ok this is somthing I have been on the fence about and realy want some appinions on the subjuct let me start by saying I live with cronic back pain my lower lumbar is prety much fused itself as one piece so has my neck and I have two prutruding disks in the middle of my back I also have a bad hip and I also have some more minner injuries from the past that act up once in awhile ok ok so here is what I have been thinking about its medical marijuana it is not legal here in Ohio and I also have a bad histery from when I was teen but I have been checking up on it and the pills dont work and when I evengoto the hospital the dr. are asking are you sure you dont self medicate like its what I am supost to do well here is some stuff on it please let me know I dont ever want to be referd to as a stonner or anything like that .That is one reason none of you will ever see me get drunk even I like my minde but if done in small enough amonts it can help with the pain and not like make me loopy not as much as these pills any way please leave a comment about what you think if you know me or not
Should Ohio Law Allow Medical Marijuana Usage?
By Elvis Conti
Should Ohio law allow medical marijuana usage? There are numerous arguments on both sides of this issue. Both sides develop their arguments with legitimate facts and support their positions with evidence. There is also many opinions and emotional weight to their respective positions on this very controversial subject, however it is necessary for the purpose of this assignment to do much weeding out of the opinions and emotions. The ethical issues will be determined, the stake holders will be identified, and the moral dimensions of this issue will be stated. It is this writer's goal to make a conclusion that is based on solid principles from a theistic worldview by way of a deontological ethical theory.
Here is a hypothetical scenario: Tom is a Christian Ohioan who is married and has three kids. He is a paraprofessional in the field of social services. He is a law-biding citizen who lives a clean and healthy lifestyle. Tom's father Jon has cancer of the liver, and needs to under go chemotherapy. The treatment has harsh side effects of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, excruciating body aches, and loss of appetite. The physician prescribes a medicine that helps a little bit with the pain and the nausea, but it he still doesn't have much appetite and not enough strength to move about at home. The medication is expensive, and Jon is not a rich man. The insurance provider puts limits on way they will actually pay for.
Jon, in his younger days, had experimented with marijuana before the days of the War on Drugs. It was illegal to smoke marijuana but it was not strictly enforced. Some of Jon's friends cared enough about Jon to put themselves at risk to give him a small but adequate supply of marijuana to smoke to help him with his pain. Not only was Jon's pain relieved, but he regained his appetite and was able to keep his food down. His strength quickly returned, and after a couple of weeks, Jon was able to do household chores, and even mow the lawn.
This remarkable recovery has Tom looking at the pro-side of the issue of medical marijuana. Tom also has friends, family, associates, and clients who suffer from various physical and mental illnesses such as fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, migraine headaches, depression, eating disorders, and alcoholism.
After doing some research, Tom discovers that marijuana had been used by legitimate medical professionals to treat these illnesses either in the past before marijuana prohibition, or in other states or countries where the law allows it. Eleven other states in the U.S. and all of Canada have passed laws that allow for the medical use of marijuana since 1996. However, in California, one of the legal states, the Federal DEA arrested patients and suppliers of the medical marijuana.
This seemed absurd to Tom. If there is solid medical evidence that supports the effectiveness of this plant as a medicine, why would the Federal Government attack people who were legally using it? Tom had some concerns about his father smoking marijuana illegally, but he was happy to see him feeling so much better. The risk that Jon was taking by breaking the law was outweighed by the need for good medicine. If marijuana is the best medicine for these symptoms, it seemed right for the government of Ohio to allow it to be prescribed by the physicians.
Does Tom feel strongly enough about this issue to join a lobbyist group? That remains to be seen. Tom is on the fence now, because it would be risky as a social worker to support such a controversial cause. He does not think that his employer, his church, or his family will understand, and it may negatively affect his relationships with these people.
When faced with such difficult problems, Tom thinks it is wise to read the Bible. He uses his student Bible appendix of topic reference to find anything about plants, herbs, or drugs. He finds, in Genesis 1:29 "Then God said "I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth, and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be for your food.""
