To the Editors:
I liked Anna Strongin’s article on medical marijuana in First Call because she leans toward the same conclusion I have reached: that marijuana should be taxed and regulated like alcohol and tobacco. However, I also support federal and state bills which would allow patients’ access to marijuana for medical purposes. Strongin proposes that “the more effective option” is federally endorsed research, but the DEA forbids medical research involving marijuana (see http://www.maps.org/mmj/). Strongin also says that medical marijuana is a bad idea because it will allow “another channel for drug attainment”— right after she herself says that 50% of Americans have already tried the drug. If half of all Americans have already tried marijuana, then clearly most Americans already have access to it under prohibition—potentially black-marketed medical marijuana will be available to very few people who can’t already obtain this drug. Since medical marijuana laws won’t make marijuana available to many more people, but will immeasurably benefit sick and dying patients by mitigating their symptoms and relieving their pain, the government should allow medical research into the uses of this drug.
Jesse Stout, Brown ‘06
Anna's response:
Dear Jesse,
First of all, I’d like to thank you for responding to my column. It’s particularly flattering to know that my writing has somehow made its way all the way to Brown.
Firstly, I realize marijuana research is currently forbidden, but as shown most recently by the Terri Schiavo case, efficiency or effectiveness is not one of our legislature’s and judicial system’s strong points, especially when it comes to controversial, ethical issues. Creating bills, on any government level, supporting patients’ rights to use marijuana for medical purposes, would be an extremely tedious, time-consuming and expensive process. If the legislature is going to waste its time on anything, it might as well look into allowing research on the drug or legalizing it entirely.
The former scenario, as I noted in my article, could lead to the development of new drugs that will provide relief from pain and chemotherapy side effects on a much larger scale and by a healthier means than currently available. Of course, I won’t deny that this would be a somewhat lengthy process, but a law allowing limited legal use of something that would remain illegal for the majority is opening a can of worms, which brings me to the latter scenario. Many issues, such as who is to have the right of legal access to marijuana and how and by whom it is to be administered, will bog down the decision-makers in this issue for years. If we were instead to take the less controversial idea— legalizing marijuana research (or the less gray-area idea, legalizing marijuana entirely) then the issue could be resolved far faster.
As far as my point about the effect of legalization of medical marijuana on overall use of the drug goes, I was showing that such a policy would introduce an additional channel for the drug’s distribution. The smarter thing to do would be just to legalize it altogether and as a result transfer full authority over the drug to a single group, state and/or federal government. Also, I was using the fact that 50% of Americans have at some point tried the drug to illustrate that there are very few obstacles standing between a person and the next high. Legalizing medical marijuana would eliminate even more obstacles by providing a new means of getting the drug and by removing moral qualms non-users might have about smoking by associating the legitimate concept of health with the drug.
Finally, I don’t think it can be assumed that by not legalizing the drug we are cruelly punishing a large number of sick, suffering individuals. While it is true that, for some people, marijuana really helps relieve pain or other discomfort, the drug is not the only thing out there to alleviate these symptoms. In fact, it is only in very unique cases that no other drug can do for the patient what marijuana can. Granted, those people cannot be disregarded, but it is also important to look at the big picture; the drug would serve many more people if its beneficial properties were identified and studied.
I think that, for the most part, the two of us are in agreement on the issues and I just wanted to clarify my stance because I think that you misinterpreted it slightly. Thanks, once again, for taking the time to read and respond to my article.
Anna
