consider whether or not to legalize marijuana for medical
reasons. There does not appear to be any consensus on
whether or not this is good public policy.
One problem is that what relief, if any, relies on anecdotal
evidence. Scientific evidence requires facts that can be tested
by others with the same results; obviously this is a weakness
when one depends on anecdotal evidence. But allowing for
this weakness, it appears that those who are taking a wide variety
of chemotherapy drugs do report getting relief from the nausea
when they are allowed to use marijuana.
The problem, or a major one, lies in the inability to have any
meaningful way of controlling the writing of prescriptions
for those who want it for any other purpose beyond
just control of nausea after chemotherapy.
The recent conviction of Howard K. Smith associated with his
obtaining drugs for her is a good example of prescription abuse.
The wall between government and patient/doctor privilege
must be high enough to be unscalable.
Another factor is that if it is a prescription then insurance
will be asked to pay for it or part of its costs. With talk of
government involvement in health care costs, the partisan
arguments may get hostile and raises another issue that
will be highly divisive at a time when
unity is needed to face our economic woes.
If marijuana is legal, then states can tax it and thus raise revenue
much as is done with lottery tickets and alcohol. This is opposed
forcefully by many conservatives for religious and moralistic
reasons. Many point to the results in the growth of crime families
when alcohol was first prohibited and then legalized.
Studies will need to look at results in California where it is legal
in many areas. In fact courts are being asked to decide whether
states have the constitutional right to legalize something that
is contrary to federal governmental policy.
It is important that information be made available that
shows both sides of the argument as well as the underlying
research to establish the argument. Since this is becoming
a major issue on the ballot box, and in some states, is being
raised as a possible constitutional amendment. Each of us must
begin to think about our position and the research that we
have looked to in reaching the position. For some
it is, and will always be, a question of religion or our interpretation
of morality. For others it will be a question of research results.
Where do you personally stand?
Posts
