The Highs and Lows of Legalising Marijuana for Medical Use
The medical use of marijuana is a hot topic in American news of late, and although in Asia there hasn't been very much discussion on the legislative or scientific fronts, the issue definitely merits investigation. The Malaysian mentality is automatically to reject the notion of allowing marijuana to be used for medicinal purposes, but such rejection has often been accompanied by a lack of knowledge of arguments for and against medical marijuana, and instead has been a result of emotional, religious, and political views on illicit drugs and psychotropic substances in general.
I am not (yet) an advocate of marijuana for recreational use; that's what I'd like to reiterate before I continue, because even the scientific community is still at odds as to the carcinogenic properties of cannabis use, and also the popular notion that cannabis may induce psychosis in those who are predisposed to mental disorders. Until a comprehensive scientific study with a large sample size and careful consideration and accounting of confounders takes place, I don't think I can take a stand on this issue. What I can take a stand on, however, is the necessity of keeping an open mind to the medical use of marijuana, as anecdotal evidence suggests that marijuana is useful as an analgesic, antiemetic (drug to prevent or surpress vomiting and nausea) and appetite stimulant in assisting patients with several diseases such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, cachexia, glaucoma, and multiple sclerosis.
Sandro Cinti illustrates: 'Marijuana has been used as an antiemetic and appetite stimulant in patients with cancer, an an antispasm and analgesic medication in patients with multiple sclerosis, as a treatment for glaucome, and as an epileptic.' (Sandro Cinti, 'Medical Marijuana in HIV-Positive Patients: What Do We Know?' (2009) 8(6) Journal of the International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care 342 at 342)
Canada has legalised the medical use of cannabis to treat certain debilitating illnesses for a decade now. Fourteen states in United States have decriminalised the use of marijuana to treat certain medical conditions, among them Washington, Alaska, New Jersey and Nevada. There is no doubt that the Malaysian uninformed public will retort with: those people are libertarians and have loose morals and therefore it's okay for them, but not for us. This notion has to be corrected, however, as there is plenty of opposition for legalisation for medical marijuana from American legislators and politicians who are loath to be portrayed as libertarians. However, anecdotal evidence and support from expert groups suggest that there may be some merit in using marijuana to alleviate symptoms for certain diseases, particularly in cases where traditional pharmacopoeia has failed.
The case of Raich, for example, involves a woman named Angel McClary Raich who suffers from an inoperable brain tumour, several chronic pain disorders, dramatic weight loss and scoliosis, and was in a wheelchair for several years before she began marijuana treatment. She is also allergic to synthetic medicines and hence, used marijuana (with the support of her physician) to alleviate her suffering and increase her appetite.
Opponents to legalising medical marijuana state that it will increase use of marijuana for recreational purposes and increase demand for legalisation for recreational use, but this is a poor argument. Tony Bogdanowski argues: '[T]his argument fails to acknowledge that giving medical users, with legislatively prescribed medical conditions, statutory rights to access the drug for their ailments is entirely different to giving the general public a right to access the drug for pleasure. These two issues should not be conflated with one another because they are entirely different matters.' (Tony Bogdanoski, 'Accommodating the Medical Use of Marijuana: Surveying the Different Legal Approaches in Australia, the United States and Canada' (2010) 17 Journal of Law and Medicine 508 at 514) [Emphasis added.]
There is also the argument that marijuana is a 'gateway drug' to other 'harder' substances. Bogdanoski continues in his article to state that this situation only occurred because recreational users are exposed to other drugs in their contact with street dealers. (Id at 516) In the case of medical marijuana, patients would obtain their marijuana from their physicians and hence the chances of them coming into contact with harder drugs is greatly reduced.
The argument that marijuana is carcinogenic is one that also merits consideration in the medical marijuana debate as studies have found that marijuana contains '4 times more tar and 50% more carcinogens than tobacco'. (Cinti, at 343) I say that in patients who are already terminal from inoperable cancers, why not allow them a method to alleviate pain and other symptoms associated with cancer.
In my view, depriving patients with debilitating medical conditions and chronic pain from an effective option in marijuana is unjust. However, until the scientific community reaches a consensus, it is difficult for any of us to reach a conclusion as to what is to be done. In his article, Tony Bogdanowski quotes Jerome Kassirer, medical professor and former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine in stating: '[T]o argue that the inability of science to definitively prove or discount the effectiveness of marijuana (and cannabis generally) as a therapeutic agent, even after many years of research and debate, means that the anecdotal evidence of those using it 'medicinally' should prevail where in demonstrably improves their quality of life by removing their pain or discomfort.' (Bogdanowski, at 514)
I agree.
Hoffmann and Weber in their 2010 article ask several important questions. They state: '[P]olicymakers are grappling with questions that only scientific research can answer: For what conditions does marijuana provide medicinal benefits? Are there equally effective alternatives? What are the appropriate doses for various conditions? How can states ensure quality and purity?' (Diane E Hoffmann and Ellen Weber, 'Medical Marijuana and the Law' (2010) 362(16) The New England Journal of Medicine 1453 at 1456)
This November, California votes. There is no doubt that there will be an increasing amount of scientific research and legal discussion on this issue and it will be really interesting to see what happens.