There is an extensive supply of published about this topic. There is literature supporting both sides of the issue. From researching these articles, books, and essays, it is easy to recognize that many individuals and groups who have many different worldviews and ethical theories feel strongly enough about this issue to work very hard in order to support and defend their position. Indeed, people of all walks of life and many different careers, lifestyles, cultures, and social roles are stakeholders in the progress of the history of medical marijuana usage. For example, there are as stakeholders all people involved in medicine and the progress of the institution; doctors, patients, families of these people, the medical associations, the pharmaceutical industry, and perhaps even insurance industry. Other stakeholders include judges, the federal government, state governments, and even farmers. The experiences and actions of all of these individuals affect the facts that can support or break down the platforms on any side of the debate, whether pro, con, or neutral.
An individual who experiences a real world problem that is directly related to this issue may be challenged to evaluate these arguments with his or her own principles contained in this one's world view. If it he or she is required to take action or make a life choice in a circumstance that is directly related to this issue, he or she becomes a committed stakeholder. This person can choose to support the pro or the con.
At he center of the debate is that many people believe that doctors should be able to prescribe marijuana to a patient who needs it, and that the law should allow it. Then, there are people who believe that it is against the law because it is harmful to people and that nobody should be allowed to use marijuana for anything.
To answer the original question "Should Ohio law allow medical marijuana usage?" one must gather the facts. On the "yes" side of the argument, here are some examples:
11 US States (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) and Canada have passed laws that allow the use of medical marijuana. Some of these states allow the patients to grow it themselves (ProCon).
In the past, cannabis had been used as an analgesic (agent that soothes or relieves pain)-hypnotic, topical anesthetic (agent that deadens sensation), antiasthmatic, antibiotic (agent that stops or destroys the growth of germs), antiepileptic (stops seizures) and antispasmodic (stops cramps and spasms), antidepressant and tranquilizer, antitussive ( relieves coughing), appetite stimulant, oxytocic (facilitates childbirth), preventative and anodyne (pain reliever) for neuralgia (including migraine, aid to psychotherapy, and agent to aid withdrawal from alcohol and opiates (Lust).
Marijuana is a safe non-toxic medicine presently used to treat Alzheimer's disease, Anorexia, AIDS, Arthritis, Cachexia, Cancer, Crohn's Disease, Epilepsy, Glaucoma, HIV, Migraine, Multiple Sclerosis, Nausea, Pain, Spasticity, and Wasting Syndrome, and may be used for many others (ProCon).
Marijuana is much cheaper, safer and more effective than many other FDA approved drugs prescribed for the same treatments.
Marijuana can be grown just about anywhere that a tomato plant can be grown, indoors or outdoors.
On the "no" side of the argument, here are some examples:
Under U.S. law, the Controlled Substances Act states that marijuana is a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has no currently acceptable medical use for treatment in the U.S. and that it has a high potential for abuse.
The FDA has not approved a new drug application for marijuana use.
Recreational use of marijuana by some may lead to experimentation with harder drugs (DFAF).
Some people think that frequent smoking of marijuana may be bad for one's lungs.
The short term effects of marijuana use include: memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor skills, decrease in muscle strength, increased heart rate, and anxiety (USDOJ).
Marijuana affects many skills required for safe driving: alertness, the ability to concentrate, coordination, and reaction time. These effects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and signs on the road (USDOJ).
Those who say "yes" believe that it is ethical for people who are suffering with diseases to be allowed to have the medicine that is the safest, most effective, and least expensive. They believe that it is ethical for doctors to prescribe marijuana if it is the best thing for the patient. They believe that it is unethical for the government to not allow it. Those who say "no" believe that marijuana should remain illegal because it might be dangerous. They believe that it will cause more people to abuse the drug. They believe that the government knows best about what drugs are safe. They believe that people who use marijuana are criminals.
In Ohio, it is not presently legal for a doctor to prescribe marijuana to a cancer patient, nor is it legal for the patient to buy it. It is a misdemeanor offense to buy small amounts. It is a felony to grow it or sell it (MPP). What is more ethical: the judgment of medical professionals who have taken an oath to do no harm, or the law makers who have taken an oath to serve and protect society from danger? Before one can answer this, other questions arise. If doctors and patients in 11 states accept the medical value of marijuana, why would others not? If there is no difference in the suffering of patients in Ohio than that in Alaska, and there is no deficit in the professional training of physicians in California, then is there an error in judgment by the doctors in the in legal states? Is there really that much difference of political philosophies in Rhode Island and Ohio? Are the doctors and patients in legal states criminals because their laws are inconsistent with that of the United States Constitution? The answer to this last question is "yes". The DEA has arrested people in California who supplied patients with marijuana and the patients themselves!
