Legalization of Marijuana for Therapeutic Purposes

Background on and Significance of the Issue

In the midst of a formally declared national war on drug use in the United States, demands continue to be heard for the legalization of the use of marijuana. That such demands continue to be expressed by a population minority segment of substantial size at a time when the seriousness of the drug problem in the United States is not open to question is indicative of the wide divergence of opinion on marijuana legalization that exists in the United States (Clayton & Leukefeld, 1992). Added to this general controversy is the more limited demand for the legalization of marijuana for therapeutic uses (Dansak, 1997).

The focus of the debate over the legalization of marijuana shifted to the more limited demand for the legalization of marijuana for therapeutic uses following the approval of voters in Arizona and California of initiatives making such use of marijuana legal in those states (Maira, 1997). The federal response to the passage of these initiatives was both prompt and harsh. The obvious over reaction of the federal government tends to indicate more of an underlying political agenda than it does a medically-based agenda. Under heavy political pressure, the United States Public Health Service phased out its program that permitted a small number of patients to smoke marijuana for relieving the nausea and vomiting that accompany some diseases and treatments, for reducing spasticity

. . .
available (Gebhart, 1997). It is always easy for someone in a position of authority not in pain to tell a person who believes that he or she has found a way to relieve his or her pain that the person has not proved the claim to the satisfaction of the person in the position of authority. Opponents to the legalization of marijuana for therapeutic uses argue that the effectiveness of such uses of the drug has not been established in clinical studies (Schwartz, Voth, & Sheridan, 1997). These opponents point out that the most recent study claiming to support the effectiveness of the therapeutic value of marijuana was sponsored by the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics and that the lead researcher on the study was the president and founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, "whose main purpose according to their newsletter is to help researchers secure federal approval and funding of studies of psychedelic drugs" (Schwartz, Voth, & Sheridan, 1997, p. 168). The proponents of the legalization of marijuana for therapeutic uses, however, were able to point out that a study cited by the opponents of such use as proving the absence of any therapeutic value of marijuana was financed by Glaxo Inc., the manufactur
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Voth Sheridan, Position Issue, Stephen Gould, McPartland Pruitt, Administration FDA, THC Hashish, Health NIH, Significance Issue, Arizona California, Schedule II, marijuana therapeutic, smoked marijuana, legalization marijuana, legalization marijuana therapeutic, therapeutic purposes, marijuana therapeutic purposes, voth sheridan 1997, annas 1997, sheridan 1997, voth sheridan, schwartz voth sheridan, schwartz voth, opponents legalization, 1997 opponents, smoked marijuana therapeutic,
Approximate Word count = 1961
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Legalization of Marijuana for Therapeutic Purposes