Medical Marijuana Essay, Research Paper

Medical Marijuana

Marijuana prohibition applies to everyone, including the ill and deceasing. Of all the negative effects of prohibition, none is every bit tragic as the denial of medical marihuana to the 10s of 1000s of earnestly sick patients who could profit from its curative usage.

? ? ? It is clear from available surveies and quickly roll uping anecdotal grounds that marihuana is curative in the intervention of a figure of serious complaints and is less toxic and dearly-won than many conventional medical specialties for which it may be substituted.1 Most late, a federally commissioned study by the National Academy of Sciences ( NAS ) determined that, ? Marijuana? s active constituents are potentially effectual in handling hurting, sickness, the anorexia of AIDS cachexia, and other symptoms? including multiple sclerosis.2 In some instances, marihuana appears more effectual than the commercially available drugs it replaces.3

? ? ? The best established medical usage of smoke-cured marihuana is as an anti-nauseant for malignant neoplastic disease chemotherapy. During the 1980s, research workers in six different state-sponsored clinical surveies affecting about 1,000 patients determined smoke-cured marihuanas to be an effectual anti-emetic.4 For many of these patients, smoked marihuana proved more effectual than both conventional prescription anti-nauseants and unwritten THC ( marketed today as the man-made pill, Marinol ) .5 Dr. John Benson, Jr. , co-principle research worker for the latest NAS study, concluded in March 1997 that? short term marihuana usage appears to be suited in handling conditions like chemotherapy-induced sickness? for patients who do non react good to other medications.6 Currently, many oncologists are urging marihuanas to their patients despite its prohibition.7

? ? ? Scientific and anecdotal grounds besides suggests that marihuana is a valuable assistance in cut downing hurting and agony for patients with a assortment of other serious complaints. For illustration, marihuana alleviates the sickness, emesis, and the loss of appetency experienced by many AIDS patients without speed uping the rate at which HIV positive persons develop clinical AIDS or other illnesses.8 Harmonizing to the National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) , marijuana? addition [ s ] nutrient enjoyment and the figure of times persons eat per twenty-four hours. ? 9 The most recent NAS study found cannabinoid drugs? assuring for handling blowing syndrome in AIDS patients, ? 10 and recommended those patients unresponsive to conventional AIDS medicines smoke marihuana to battle the cachexia syndrome.11

? ? ? An earlier 1982 study by the National Academy of Sciences ( NAS ) suggested that marihuana reduces intraocular force per unit area ( IOP ) in patients enduring from glaucoma, the taking cause of sightlessness in the United States.12 A follow up 1994 study by the Australian federal authorities determined that, ? There is sensible grounds for the possible efficaciousness of THC in the intervention of glaucoma, particularly in instances which have proved immune to bing anti-glaucoma agents, ? and recommended the drug? s usage under medically supervised conditions.13

? ? ? Clinical and anecdotal grounds besides points to the effectivity of marihuana as a curative agent in the intervention of a assortment of spastic conditions such as multiple induration, paraplegia, epilepsy, and quadriplegia. Animal surveies and carefully controlled human surveies support marijuana & # 8217 ; s ability to stamp down paroxysms. In November 1998, England? s House of Lords Science and Technology Committee said they were? convince [ vitamin D ] & # 8230 ; that cannabis & # 8230 ; surely does hold echt medical applications & # 8230 ; in handling the painful musculus cramps and other symptoms of MS, ? and recommended legalising medical usage of the drug.14 The latest NAS study besides noted marihuana seems to relieve musculus cramps associated with MS.15

? ? ? Many patients and older Americans use marihuanas therapeutically to command chronic hurting. NAS research workers found that, ? The available grounds from both carnal and human surveies indicates that cannabinoids can bring forth a important analgetic consequence. ? 16 Several recent scientific surveies performed by research workers at the University of San Francisco and elsewhere show that compounds in marihuana modulate hurting signals in much the same manner as morphia and other opiates.17 This new research led the Society of Neuroscience to articulate that, ? Substances similar to or derived from marihuana, known as cannabinoids, could profit the more than 97 million Americans who experience some signifier of hurting each twelvemonth. ? 18

