As a common topic of debate, the
use of medical marijuana has regained significant momentum now that several
states have legalized use of said drug. However, restrictions set forth by none
other than Congress itself in the CSA (Controlled Substance Act) have made it
extremely difficult for scientists to conduct bona fide research on the
possible palliative properties of marijuana. Since there is a lack of evidence
supporting the supposed healing properties of marijuana, Congress as well as
the National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA) stated that Cannabis “has no value as a therapeutic agent.” (Cohen 654) Interestingly
enough, Congress was quick to ban marijuana and refuses to allow research to be
done which is ironic because they will not change their scheduling of this drug “until sound [evidence] and scientific studies support medical
use of marijuana in the United States.” (Cohen 656) The main problem with this
controversy is the lack of open-mindedness to conduct bona fide and unbiased
research, which allows dated and irrational ideologies to fill the numerous
gaps in the war between legalizing or banning the use of marijuana for medical
and even recreational use.
Another
factor that plays a major role in the prolonging of any verdict is the public’s
skewed understanding of marijuana. Records show that people around the world
have used marijuana for thousands of years; even President Washington was familiar
with marijuana. At the beginning of the 20th century, the topic of
marijuana was slowly gaining more recognition and it wasn’t until 1970 that the
Controlled Substance Act (CSA) was put into action. At the time, marijuana was
viewed by the general population as a useless and dangerous drug due to it’s
popularity of recreational use amongst a small part of the, now adult, baby
boom generation. A myriad of stereotypes and excessive government propaganda
helped to steer the reputation of marijuana in the negative direction.
One
thing that struck fear into the hearts of many was the accusation of marijuana
not just being very addictive, but that it was a serious “gateway drug.” The
justification for this claim, says the majority of Americans, is that since
marijuana is a drug that is acquired through circles of people who may also use
other illegal drugs (i.e. crystal meth, heroin, cocaine etc.), thus increasing
the chances of a person being curious enough to try other, more addicting
drugs. This logic weighed heavily against marijuana since, in fact, it was
partially true. However, “Some 4. 3
percent of Americans have been dependent on marijuana,” (DSM-IV-TR; American
Psychiatric Association, 2000) as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision. The same study found
that the addiction rate of cocaine is 15 percent, while heroine comes in at an
astonishing 24 percent.
Of
course many argue, “every drug is addictive” but they fail to realize that the
drugs you can legally purchase over the counter and that are approved by the
FDA can be more addicting than marijuana; this includes prescriptions. It
couldn’t have been said any better than by the official drug abuse website of
the NIH, which states that “More people die from overdoses of prescription
opioids than from all other drugs combined, including heroin and cocaine.” Considering
these shocking statistics, why does the government still refuse to allow
research to be done on marijuana?
Science
has always been secondary when it comes to the public’s perception of anything
that may harm us. Ideology has been the tip of the spear of misinterpretation
mainly because everyone has their own opinion on the world around them.
Unfortunately, we have become a society that tends to accept things as they are
without investing time to strengthen our own opinions. As a result of this
sheep-like mentality, hardly anyone was skeptical of Congress’ scheduling of
marijuana. Although we are victims of having propaganda shoved down our
throats, it makes it extremely difficult to differentiate between what is
scientifically correct or ideologically correct. Congress takes advantage of
this in order to pass lengthy and ineffective bills that no one bothers to read
and justify.
That
being said, we were essentially brainwashed to believe that marijuana is a
terrible drug along with crack, heroine, meth, etc. This leads to messy and
unclear path that scientists take when trying to ask Congress for permission to
do bona fide research on marijuana. For example, in the 1990’s, Dr. Donald
Abrams, a physician and professor at the University of California, San
Francisco was denied approval by both the DEA and NIDA to conduct research on
the efficacy of medical marijuana. Again, in 2005, the DEA denied Lyle E.
Craker, Ph.D., a license to grow medical marijuana for the purpose of studying
whether its properties have potential to be considered medically beneficial. Instead
of denying every scientists’ attempt at researching the drug, Congress, the
DEA, and other health organizations need to look past the “anecdotal reports”
(Cohen 655) and numerous hasty generalizations in order to allow unbiased
research be done. It is unfair to not only the scientific community, but to
society as a whole to be denied the right to know for certain whether or not
marijuana is as harmful as the government wants us to believe.
However,
one must carefully take the views of Congress into consideration in order to
paint a more accurate picture of this debate. We can safely assume that
Congress is being stubborn about this topic because of how inconsistent the
information surrounding marijuana is. Despite fears of the potential rampancy
of the abuse of marijuana, if deemed acceptable by Congress, access to
scientists and doctors should be granted in order to confirm or debunk the
existing opinions of the government. It would make more sense to allow bona
fide research to be done in order to put this awkward and drawn out argument to
rest. As contradicting as the rulings of Congress may be, regarding marijuana
and other drugs, it seems that little or no progress will be made any time soon
to resolve the issue.
With
everything up in the air it seems that scientists, Congress, and our fellow
Americans will never find a way to be on the same page. There is hope, but it
is going to take relentless persistence and numerous compromises. I am looking
forward to what the future holds in regards to the possible palliative uses of
marijuana. I’m sure that anyone would rather know the true effects of
marijuana, good or bad, rather than to be stumbling in the darkness of
uncertainty. Many people subconsciously think that a solution could arise
overnight, unfortunately, that is not the case. I want to trust that marijuana
is, in fact, acceptable as treatment and even as a recreational activity,
however, I will remain undecided until scientists have provided enough research
to support these claims. Until then, America, marijuana enthusiasts, doctors,
scholars, Congress, and myself included, wait for the final verdict.