...Angel Raich, a 40-year-old mother of two from Oakland who suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments. She uses marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster her appetite.
"She'd probably be dead without marijuana," said her doctor, Frank Lucido, who has recommended marijuana for some 3,000 patients. "Nothing else works." The Bush administration says the lawsuit is without merit (Kravets).
Is it ethical to arrest and incarcerate a cancer patient for buying medicine? It does not seem so.
What principles have a bearing on the case? Even for the deontological theist, there are principles that may be in conflict. In the Acts of the Apostles, Christ instructed them to heal the sick. God wants people to give comfort to each other. On the other hand, he wants Christians to be good citizens who respect the law. However, slavery was lawful in ancient Rome and in the early history of the United States. Christians made a stand against the laws of the United States and helped abolish slavery; even though slavery was lawful in the Old Testament (King Solomon used slaves to build the temple of Jerusalem!). Concerning the dangers of the abuse of marijuana; prohibition has not stopped it. It is speculation to believe that the legalization of medical use will increase the illicit abuse of the substance. It is possible that it would decrease.
"While it is not possible with existing data to determine conclusively that state medical marijuana laws caused the documented declines in adolescent marijuana use, the overwhelming downward trend strongly suggests that the effect of state medical marijuana laws on teen marijuana use has been either neutral or positive, discouraging youthful experimentation with the drug."(Earlywine).
The theist values justice. Is it fair that marijuana is illegal as a medicine for sick people? Is justice served if a patient is arrested for using marijuana? How about natural law? If marijuana is a naturally growing non-toxic plant that one could grow in his or her own flower garden, shouldn't he or she be able to use it as seems fitting? Digitalis is an important medicine for heart problems, but it is not prohibited to grow foxglove in a flower garden in Ohio, even though it is toxic and an overdose can kill a man. Concerning Tom's discovery of the Genesis verse about the free use of plants; The Bible does not rescind the command that mankind is not to use any plant on the face of the earth. One might argue that it was before the Fall, and that the ground was cursed because of sin. But, we do not stop eating raspberries because the canes bear thorns. Would the argument be the same for poison ivy? If poison ivy was the cure for the common cold, not only would every one grow it in their garden, but they would change the name to wonderful ivy. Or, perhaps the FDA would not approve it for medical use because it is not patented by a huge pharmaceutical corporation.
There are other circumstances connected to marijuana prohibition that do not seem just or ethical. It seems that marijuana was made illegal not so much because of its alleged dangerous potential as a drug, but for the interests of industrial greed and prejudicial intolerance of immigrants. In North America, cannabis hemp was used for making rope, canvas, paper, and as a treatment for various ailments. Nevertheless, in 1937 Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act which restricted its use; the law was passed as a result of a media campaign that portrayed marijuana users as "dope fiends" and, as conflict theorists note, was enacted at a time of growing sentiment against Mexican immigrants (Mooney).
Also, it seems unjust that the FDA's refusal to approve marijuana is not based on real evidence, but on pressure from the pharmaceutical companies who can not gain from the use of raw marijuana. Since it is an herb that can not be patented, and it is effective as it is, they would only gain from derivatives that are developed in laboratories. That is why Marinol, a cannabinoid drug derivative of marijuana, is FDA approved. The problem is that Marinol is very expensive for the consumer and not nearly as effective as whole marijuana. Indeed, it is so effective that the industry may lose money on the decreased sales of inferior drugs that compete with plain old Mary Jane.
Philosophically and ethically, the people who would say "yes" have the stronger argument. The "no" side bases too much on superstition, fear, speculation, prejudice, and in general have a lack of solid evidence. Ohio law should allow the use of medical marijuana, and so should all states. There is no good reason that an herb should be prohibited for use by medical doctors for the treatment of any ailment, disease, or symptom if it is safe and it works. Corporate greed is not a good reason. The argument that it may be abused is full of holes. FDA approved diet pills are abused, as are countless others. The abuse of any substance is wrong, but prohibition does not stop it. Perhaps the drug is potentially dangerous, so is Tylenol, but the users of these substances are responsible to use it and store it safely. It should not be legal for a marijuana user to operate a motor vehicle, but it is not safe for someone who took a dose of Nyquil to drive either for exactly the same reasons.