I am not (yet) an advocate of marijuana for recreational use; that's what I'd like to reiterate before I continue, because even the scientific community is still at odds as to the carcinogenic properties of cannabis use, and also the popular notion that cannabis may induce psychosis in those who are predisposed to mental disorders. Until a comprehensive scientific study with a large sample size and careful consideration and accounting of confounders takes place, I don't think I can take a stand on this issue. What I can take a stand on, however, is the necessity of keeping an open mind to the medical use of marijuana, as anecdotal evidence suggests that marijuana is useful as an analgesic, antiemetic (drug to prevent or surpress vomiting and nausea) and appetite stimulant in assisting patients with several diseases such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, cachexia, glaucoma, and multiple sclerosis.
Sandro Cinti illustrates: 'Marijuana has been used as an antiemetic and appetite stimulant in patients with cancer, an an antispasm and analgesic medication in patients with multiple sclerosis, as a treatment for glaucome, and as an epileptic.' (Sandro Cinti, 'Medical Marijuana in HIV-Positive Patients: What Do We Know?' (2009) 8(6) Journal of the International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care 342 at 342)
Canada has legalised the medical use of cannabis to treat certain debilitating illnesses for a decade now. Fourteen states in United States have decriminalised the use of marijuana to treat certain medical conditions, among them Washington, Alaska, New Jersey and Nevada. There is no doubt that the Malaysian uninformed public will retort with: those people are libertarians and have loose morals and therefore it's okay for them, but not for us. This notion has to be corrected, however, as there is plenty of opposition for legalisation for medical marijuana from American legislators and politicians who are loath to be portrayed as libertarians. However, anecdotal evidence and support from expert groups suggest that there may be some merit in using marijuana to alleviate symptoms for certain diseases, particularly in cases where traditional pharmacopoeia has failed.
The case of Raich, for example, involves a woman named Angel McClary Raich who suffers from an inoperable brain tumour, several chronic pain disorders, dramatic weight loss and scoliosis, and was in a wheelchair for several years before she began marijuana treatment. She is also allergic to synthetic medicines and hence, used marijuana (with the support of her physician) to alleviate her suffering and increase her appetite.
Opponents to legalising medical marijuana state that it will increase use of marijuana for recreational purposes and increase demand for legalisation for recreational use, but this is a poor argument. Tony Bogdanowski argues: '[T]his argument fails to acknowledge that giving medical users, with legislatively prescribed medical conditions, statutory rights to access the drug for their ailments is entirely different to giving the general public a right to access the drug for pleasure. These two issues should not be conflated with one another because they are entirely different matters.' (Tony Bogdanoski, 'Accommodating the Medical Use of Marijuana: Surveying the Different Legal Approaches in Australia, the United States and Canada' (2010) 17 Journal of Law and Medicine 508 at 514) [Emphasis added.]
There is also the argument that marijuana is a 'gateway drug' to other 'harder' substances. Bogdanoski continues in his article to state that this situation only occurred because recreational users are exposed to other drugs in their contact with street dealers. (Id at 516) In the case of medical marijuana, patients would obtain their marijuana from their physicians and hence the chances of them coming into contact with harder drugs is greatly reduced.
The argument that marijuana is carcinogenic is one that also merits consideration in the medical marijuana debate as studies have found that marijuana contains '4 times more tar and 50% more carcinogens than tobacco'. (Cinti, at 343) I say that in patients who are already terminal from inoperable cancers, why not allow them a method to alleviate pain and other symptoms associated with cancer.
In my view, depriving patients with debilitating medical conditions and chronic pain from an effective option in marijuana is unjust. However, until the scientific community reaches a consensus, it is difficult for any of us to reach a conclusion as to what is to be done. In his article, Tony Bogdanowski quotes Jerome Kassirer, medical professor and former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine in stating: '[T]o argue that the inability of science to definitively prove or discount the effectiveness of marijuana (and cannabis generally) as a therapeutic agent, even after many years of research and debate, means that the anecdotal evidence of those using it 'medicinally' should prevail where in demonstrably improves their quality of life by removing their pain or discomfort.' (Bogdanowski, at 514)
I agree.
Hoffmann and Weber in their 2010 article ask several important questions. They state: '[P]olicymakers are grappling with questions that only scientific research can answer: For what conditions does marijuana provide medicinal benefits? Are there equally effective alternatives? What are the appropriate doses for various conditions? How can states ensure quality and purity?' (Diane E Hoffmann and Ellen Weber, 'Medical Marijuana and the Law' (2010) 362(16) The New England Journal of Medicine 1453 at 1456)
This November, California votes. There is no doubt that there will be an increasing amount of scientific research and legal discussion on this issue and it will be really interesting to see what happens.
Comments
Post a Comment