Removing Marijuana From the Controlled Substances Act, Term Paper Example

Introduction

Today, the medical use of Marijuana is a subject of debate among physicians and policymakers. Several studies have been created to measure the damage and benefit caused by Cannabis to human health since the creation of the Controlled Substance Act (1970). Some researchers confirm that the drug indeed has several medicinal benefits, while others claim that Cannabis use leads to addiction and mental health problems. Still, 14 out of 50 states in the U.S. currently recognize the medical use of Marijuana. The below study is going to review the pro and con arguments created around legalizing medical Cannabis and taking it out of the Controlled Substances Act.

Expected Interest Groups and Arguments

From the perspective of patients who suffer from long term conditions, the medical use of the drug could be beneficial. According to the Drug Policy Alliance (2013), in 1972 the first petition was created to take Cannabis out of Schedule I and place it into Schedule II. Since that time, several further petitions were started. Schedule I relates to drugs that have a “high potential for abuse”, while not adopted for medical use, and there is no accepted safety proof. Since the 1970-s, however, several studies have confirmed the medical benefits of Marijuana. As of 2012, the use of medical Cannabis was (partly) accepted by 26 states. As Svrakic et al. (2012, p. 90) confirms: “26 states in the US have passed either medical cannabis laws, cannabis decriminalization laws, or both”. However, in some states, such as Maryland and Arizona, the medical use of the substance is accepted, but the use of Cannabis is not decriminalized. This means that while in pill or liquid substance form the drug can be prescribed for patients, they can still be prosecuted for using illegal substances. As an example, Cannabis studies on veterans with PTSD have showed positive results (Drug Policy, 2013), however, the FDA failed to support the studies, therefore, the findings were not taken into consideration when making a decision about democratizing the substance and classifying different Cannnaboids as medicines.

Expected Interplay Between Suppliers and Customers

The Drug Policy Alliance (2013, p. 2) confirms that there are two different avenues the public and professionals can go down to take Marijuana out of the Controlled Substances act: “Rescheduling can occur either by Congressional action (legislation) or through DEA’s administrative rulemaking process (petition)”. While Svrakic et al. (2012) confirm that there are several adverse health effects of smoking Marijuana, affecting the liver, immune system, and the respiratory organs, the lack of studies related to other forms of the drug means that the majority of the adverse effects might be related to “smoking” and not the drug itself. Still, the side effects of the drug need to be discovered during large scale, controlled trials. As long as the use of Cannabis for relaxation and medical purposes is criminalized, it is not possible to effectively research the potential benefits and side effects of the drug. For example, it is said that “Recent research clearly shows that any work that requires cognitive involvement and decision making is affected by cannabis use” (Svrakic et al., 2012, p. 94), the studies quoted are not representative, therefore, they should not be used to determine the impact of the drug. It is likely that petitions are going to emerge on social media sites, and politicians will argue, debate, and support one or the other side. Without solid evidence, however, the debate cannot be decided. State legislation that allows the use of Cannabis but does not provide patients with legal protection against prosecution would not lead to an agreeable solution.

Strategic Policy Development

As the Drug Policy Alliance (2013, p. 2) confirms: “Rescheduling would be a modest step in the right direction, allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana and possibly opening the door for limited research”. Placing Marijuana in the next category, Schedule II, along with Cocaine, widely accepted for medical use would allow larger scale trials to be completed. This way, the impact of Cannabis on different health conditions could be observed and researched. Any potential risks related to addiction and adverse health impact could also be determined during the studies. Without the collaboration among policymakers, physicians, patients, and the FDA, however, it is impossible to arrange rescheduling of the drug. Another important question is how to decriminalize the use of medical Marijuana. Synthetic drugs in a pill form have been used for a long time, such as Marinol (Svrakic et al., 2012), and are proven to be effective treating several conditions, such as nausea and vomiting, as well as neurological syndromes.

Conclusion

As the above review of related literature has shown, the reason why the legislation of Cannabis for medical use is a legal gray area is that there is a lack of collaboration to create studies that would deliver solid evidence for the following features:

• the risk of potential abuse
• the potential benefits of using the drug
• the best forms of delivering the substance
• the most common side effects and health risks associated with the use of Cannabis

Therefore, it is recommended that medical Marijuana is taken out of Schedule I and is placed in Schedule II to allow researchers complete large scale controlled studies and trials.

References

Drug Policy. (2013) Removing Marijuana From the Controlled Substances Act. Retrieved from http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact%20sheet_Marijuana%20Reclassification_May%202013.pdf

Svrakic, D. M., Lustman, P. J., Mallya, A., Lynn, T. A., Finney, R., & Svrakic, N. M. (2012). Legalization, decriminalization & medicinal use of cannabis: a scientific and public health perspective. Missouri medicine, 109(2), 90-98.