What should a concerned citizen of Ohio do someone like Tom who has a loved one who is suffering? There are options: he or she could write a letter to a congressman, join an activist group, or find some other way to support the cause of medical marijuana legislation. However, the loved one could die in pain waiting for the bill to pass. He could move his loved one to Vermont or Hawaii, but Ohio is his home and he would have to give up so much. Even so, the DEA would still be able to bust him. He could just let him take the risk. But what about all of the other people who are suffering without a treatment for their illness? The woman with fibromyalgia who is suffering because the doctors have no treatment settles for less. She takes drugs like morphine or dilaudid that are addictive and have nauseating side effects. The consequence for allowing the loved one to break the law is a murmur in one's conscience and some concern for their safety. Turning him in is not an option. Moving is too expensive and risky. Finding a legal medicine is possible, but unlikely. Chances are they have tried everything else. It would be just settling for less, that is more suffering.
The concerned citizen of Ohio must stick to his or her principles. It seems that there is no way for the compassionate soul to not be trouble by the suffering of a loved one. He cannot turn away, but he can keep a secret. There is no law against that, nor is it a sin. He can give what comfort he can legally, and pray that God will send more. In the meantime, for those who say yes to the legalization of marijuana for medicine, they must learn to labor and to wait, because it is a justice that is worth fighting for.
Reference Page
American Heritage Dictionary. (1983). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Earleywine, M.,Ph.D. & O'Keefe, K.,Esq. (2005). Marijuana Use by Young People: The Impact of State Medical Marijuana Laws. http://www.rxmarijuana.com/why_won't_the_government.htm.
Mooney, L., Knox, D., & Schacht, C. (2002) Understanding social
problems (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning.
Kravets, D. (2006). Medical marijuana issue returns to court.
Associated Press. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2006/03/26/AR2006032600329_pf.html.
Lust, John B., N.D., D.B.M. (1974). The Herb book. New York:
Bantam.
Marijuana Patient's Project. (2004). Common questions about marijuana answered by the institute of medicine. http://www.mpp.org/common_q.html
ProCon.org. (2005). "Should marijuana be a medical option now?"
www.medical marijuanaproandcon.com.
Grinspoon, MD. Lester (2000).WHY WON'T GOVERNMENT LET US USE MARIJUANA AS MEDICINE? Boston Globe. http://www.rxmarijuana.com/why_won't_the_government.htm.
Drug Free America Foundation. (2004) Medical Fraud Marijuana. http://www.dfaf.org/printthis.php?dyn=13.1.0.
United States Department of Justice. (2004). Exposing the Myth of Medical Marijuana. http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuanap.html.
Tommy
Should Ohio Law Allow Medical Marijuana Usage?
By Elvis Conti
Should Ohio law allow medical marijuana usage? There are numerous arguments on both sides of this issue. Both sides develop their arguments with legitimate facts and support their positions with evidence. There is also many opinions and emotional weight to their respective positions on this very controversial subject, however it is necessary for the purpose of this assignment to do much weeding out of the opinions and emotions. The ethical issues will be determined, the stake holders will be identified, and the moral dimensions of this issue will be stated. It is this writer's goal to make a conclusion that is based on solid principles from a theistic worldview by way of a deontological ethical theory.
Here is a hypothetical scenario: Tom is a Christian Ohioan who is married and has three kids. He is a paraprofessional in the field of social services. He is a law-biding citizen who lives a clean and healthy lifestyle. Tom's father Jon has cancer of the liver, and needs to under go chemotherapy. The treatment has harsh side effects of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, excruciating body aches, and loss of appetite. The physician prescribes a medicine that helps a little bit with the pain and the nausea, but it he still doesn't have much appetite and not enough strength to move about at home. The medication is expensive, and Jon is not a rich man. The insurance provider puts limits on way they will actually pay for.
Jon, in his younger days, had experimented with marijuana before the days of the War on Drugs. It was illegal to smoke marijuana but it was not strictly enforced. Some of Jon's friends cared enough about Jon to put themselves at risk to give him a small but adequate supply of marijuana to smoke to help him with his pain. Not only was Jon's pain relieved, but he regained his appetite and was able to keep his food down. His strength quickly returned, and after a couple of weeks, Jon was able to do household chores, and even mow the lawn.
This remarkable recovery has Tom looking at the pro-side of the issue of medical marijuana. Tom also has friends, family, associates, and clients who suffer from various physical and mental illnesses such as fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, migraine headaches, depression, eating disorders, and alcoholism.