? ? ? New research indicates that marihuana components appear to protect encephalon cells during a shot. Research workers at the National Institute for Mental Health called compounds in marijuana potent antioxidants.19 Doctors rely on antioxidants to protect shot victims from toxic degrees of a encephalon chemical called glutamate. Head injury and shots cause the release of inordinate glutamate, frequently ensuing in irreversible harm to encephalon cells. In research lab surveies, marijuana compounds performed better than traditional antioxidants like vitamins C and E.20

? ? ? Between 1978 and 1996, legislatures in 34 provinces and the District of Columbia passed Torahs acknowledging marihuana & # 8217 ; s curative value.21 Twenty-three of these Torahs remain in consequence today.22 Most late, electors in Alaska, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington overpoweringly adopted enterprises relieving patients who use marihuanas under a doctor? s supervising from province condemnable penalties.23 These provinces joined electors in Arizona and California who passed similar enterprises acknowledging marihuana? s medical value in 1996. These Torahs do non legalise marihuanas or alter condemnable punishments sing the ownership or cultivation of marihuana for recreational usage. Nor do they set up a legal supply for patients to obtain the drug. They simply provide a narrow freedom from prosecution for defined patients who use marihuanas with their physician? s recommendation.

? ? ? Clearly, the American public distinguish between the medical usage and recreational usage of marihuana, and a bulk support legalising medical usage for earnestly sick patients.24 A March 26, 1999 Gallup canvass reported that 70 three per centum of American support doing marihuanas available to physicians so they may order it.25 Basic compassion and common sense demand that we allow America? s earnestly sick citizens to utilize whatever medicine is most safe and effectual to relieve their hurting and agony.

? ? ? NORML foremost raised this issue in 1972 in an administrative request inquiring federal governments to travel marihuana from agenda I to schedule II of the federal Controlled Substances Act so physicians may order it. After 16 old ages of legal conflicts and entreaties, in 1988, the Drug Enforcement Administration & # 8217 ; s ain administrative jurisprudence justice, Francis Young, found: & # 8220 ; Marijuana has been accepted as capable of alleviating hurt of great Numberss of really sick people, and making so with safety under medical supervising. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and freakish for DEA to go on to stand between those sick persons and the benefits of this substance in visible radiation of the grounds in this record. & # 8221 ; 26 Young recommended & # 8220 ; that the Administrator transportation marihuana from Schedule I to Schedule II, to do it available as a legal medicine. & # 8221 ; 27 The DEA Administrator overruled Judge Young, and the Court of Appeals allowed that determination to stand, denying medical marihuana to earnestly ill patients. Congress must move to rectify this unfairness.

? ? ? Representative Barney Frank ( D-Mass ) late reintroduced statute law in Congress to supply for the medical usage of marijuana.28 House Bill 912, the & # 8220 ; Medical Use of Marijuana Act, & # 8221 ; would travel marihuana from Schedule I to Schedule II under federal jurisprudence, thereby doing it legal for doctors to order. The rescheduling would take hemp from the list of drugs alleged to hold no valid medical usage, such as diacetylmorphine and LSD, and put it in the same class as Marinol, morphia and cocaine.

? ? ? House Bill 912 is non a authorization from Washington and would non necessitate any province to alter its current Torahs. It is a provinces & # 8217 ; rights measure that acknowledges the will of the American people and would let provinces to find for themselves whether marihuana should be legal for medicative usage. It i

s a common-sense solution to a complex issue and would supply a great trade of alleviation from enduring for a big figure of people. NORML implores Congress to back up this compassionate proposal to protect the 10 of 1000s of Americans who presently use marihuanas as a medical specialty and the 1000000s who would profit from its legal entree. Many earnestly sick patients find marijuana the most effectual manner to alleviate their hurting and agony and federal marihuana prohibition must non, in good scruples, continue to deny them that medicine.

