Why Marijuana Should be Rescheduled
Today, the use of medical marijuana remains one of the most controversial issues. Opinions on this topic are vastly polarized with strong arguments defending benefits and risks. However, there is relatively little scientific data on medical marijuana to confirm either argument. With this topic being so widely discussed, one may wonder why sufficient research studies have not taken place to base medical decisions. In order to understand the current status of medical marijuana, one must first understand the politics behind its use.
The first anti-marijuana legislation took place in the Midwest and the Southwest in the 1910s and 1920s, specifically targeting Mexican migrants, Mexican Americans, Blacks, and jazz musicians. Not surprisingly, Latino and black communities today continue to face a widely disproportionate drug enforcement and sentencing involved in marijuana possession. The first round of federal cannabis prohibition was officially under the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, despite opposition from the American Medical Association. This act restricted possession to those who paid a large tax for a limited set of medical and industrial applications.
At the time, many doctors found cannabis medically useful and this legislation unjust. However, uproar of this legislation was difficult since many did not want to defend these minorities during a racially segregated time. In 1944, the La Guardia Committee report from the New York Academy of Medicine was the first of many medical bodies to question marijuana prohibition. This committee found marijuana not to be physically addictive, not a gateway drug, and that it did not lead to violence. However, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics labeled this report unscientific and the this legislation continued. In 1969, with the case of Leary v. United States, Congress was urged to repeal this tax act and replace it with the more comprehensive Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Marijuana was placed in Schedule I in 1971 provisionally, until science research could be assessed.
During this same year, President Nixon declared a "war on drugs". Nixon created the Shafer Commission to engineer scientific support for cannabis's Schedule I placement. In 1971, the Shafer Commission found in 1972 stated that cannabis was as safe as alcohol, and recommended decriminalizing the possession and distribution of marijuana for person use. Despite this, Nixon ignored the report and rejected its recommendation. A top Nixon aide, John Ehrlichman, later admitted that the Nixon White House used this scheduling as an attack on their largest oppressors: the antiwar left and black people. By criminalize this drug heavily, this administration was able to disrupt these communities. Unfortunately, this was the beginning of a strong stigma around cannabis which has halted scientific research for decades.
The current scheduling of marijuana automatically eliminates valid research on the drug. According to the U.S Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Schedule I substances are "defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and high potential for abuse." Since marijuana is illegal at a federal level, studies often take several years for approval. Additionally, only one facility in the entire country is approved to federally grow marijuana for research which is at the University of Mississippi. The plants grown at this facility includes cannabis stored from the 1960s and does not contain the same strains as cannabis found in medical and recreational dispensaries. Consequently, there is little knowledge or regulation over the effects over the cannabis that is legally distributed from these facilities.
These issues have created several problems for patients suffering a wide variety of co-morbid conditions who may benefit from cannabis use. In 2015, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out with a statement urging the DEA to re-classify medical marijuana. Currently, hospitals are not allowed to administer cannabis to their patients or keep it on hand. A wide report of cases from parents discuss the difficulties of obtaining medical cannabis for their children who suffer from seizures. Obstacles these parents face including having to administer the cannabis themselves, having to leave the hospital to dispensaries to obtain cannabis, as well as fear of their child being taken away by the government depending on state laws for administering cannabis. Additionally, many health care professionals today believe that medical cannabis may be used to as an alternative for pain relief to halt the current opioid epidemic due to its less addictive properties.
Regardless of opinion, it is clear that we will never have a concrete answer on the medical benefits or risks of cannabis without sufficient published evidence. By pushing rescheduling of this drug, the proper clinical studies may take place to gain scientific knowledge on this drug.
References:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473390/
http://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/brief-history-drug-war
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3998227/
The first anti-marijuana legislation took place in the Midwest and the Southwest in the 1910s and 1920s, specifically targeting Mexican migrants, Mexican Americans, Blacks, and jazz musicians. Not surprisingly, Latino and black communities today continue to face a widely disproportionate drug enforcement and sentencing involved in marijuana possession. The first round of federal cannabis prohibition was officially under the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, despite opposition from the American Medical Association. This act restricted possession to those who paid a large tax for a limited set of medical and industrial applications.
At the time, many doctors found cannabis medically useful and this legislation unjust. However, uproar of this legislation was difficult since many did not want to defend these minorities during a racially segregated time. In 1944, the La Guardia Committee report from the New York Academy of Medicine was the first of many medical bodies to question marijuana prohibition. This committee found marijuana not to be physically addictive, not a gateway drug, and that it did not lead to violence. However, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics labeled this report unscientific and the this legislation continued. In 1969, with the case of Leary v. United States, Congress was urged to repeal this tax act and replace it with the more comprehensive Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Marijuana was placed in Schedule I in 1971 provisionally, until science research could be assessed.
During this same year, President Nixon declared a "war on drugs". Nixon created the Shafer Commission to engineer scientific support for cannabis's Schedule I placement. In 1971, the Shafer Commission found in 1972 stated that cannabis was as safe as alcohol, and recommended decriminalizing the possession and distribution of marijuana for person use. Despite this, Nixon ignored the report and rejected its recommendation. A top Nixon aide, John Ehrlichman, later admitted that the Nixon White House used this scheduling as an attack on their largest oppressors: the antiwar left and black people. By criminalize this drug heavily, this administration was able to disrupt these communities. Unfortunately, this was the beginning of a strong stigma around cannabis which has halted scientific research for decades.
The current scheduling of marijuana automatically eliminates valid research on the drug. According to the U.S Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Schedule I substances are "defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and high potential for abuse." Since marijuana is illegal at a federal level, studies often take several years for approval. Additionally, only one facility in the entire country is approved to federally grow marijuana for research which is at the University of Mississippi. The plants grown at this facility includes cannabis stored from the 1960s and does not contain the same strains as cannabis found in medical and recreational dispensaries. Consequently, there is little knowledge or regulation over the effects over the cannabis that is legally distributed from these facilities.
These issues have created several problems for patients suffering a wide variety of co-morbid conditions who may benefit from cannabis use. In 2015, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out with a statement urging the DEA to re-classify medical marijuana. Currently, hospitals are not allowed to administer cannabis to their patients or keep it on hand. A wide report of cases from parents discuss the difficulties of obtaining medical cannabis for their children who suffer from seizures. Obstacles these parents face including having to administer the cannabis themselves, having to leave the hospital to dispensaries to obtain cannabis, as well as fear of their child being taken away by the government depending on state laws for administering cannabis. Additionally, many health care professionals today believe that medical cannabis may be used to as an alternative for pain relief to halt the current opioid epidemic due to its less addictive properties.
Regardless of opinion, it is clear that we will never have a concrete answer on the medical benefits or risks of cannabis without sufficient published evidence. By pushing rescheduling of this drug, the proper clinical studies may take place to gain scientific knowledge on this drug.
References:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473390/
http://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/brief-history-drug-war
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3998227/
Comments
Post a Comment