After doing some research, Tom discovers that marijuana had been used by legitimate medical professionals to treat these illnesses either in the past before marijuana prohibition, or in other states or countries where the law allows it. Eleven other states in the U.S. and all of Canada have passed laws that allow for the medical use of marijuana since 1996. However, in California, one of the legal states, the Federal DEA arrested patients and suppliers of the medical marijuana.
This seemed absurd to Tom. If there is solid medical evidence that supports the effectiveness of this plant as a medicine, why would the Federal Government attack people who were legally using it? Tom had some concerns about his father smoking marijuana illegally, but he was happy to see him feeling so much better. The risk that Jon was taking by breaking the law was outweighed by the need for good medicine. If marijuana is the best medicine for these symptoms, it seemed right for the government of Ohio to allow it to be prescribed by the physicians.
Does Tom feel strongly enough about this issue to join a lobbyist group? That remains to be seen. Tom is on the fence now, because it would be risky as a social worker to support such a controversial cause. He does not think that his employer, his church, or his family will understand, and it may negatively affect his relationships with these people.
When faced with such difficult problems, Tom thinks it is wise to read the Bible. He uses his student Bible appendix of topic reference to find anything about plants, herbs, or drugs. He finds, in Genesis 1:29 "Then God said "I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth, and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be for your food.""
There is an extensive supply of published about this topic. There is literature supporting both sides of the issue. From researching these articles, books, and essays, it is easy to recognize that many individuals and groups who have many different worldviews and ethical theories feel strongly enough about this issue to work very hard in order to support and defend their position. Indeed, people of all walks of life and many different careers, lifestyles, cultures, and social roles are stakeholders in the progress of the history of medical marijuana usage. For example, there are as stakeholders all people involved in medicine and the progress of the institution; doctors, patients, families of these people, the medical associations, the pharmaceutical industry, and perhaps even insurance industry. Other stakeholders include judges, the federal government, state governments, and even farmers. The experiences and actions of all of these individuals affect the facts that can support or break down the platforms on any side of the debate, whether pro, con, or neutral.
An individual who experiences a real world problem that is directly related to this issue may be challenged to evaluate these arguments with his or her own principles contained in this one's world view. If it he or she is required to take action or make a life choice in a circumstance that is directly related to this issue, he or she becomes a committed stakeholder. This person can choose to support the pro or the con.
At he center of the debate is that many people believe that doctors should be able to prescribe marijuana to a patient who needs it, and that the law should allow it. Then, there are people who believe that it is against the law because it is harmful to people and that nobody should be allowed to use marijuana for anything.
To answer the original question "Should Ohio law allow medical marijuana usage?" one must gather the facts. On the "yes" side of the argument, here are some examples:
11 US States (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) and Canada have passed laws that allow the use of medical marijuana. Some of these states allow the patients to grow it themselves (ProCon).
In the past, cannabis had been used as an analgesic (agent that soothes or relieves pain)-hypnotic, topical anesthetic (agent that deadens sensation), antiasthmatic, antibiotic (agent that stops or destroys the growth of germs), antiepileptic (stops seizures) and antispasmodic (stops cramps and spasms), antidepressant and tranquilizer, antitussive ( relieves coughing), appetite stimulant, oxytocic (facilitates childbirth), preventative and anodyne (pain reliever) for neuralgia (including migraine, aid to psychotherapy, and agent to aid withdrawal from alcohol and opiates (Lust).
Marijuana is a safe non-toxic medicine presently used to treat Alzheimer's disease, Anorexia, AIDS, Arthritis, Cachexia, Cancer, Crohn's Disease, Epilepsy, Glaucoma, HIV, Migraine, Multiple Sclerosis, Nausea, Pain, Spasticity, and Wasting Syndrome, and may be used for many others (ProCon).
Marijuana is much cheaper, safer and more effective than many other FDA approved drugs prescribed for the same treatments.
Marijuana can be grown just about anywhere that a tomato plant can be grown, indoors or outdoors.
On the "no" side of the argument, here are some examples:
Under U.S. law, the Controlled Substances Act states that marijuana is a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has no currently acceptable medical use for treatment in the U.S. and that it has a high potential for abuse.
The FDA has not approved a new drug application for marijuana use.
Recreational use of marijuana by some may lead to experimentation with harder drugs (DFAF).