Bibliography

1. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, ? Ninth Report, ? London: United Kingdom ( 1998 ) ; American Public Health Association, Resolution 9513: Entree to Therapeutic Marijuana/Cannabis, Washington, DC: APHA Public Policy Statements ( 1995 ) ; Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, The wellness and psychological effects of hemp usage, Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service ( 1994 ) : 185-199 ; Federation of American Scientists, Medical Use of Whole Cannabis, Washington, DC: Statement of the FAS ( 1994 ) ; Lester Grinspoon, M.D. et al. , Marihuana, The Forbidden Medicine ( 2nd edition ) , New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press ( 1997 ) ; John Morgan, M.D. et al. , Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence, New York City: Lindesmith Center ( 1997 ) : 17-25.

2. Institute of Medicine News, March 17, 1999 ; National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: Measuring the Science Base, Washington, DC: National Academy Press ( 1999 ) ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.norml.org/medical/IOM_Report/iomlv.htm.

3. Lester Grinspoon, M.D. , et al. , Marihuana, The Forbidden Medicine.

4. R.C. Randall, Cancer Treatment & A ; Marijuana Therapy, Washington, DC: Galen Press ( 1990 ) : 217-243 ; Kevin Zeese, Marijuana: Medical Effectiveness Is Proven By Research, Falls Church, Virginia: Common Sense for Drug Policy ( 1997 ) ; ? Annual Report: Evaluation of Marijuana and Tetrahydrocannabinol in Treatment of Nausea and/or Vomiting Associated with Cancer Therapy Unresponsive to Conventional Anti-Emetic Therapy: Efficacy and Toxicity, ? Board of Pharmacy, State of Tennessee, ( 1983 ) ; McNeil, Robert P. , ? The Lynn Pierson Therapeutic Research Program: A Report on Progress to Date, ? Behavioral Health Services Division, Health and Environment Department, State of New Mexico, ( 1983 ) ; ? Seventeenth Annual Report of the Research Advisory Panel, ? prepared for the Governor and Legislature by the California Research Advisory Panel, San Francisco, California, ( 1986 ) ; ? Michigan Department of Public Health Marijuana Therapeutic Research Project, Trial A 1980-81, ? Department of Social Oncology, Evaluation Unit. Michigan Cancer Foundation, ( 1982 ) , Kunter, Michael H. , ? Evaluation of the Use of Both Marijuana and THC in Cancer Patients for the Relief of Nausea and Vomiting Associated with Cancer Chemotherapy After Failure of Conventional Anti-Emetic Therapy: Efficacy and Toxicity, ? as prepared for the Composite State Board of Medical Examiners, Georgia Department of Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia ( 1983 ) ; ? Annual Report to the Governor and Legislature on the Antonio G. Olivieri Controlled Substances Therapeutic Research Program, ? New York State Department of Health, ( 1986 ) as it appeared in Cancer Treatment and Marijuana Therapy, ( 1990 ) .

5. ? Annual Report: Evaluation of Marijuana and Tetrahydrocannabinol in Treatment of Nausea and/or Vomiting Associated with Cancer Therapy Unresponsive to Conventional Anti-Emetic Therapy: Efficacy and Toxicity, ? Board of Pharmacy, State of Tennessee ; ? The Lynn Pierson Therapeutic Research Program: A Report on Progress to Date, ? Behavioral Health Services Division, Health and Environment Department, State of New Mexico ; ? Seventeenth Annual Report of the Research Advisory Panel, ? prepared for the Governor and Legislature by the California Research Advisory Panel ; Vincent Vinciguerra, et al. , ? Inhalation marihuana as an antiemetic for malignant neoplastic disease chemotherapy, ? New York State Journal of Medicine, ( 1988 ) : 525-527.

6. Institute of Medicine News, March 17, 1999.

7. Rick Doblin, et al. , & # 8220 ; Marihuana as Anti-emetic Medicine: A Survey of Oncologists & # 8217 ; Attitudes and Experiences, & # 8221 ; Journal of Clinical Oncology, ( 1991 ) : 1275-80 ; John Morgan, M.D. et al. , Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence, 20.

8. Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, The wellness and psychological effects of hemp usage, 195 ; Richard Kaslow, M.D. , et al. , & # 8220 ; No Evidence for a Role of Alcohol or Other Psychoactive Drugs in Accelerating Immunodeficiency in HIV-1 Positive Individuals, & # 8221 ; Journal of The American Medical Association, ( 1989 ) : 3424-29.

9. National Institues of Health, & # 8220 ; Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana, Report to the Director, & # 8221 ; Washington, D.C. ( 1997 ) : 4.

10. National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, Marijuana as Medicine: Measuring the Science Base, 4.22.

11. Institute of Medicine News, March 17, 1999. National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Health, Washington, DC: National Academy Press ( 1982 ) : 140-151.

12. National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Health, Washington, DC: National Academy Press ( 1982 ) : 140-151.

13. Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, The wellness and psychological effects of hemp usage, 199.

14. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, & # 8220 ; Ninth Report ; & # 8221 ; Associated Press, November 12, 1998.

15. Institute of Medicine News, March 17, 1999.

16. National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: Measuring the Science Base, 4.9.

17. & # 8220 ; Man-made marijuana-like drug simplicities pain & # 8211 ; survey, & # 8221 ; Reuters News Service, September 23, 1998 ; & # 8220 ; Study Explains How Marijuana Kills Pain, & # 8221 ; San Francisco Chronicle, September 24, 1998 ; & # 8220 ; Easing the Agony: Marijuana does more than simply do you stoned, & # 8221 ; The New Scientist ( United Kingdom ) , September 26, 1998 ; & # 8220 ; Cannabinoid Anagesia Explained, & # 8221 ; The Lancet, September 26, 1998 ; & # 8220 ; How Does Marijuana Kill Pain, & # 8221 ; Associated Press, October 4, 1998.

18. Society for Neuroscience, Press Conference: Marijuana & A ; Analgesia, October 26, 1997.

19. A. Hampson, et al. , & # 8220 ; Cannabidiol and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol are neuroprotective antioxidants, & # 8221 ; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 ( 1998 ) : 8268-8273 ; & # 8220 ; Cannabis is stroke hope, & # 8221 ; The Guardian ( United Kingdom ) , July 4, 1998 ; & # 8220 ; Marijuana? s Mending Properties, & # 8221 ; Associated Press, July 5, 1998.

20. Ibid.

21. Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia.

22. Alabama ( S. 559 ) ; Connecticut ( H.B. 5217 ) ; District of Columbia ( Bill No. 4-123 ) ; Georgia ( H.B. 1077 ) ; Iowa ( S.F. 487 ) ; Illinois ( H.B. 2625 ) ; Louisiana ( H.B. 1187 ) ; Massachusetts ( H. 2170 ) ; Minnesota ( H.F. 2476 ) ; Montana ( H.B. 463 ) ; New Hampshire ( S.B. 21 ) ; New Jersey ( A.B. 819 ) ; New Mexico ( H.B. 329 ) ; New York ( S.B. 1123-6 ) ; Rhode Island ( H.B. 79.6072 ) ; South Carolina ( S.B. 350 ) ; Tennessee ( H.B. 314 ) ; Texas ( S.B. 877 ) ; Vermont ( H.B. 130 ) ; Virginia ( S.B. 913 ) ; Washington ( S.B. 6744 ) ; West Virginia ( S.B. 366 ) ; Wisconsin ( A.B. 697 ) ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.norml.org/medical/states.shtml.

23. hypertext transfer protocol: //www.norml.org/medical/pets98.shtml.

24. hypertext transfer protocol: //www.norml.org/medical/polls.shtml.

25. ? Americans Oppose General Legalization of Marijuana, but Support Use for Medicinal Purposes, ? Gallup Poll News Service, Volume 63, No. 44, March 26, 1999.

26. In the Matter of Marihuana Rescheduling Petition, Docket 86-22, Opinion, Recommended Ruling, Findings of fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of Administrative Law Judge, September 6, 1988 ( Washington, DC: Drug Enforcement Administration, 1988 ) .

27. Ibid.

28. hypertext transfer protocol: //www.norml.org/laws/HR912.html.

329