The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
.svg)
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the US.
Agreed. But not because I don't think its medical beneficial but because the government has refused to accept a medical use. In 1972 the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) made an effort to make marijuana available as a prescription drug. In 1986 the DEA announced that they would hold public hearings. In 1988 the DEA's administrative law judge, Francis L. Young, made his decision. He said that "approval by a significant minority of physicians was enough to meet the standard of currently accepted medical use in treatment in the US established by the Controlled Substances Act for a Schedule II drug." He also mentioned that "marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man...One must reasonably conclude that there is accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision. To conclude otherwise, on the record, would be unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious." Young suggested that the DEA reschedule marijuana to a Schedule II substance but the DEA "disregarded the opinion of its own administrative law judge and refused to reschedule marijuana."
I agree with your point that marijuana does have the potential to be abused, but it is not anywhere near as harmful as heroin. There are plenty of prescription drugs on the market currently that are abused, such as Oxycontin and other narcotics. Why aren't those made illegal as well if we're following the same logic? I think marijuana is fairly harmless and could be legalized to help people with their pain. I never researched the benefits it can provide to those while chronic health issues, but after reading your blog, it's pretty clear that it could benefit people.
ReplyDeleteI like this post. This is the sort of maneuvering I agree with. Gradual controlled steps toward your ultimate goal. I can agree with the re-scheduling. I do think drawing comparison to alcohol can be regarded to some as weak though. While I get what you are saying, many will just simply see it as you proving alcohol should be banned instead of what you really mean. Or possibly explain further of why it relates if you want to use it. Maybe talk about all the money wasted during prohibition fighting it and that we are wasting a lot of money fighting marijuana now in the same fashion. Perhaps I am wrong, I just find it weak to always point to other things legal as to an argument of why something else should be. To me it starts turning it into an argument of whether your legal example should be legal.
ReplyDeleteOne thing you may want to look at is finding out the economic reasoning of why the DEA would refuse to take the advice of rescheduling. Give facts on how many people are employed by the DEA and the percentage of their business that involves cracking down on marijuana offenses. This would show how much money the department stands losing by rescheduling or how many people it may leave out of work. That would show a good motive for them to keep thinking illogically.
I agree. The label that the government slaps onto marijuana is unfair and one-sided. Actually, my Abnormal Psychology text book by Mark Durand and David Barlow, Essentials of Abnormal Psychology, explains that marijuana is far less addictive than caffeine, while nicotine (found in cigarettes) is more addictive than methamphetamine. It is also popular opinion, I think, that marijuana is a milder drug than caffeine. Durand and Barlow go on to explain that the only mild danger one faces when he or she smokes marijuana is the fact that smoke is entering his or her lungs. However, marijuana smoke has not been linked to any type of disease, including cancer.
ReplyDeleteOne organization that I like, and that I think you might find useful is the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) based out of Washington D.C. MPP is trying to change marijuana laws on both a state and federal level. They have links to all sorts of scientific studies currently examining marijuana, and they lay out all of the marijuana laws state by state, highlighting the issues dealing with marijuana policy.
Here is the link to MPP's website:
http://www.mpp.org/
Marijuana is most certainly a drug that few become dependent on. Statistics are an ally to that statement. There are many variables that come into account, however. Dependency and abuse rates vary with different age groups, which may shed light onto why the government ignores its medicinal value. Here is one scenario. From about the ages 16-30, marijuana abuse rates are the highest. With 18-25 being prime ages for military enlistment, legal smoking would not bode well. A lazy military makes a weak country.
ReplyDelete