Some people think that frequent smoking of marijuana may be bad for one's lungs.
The short term effects of marijuana use include: memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor skills, decrease in muscle strength, increased heart rate, and anxiety (USDOJ).
Marijuana affects many skills required for safe driving: alertness, the ability to concentrate, coordination, and reaction time. These effects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and signs on the road (USDOJ).
Those who say "yes" believe that it is ethical for people who are suffering with diseases to be allowed to have the medicine that is the safest, most effective, and least expensive. They believe that it is ethical for doctors to prescribe marijuana if it is the best thing for the patient. They believe that it is unethical for the government to not allow it. Those who say "no" believe that marijuana should remain illegal because it might be dangerous. They believe that it will cause more people to abuse the drug. They believe that the government knows best about what drugs are safe. They believe that people who use marijuana are criminals.
In Ohio, it is not presently legal for a doctor to prescribe marijuana to a cancer patient, nor is it legal for the patient to buy it. It is a misdemeanor offense to buy small amounts. It is a felony to grow it or sell it (MPP). What is more ethical: the judgment of medical professionals who have taken an oath to do no harm, or the law makers who have taken an oath to serve and protect society from danger? Before one can answer this, other questions arise. If doctors and patients in 11 states accept the medical value of marijuana, why would others not? If there is no difference in the suffering of patients in Ohio than that in Alaska, and there is no deficit in the professional training of physicians in California, then is there an error in judgment by the doctors in the in legal states? Is there really that much difference of political philosophies in Rhode Island and Ohio? Are the doctors and patients in legal states criminals because their laws are inconsistent with that of the United States Constitution? The answer to this last question is "yes". The DEA has arrested people in California who supplied patients with marijuana and the patients themselves!
...Angel Raich, a 40-year-old mother of two from Oakland who suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments. She uses marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster her appetite.
"She'd probably be dead without marijuana," said her doctor, Frank Lucido, who has recommended marijuana for some 3,000 patients. "Nothing else works." The Bush administration says the lawsuit is without merit (Kravets).
Is it ethical to arrest and incarcerate a cancer patient for buying medicine? It does not seem so.
What principles have a bearing on the case? Even for the deontological theist, there are principles that may be in conflict. In the Acts of the Apostles, Christ instructed them to heal the sick. God wants people to give comfort to each other. On the other hand, he wants Christians to be good citizens who respect the law. However, slavery was lawful in ancient Rome and in the early history of the United States. Christians made a stand against the laws of the United States and helped abolish slavery; even though slavery was lawful in the Old Testament (King Solomon used slaves to build the temple of Jerusalem!). Concerning the dangers of the abuse of marijuana; prohibition has not stopped it. It is speculation to believe that the legalization of medical use will increase the illicit abuse of the substance. It is possible that it would decrease.
"While it is not possible with existing data to determine conclusively that state medical marijuana laws caused the documented declines in adolescent marijuana use, the overwhelming downward trend strongly suggests that the effect of state medical marijuana laws on teen marijuana use has been either neutral or positive, discouraging youthful experimentation with the drug."(Earlywine).
The theist values justice. Is it fair that marijuana is illegal as a medicine for sick people? Is justice served if a patient is arrested for using marijuana? How about natural law? If marijuana is a naturally growing non-toxic plant that one could grow in his or her own flower garden, shouldn't he or she be able to use it as seems fitting? Digitalis is an important medicine for heart problems, but it is not prohibited to grow foxglove in a flower garden in Ohio, even though it is toxic and an overdose can kill a man. Concerning Tom's discovery of the Genesis verse about the free use of plants; The Bible does not rescind the command that mankind is not to use any plant on the face of the earth. One might argue that it was before the Fall, and that the ground was cursed because of sin. But, we do not stop eating raspberries because the canes bear thorns. Would the argument be the same for poison ivy? If poison ivy was the cure for the common cold, not only would every one grow it in their garden, but they would change the name to wonderful ivy. Or, perhaps the FDA would not approve it for medical use because it is not patented by a huge pharmaceutical corporation.
There are other circumstances connected to marijuana prohibition that do not seem just or ethical. It seems that marijuana was made illegal not so much because of its alleged dangerous potential as a drug, but for the interests of industrial greed and prejudicial intolerance of immigrants. In North America, cannabis hemp was used for making rope, canvas, paper, and as a treatment for various ailments. Nevertheless, in 1937 Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act which restricted its use; the law was passed as a result of a media campaign that portrayed marijuana users as "dope fiends" and, as conflict theorists note, was enacted at a time of growing sentiment against Mexican immigrants (Mooney).
