Legalization of Medicinal Marijuana, Research Paper Example

Controversies in the Law Surrounding the Use of Marijuana for Medical Purposes Should Be Streamlined in order to ease the pain of the terminally ill and deserving medical cases.

Introduction

The legalization of marijuana, even for medical purposes remains an ever contentious topic. This paper will, however, not be prejudicial on the subject of legalization of medical marijuana. It remains the prerogative of the readers to judge the case for or against the debate. This thesis paper posits to investigate and provide a foundation for a debate on the medical uses of marijuana and present a platform for a detailed insight into the laws surrounding the controversy of the use of marijuana for medical purposes. It is interesting to note that even in the medical field, controversy on its use still reigns as convincing scientific data on proven therapeutic benefits is still quite scanty (Mack Alison & Joy Janet, 2001).

Literature review

It is imperative that, the controversies in the conflicting laws, in relation to the use of medical marijuana be streamlined. Of necessity is to provide a solid ethical guideline to facilitate medical prescriptions of medical marijuana to the deserving patients. Current battles between patients, law enforcement and state and federal governments continue to intensify (Kleiman 2010). And while legislation such as Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, allows for the use of medical cannabis with physician recommendation in California, unclear and ever changing laws, in conjunction with issues regarding the means by which the cannabis is being dispensed of, raise ethical dilemmas for helping professionals.

Controversies in the law regarding the medical use of marijuana

Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Marijuana is regarded as a Schedule I substance. Schedule I drugs are classified as such based on the apparent high potential for abuse. The Federal government has traditionally taken the standpoint that marijuana has no legitimate function medicinally, thereby declaring the drug as illegal to use, have or sell for profit. Recently, however, President Obama wandered off from this position, causing confusion from both supportive and opposing sides of this debate. In a three-page legal policy memo issued by the Justice Department on October 19, 2009, prosecutors were directed that, in states that permit medical marijuana, patients and caregivers must not be targeted for medical prosecution (Barnes, 2000). This policy indicates to federal prosecutors that it is unnecessary to detain citizens who use or supply medical marijuana in firm compliance with state law. It additionally states that prosecutors must not focus federal resources on persons whose dealings are in clear and unequivocal compliance with the current state laws that provide for the use of medical marijuana. This is a significant removal from the position that previous administrations in US held. Urgent concern has been expressed over the actuality that the new policy is vague and lacks lucidity. This allows states to interpret the policy as they deem fit (Bock, 2000). In California, Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, allowed identified patients to legally obtain marijuana for medical purposes. The enactment ascertains that state voters acknowledged the palliative properties of medicinal marijuana. While medical marijuana is still unlawful under federal laws, there continues to be a hesitation by medical professionals to support patients who choose to utilize the medicinal properties of marijuana.

The absurdity between state and federal law in the US provides a platform for explicable perplexity. In California medical marijuana laws have been subjected to legal tussles albeit unsuccessfully on the grounds that they are preempted by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) CSA.  A good example is the County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML (July 31, 2008) Cal,Rptr.3d, 2008 WL 2930117.) The US Congress has granted that states are at liberty to regulate the controlled substances, marijuana included, as long as state law does not positively clash with the Federal Controlled Substances Act. The Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMP), commonly referred to as the Senate Bill 420, became law on January 1, 2004. Even though California state law proscribes reprimands to doctors for merely recommending marijuana for a severe medical condition the Medical Board takes necessary punitive action against doctors who do not abide by the established medical standards when prescribing marijuana (Brown 2008).

Controversial court rulings on medical marijuana cases

Under the Proposition 215 patients may acquire the quantity of marijuana that is rationally associated with their present medical needs. This was seen in People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal, App.4th 1532, 1549 case. On appeal, the appellant sought protection from the proposition 215 stating defense of medical necessity (Justia US Law 1997).

The Fair Employment and Housing Act, was contented in the Ross v. RagingWire Telecomms., Inc. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 920, 933 (Brown. E. G. 1).  In the City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (Kha) (2007) 157 Cal, App.4th 355, 369, 386, 391, the provision in the law on the return of detained medical marijuana was under contention (Brown 2008).

In the Gonzales v, Oregon (2006) 546 U.S. 243, 271-273 case the Controlled Substances Act mirrored the federal government’s opinion concerning marijuana. Consequently, the production, circulation, or possession of marijuana remains a criminal offense according to federal law (Brown. E. G. 1). In the United States v. Cooper, 606 F.2d 96, 98 (5th Cir. 1979) the court ruled the drug conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. 846, is not vague and neither does it violate the First Amendment (MarijuanaInfo 2007).

Medical controversy on marijuana use

Though the intent, of The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 appears clear, the fact that the laws of the federal government clash with these state guidelines has caused much confusion and hesitance. A policy entitled, “The Administration’s Response to the Passage of California Proposition 215 and Arizona Propositions 200,” was released in December 1996 under Barry McCaffrey, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The policy stated that physician recommendations for Schedule I controlled substances were not consistent with the public interest. It threatened that any such action would lead to the revocation of the physician’s registration to prescribe controlled substances (McCarthy, 2004). In order to ease scientific research and the improvement of cannabionoid?based medication, the American Medical Association implemented the new policy. The AMA goes on to state that the move must not be mistaken as approval of the legalization of marijuana, state?sponsored medical cannabis agendas, or even as scientific confirmation on the therapeutic use of marijuana (Office of National Drug Control Policy 2009). The U.S government, through the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), requested an evaluation from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) for the prospective benefits, and hazards connected with marijuana use. In March 1999, the IOM study report was released to the ONDCP as well as the general public (Mack Alison & Joy Janet 2001).

