. New York: Columbia University, April 2004.
    * Office of National Drug Control Policy The Challenge in Higher Education: Confronting and Reducing Substance Abuse on Campus. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2004.
    * Office of National Drug Control Policy National Drug Control Strategy Update, 2003. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2003.
    * Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Jamie F. Chriqui, and Joanna King Marijuana Decriminalization: What Does It Mean in the United States? Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2004.
    * RoperASW Partnership Attitude Tracking Study, 2003: Teens Study: Survey of Teens' Attitudes and Behaviors Toward Marijuana. New York: Partnership for a Drug-Free America, 2003.
    * Ed Rosenthal and William Logan Ask Ed's Marijuana Law: Don't Get Busted. Oakland, CA: Quick American, 2000.
    * Sue Rusche A Guide to the Drug Legalization Movement and How YOU Can Stop It! Atlanta: National Families in Action, 1997.
    * Eric Schlosser Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003.
    * Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Tips for Teens: The Truth About Marijuana. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, 2000.
    * Jacob Sullum Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use. Los Angeles: Tarcher/Putnam, May 2003.
    * Westat and Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania Evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: 2003 Report of Findings. Rockville, MD: Westat, December 22, 2003.
    * Lynn Zimmer and John Morgan Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence. New York: Lindesmith Center, 1997.


Periodicals

    * Andrea Barthwell "A Haze of Misinformation Clouds Issue of Medical Marijuana," Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2003.
    * Nancy Bellingham "Is Mary Jane Really Bad?" Canadian Speeches, July 2001.
    * Brandeis University "Recent Ballot Measures Indicate Need to Legalize Marijuana," America's Intelligence Wire, November 12, 2002.
    * Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America "'Medical' Marijuana." www.cadca.org.
    * Cynthia Cotts "Marijuana Made Easy," Nation, September 20, 1999.
    * Drug Enforcement Administration "Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization." www.dea.gov.
    * Jerry Estes "Drug Legalization and the Rest of the Story," County of Santa Barbara District Attorney, 2002. www.countyofsb.org.
    * Lancet "Deglamorising Cannabis," November 11, 1995.
    * Marijuana Policy Project "Medical Marijuana Briefing Paper," 2003. www.mpp.org.
    * Robert Mathias "Novel Cannabinoid Appears Promising for Treatment of Chronic Pain," NIDA Notes, July 2004. www.nida.nih.gov.
    * Jenny Messmer "High Times Rising"? B-Cause, Indiana University, Bloomington, Spring 2004. www.journalism.indiana.edu.
    * Ethan A. Nadelmann "The Future of an Illusion: On the Drug War Believe Your Own Eyes," National Review, September 14, 2004.
    * Amanda L. Stevens "Legalizing Marijuana Allows Police to Focus on Violent Crimes," Raw Story. www.rawstory.com.
    * Jacob Sullum "Ernest Money," Reason, February 20, 2004.
    * John P. Walters "Marijuana Today: Setting the Record Straight," SF Gate, September 1, 2002.

Aside from the health aspects of marijuana, does it not concern you that we have wasted billions of dollars fighting this war on drugs and are incarcerating millions of nonviolet drug offenders?

[Wolf_22]

I agree with Kallisti. Drugs such as marijuana, heroin, etc are addictive and detrimental to health in the shorter run, much more so than alcohol and cigarettes.

I'd disagree that marijuana is more harmful than alcohol.

but do we decide the law by what is mentally or physically healthy?
in that case we'd outlaw certian foods or portions, all drugs (including caffine), and even dangerous sports (how many times do we see people who play contact sports end up with brain damage?)

we don't enforce good health in the law.
and a mjaor part of counseling is choice - is telling your clients they have to control their lives and make good choices. even within psychology we use options as a basis for how people run their lives.