Also, it seems unjust that the FDA's refusal to approve marijuana is not based on real evidence, but on pressure from the pharmaceutical companies who can not gain from the use of raw marijuana. Since it is an herb that can not be patented, and it is effective as it is, they would only gain from derivatives that are developed in laboratories. That is why Marinol, a cannabinoid drug derivative of marijuana, is FDA approved. The problem is that Marinol is very expensive for the consumer and not nearly as effective as whole marijuana. Indeed, it is so effective that the industry may lose money on the decreased sales of inferior drugs that compete with plain old Mary Jane.
Philosophically and ethically, the people who would say "yes" have the stronger argument. The "no" side bases too much on superstition, fear, speculation, prejudice, and in general have a lack of solid evidence. Ohio law should allow the use of medical marijuana, and so should all states. There is no good reason that an herb should be prohibited for use by medical doctors for the treatment of any ailment, disease, or symptom if it is safe and it works. Corporate greed is not a good reason. The argument that it may be abused is full of holes. FDA approved diet pills are abused, as are countless others. The abuse of any substance is wrong, but prohibition does not stop it. Perhaps the drug is potentially dangerous, so is Tylenol, but the users of these substances are responsible to use it and store it safely. It should not be legal for a marijuana user to operate a motor vehicle, but it is not safe for someone who took a dose of Nyquil to drive either for exactly the same reasons.
What should a concerned citizen of Ohio do someone like Tom who has a loved one who is suffering? There are options: he or she could write a letter to a congressman, join an activist group, or find some other way to support the cause of medical marijuana legislation. However, the loved one could die in pain waiting for the bill to pass. He could move his loved one to Vermont or Hawaii, but Ohio is his home and he would have to give up so much. Even so, the DEA would still be able to bust him. He could just let him take the risk. But what about all of the other people who are suffering without a treatment for their illness? The woman with fibromyalgia who is suffering because the doctors have no treatment settles for less. She takes drugs like morphine or dilaudid that are addictive and have nauseating side effects. The consequence for allowing the loved one to break the law is a murmur in one's conscience and some concern for their safety. Turning him in is not an option. Moving is too expensive and risky. Finding a legal medicine is possible, but unlikely. Chances are they have tried everything else. It would be just settling for less, that is more suffering.
The concerned citizen of Ohio must stick to his or her principles. It seems that there is no way for the compassionate soul to not be trouble by the suffering of a loved one. He cannot turn away, but he can keep a secret. There is no law against that, nor is it a sin. He can give what comfort he can legally, and pray that God will send more. In the meantime, for those who say yes to the legalization of marijuana for medicine, they must learn to labor and to wait, because it is a justice that is worth fighting for.
Reference Page
American Heritage Dictionary. (1983). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Earleywine, M.,Ph.D. & O'Keefe, K.,Esq. (2005). Marijuana Use by Young People: The Impact of State Medical Marijuana Laws. http://www.rxmarijuana.com/why_won't_the_government.htm.
Mooney, L., Knox, D., & Schacht, C. (2002) Understanding social
problems (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning.
Kravets, D. (2006). Medical marijuana issue returns to court.
Associated Press. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2006/03/26/AR2006032600329_pf.html.
Lust, John B., N.D., D.B.M. (1974). The Herb book. New York:
Bantam.
Marijuana Patient's Project. (2004). Common questions about marijuana answered by the institute of medicine. http://www.mpp.org/common_q.html
ProCon.org. (2005). "Should marijuana be a medical option now?"
www.medical marijuanaproandcon.com.
Grinspoon, MD. Lester (2000).WHY WON'T GOVERNMENT LET US USE MARIJUANA AS MEDICINE? Boston Globe. http://www.rxmarijuana.com/why_won't_the_government.htm.
Drug Free America Foundation. (2004) Medical Fraud Marijuana. http://www.dfaf.org/printthis.php?dyn=13.1.0.
United States Department of Justice. (2004). Exposing the Myth of Medical Marijuana. http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuanap.html.
Tommy VIEW 10 of 10 COMMENTS
meow:
Pot should be legal. Period.
happylittlebitch:
I agree with Meow