Recommendations and conclusion

The findings from this study indicate that additional research should be completed on the topic so that there is a heightened level of understanding and awareness and that awareness can be applied to social work practice. There has been unparalleled curiosity in whether marijuana or its ingredient compounds ought to be used for medical purposes. Many proponents of medical marijuana have questioned when the federal government, with surmounting supportive research on the medicinal properties of marijuana as well as societal support of lifting the ban on marijuana, will recognize and submit to the overwhelming evidence that marijuana is a valid form of palliative care. The federal court decision in Conant v. Walter allows physicians too freely to discuss cannabis treatment with patients. It also allowable for the physician to testify in court regarding the recommendation for the patient without fear of reprisal; however, federal law prohibits the use, possession and distribution of cannabis for any purpose because it is a Schedule I controlled substance (McCarthy, 2004; McCarberg, 2007), which again creates a conflict for the physician as the two laws conflict with one another in working toward a patient’s best interest.

Research methodology

This section spells out the procedures and the methods that the researcher engaged in accomplish the objectives of the project so highlighted in the abstract of this paper.

Secondary research

Secondary research is the collection and use of existing data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). That is, involves using data from previous study researches. For example research on experiments or specific subjects. The major merit of secondary research is that it’s not time consuming. However its main disadvantage is that the information retrieved may not be relevant to the particular requirements of the study. With regard to this research study, the main sources of secondary data will be:

• Previous research papers on the subject
• Books about medical uses of marijuana and the laws surrounding the controversy of the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
• Internet sources
• Business journals and magazines
• Government survey releases and databases

Data obtained from secondary sources will be used mainly for the development of the literature review section of the final dissertation. This will help enhance a critical understanding of the problem under consideration

Research validity and reliability

A debate about the findings of the preceding literatures on the subject includes the discussion of the ‘research’, more often than not referring to the manner in which the statistics were collected. Considering that there are many different aspects of validity, the process will therefore be expected to be accurate in collecting, and analyzing information.

Limitations of the research

The limitations of this research is the lack of currently recognized research available surrounding this controversial topic. Limitations are frequently present in each research and these limitations in fact tarnish the outcome of the research

Quantitative and qualitative dataThere are two main ways explored in the implementation of the activities of any research, ‘Quantitative research’ and ‘Qualitative research’. Qualitative analysis of data is one of the major methods for data compilation and this may involve administration of interpersonal interviews (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).  Quantitative analysis of data is a process that is based on the amount of data collected from the identified materials or printed sources

Research Procedures

In implementing the activities, quantitative methods will be considered. The quantitative data would be created from the overall data collected based of accuracy and efficiency.

Ethical consideration

It is imperative that all the participants taking part in any research study are fully informed about the rationale of the research and the intentions of the researcher (Lincoln, & Guba, 1985). All research findings obtained will be taken care of under highest levels of discretion and as a matter of ethics, none of the sources, be it personal or at organization level, shall correlated with any specific observation, nor shall any comment be linked without explicit reference of the source.

Recommendation

This research is not intended to be used by any government agency in furtherance of any of its objectives but will provide a critical understanding of the subject matter to interested research groups, readers as well as the general public including the government. Appropriate recommendations will be drawn and these will be aimed at;

• Health lobby groups
• Media houses
• Publication agencies
• Some other groups as the researcher may find it appropriate

Dissemination of the research findings

Regardless of the nature of the nature of the study, all research findings must clearly point out to what the actual study has identified, addressing the main message and its importance and also make proposal for actions that have been or ought to be taken (Lincoln, & Guba, 1985). Major issues arising from this research study will be discussed at the beginning of the research findings section. This study will explore the medical uses of marijuana and present a platform for a detailed insight into the laws surrounding the controversy of the use of marijuana for medical purposes

Works cited

Atkinson, B., Heath, A., & Chenail, R. 1991. Qualitative research &  legitimization of knowledge. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17(2), 175-180.

Barnes, E., 2000. Reefer Madness: Legal & moral issues close to medical prescription of marijuana. Bioethics, 14(1), 16-41

Bock, A. 2000. Waiting to inhale: The politics of medical marijuana. California: Seven

Brown Edmund. G. 2008.   Department Of Justice, Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use August 2008. Viewed May 28, 2011   from http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1601_medicalmarijuanaguidelines

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovering the grounded theory: Strategies in qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Joy, J., Watson, S., Benson, J., eds., 1999. Marijuana & medicine: Assessing science base. Washington D.C.: National Acad. Press

Kleiman, Mark.2010. “California can’t legalize marijuana.” Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 28, 2011 from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/16/opinion/la-oe-kleiman-marijuana-legalization.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.

Mack, Alison & Joy, Janet. (2001). Marijuana the Medicine: The Science beyond the Controversy National Academy Press. xi-xii

McCarthy, K.I. 2004. Conversations about Medical Marijuana between Physicians and Their Patients. Journal of Legal Medicine. 25(3). 333-349

McCarberg, B.H. 2007.’ Cannabinoids’, Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy, 21:3, 19-28.

MarijuanaInfo, Conant v. McCaffrey – Court Order, 2007: 2-14. Viewed 07 May 2011