The Vocab: Medicinal Marijuana and General-Use Marijuana
Last week, the California Assembly's Public Safety Committee, with a vote of 4-3, favored legislation that would make marijuana legal in the state of California for adults at least 21 years of age. With the
committee's approval, A.B. 390 will be put forth to the full California Assembly sometime in 2011. The Committee's decision has been claimed as a victory by the Marijuana Policy Project, the self-proclaimed "fastest-growing marijuana policy reform organization in the United States." The MPP has the explicit support of both celebrities (like Jack Black, Bill Maher and Adam Carolla) and politicians alike - former governor Jesse Ventura and former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders are advisors for the organization, too. (Elders' one-year stint as Surgeon General was apparently wrought with controversy ... it's technically irrelevant to the present post, but a fascinating and recommended read.)
Marijuana legislation is not new to state-level politics. Fourteen states currently have legalized medicinal marijuana, six of which allow privately-owned dispensaries to sell pot to those with a prescription: California, Colorado, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, and Rhode Island. (Interestingly, according to an article by the Denver Post, Denver has more pot dispensaries than Starbucks coffee shops, public schools, and liquor stores.) But what the state of California is proposing is pot legalized for any use, regardless of its medicinal purposes. Medicinal marijuana use was an easier sell, in terms of its proven benefits for those with certain health problems. A report by the NIH posits that pot can mitigate nausea (which is especially problematic for chemotherapy patients), stimulate appetite (in AIDS and chemotherapy patients, for example), can treat glaucoma, and is a mild pain reliever. In these past debates for marijuana legalization, it was framed as a health policy and healthcare issue. Now, California lawmakers are faced with deciding marijuana's acceptability as a recreational issue.
Proponents of A.B. 390, as well as the advisors for MPP, make the standard arguments for the general (i.e., not just medicinal) legalization of marijuana: taxation can bring in revenue, money can be saved on law enforcement, and less drug trafficking-related violence. People like Jack Black, however, are a little more frank about their motives. Jack Black is a notorious marijuana user - he wants it to be legal because he thinks it's fun and harmless. But is it really harmless?
The FDA's official stance on the matter is, on the contrary, that marijuana is a harmful substance with "a high potential for abuse" and "has a lack of accepted safety for use" even under medical supervision. (The FDA has since been slammed with criticism that these statements were politically-motivated, and not empirically derived.) Sure, there are health risks with marijuana use - there are studies that suggest that it increases lung cancer risk, can potentially lead to psychiatric disorders, that its use can impair driving ability. There's also the omnipresent "gateway drug" theory - that marijuana use can lead to the use of more serious, addictive, and destructive drugs. These are legitimate risks that we have to weigh in - most would agree that the risks are worthwhile for those benefiting medicinally, but are the risks worthwhile for merely recreational users?
It's a thorny web of pros and cons, and when it comes down to state-level legislation, it depends on the particular state's values and priorities. (For example, in my home state of Nebraska, casinos are banned because of the perceived "vices" of gambling. I find it unlikely that Nebraskan lawmakers will ever allow the words "marijuana" and "legalization" to be spoken in the same sentence.) My take on the issue? Medicinal marijuana legalization may be worth the risks because of its particular ameliorating benefit for ailing patients, like for those with cancer and AIDS. While guys like Jack Black are charismatic advocates, and the campaigns from his beloved MPP make persuasive arguments, marijuana use in the general public just may not be worth the negative health side effects.
Can legalization bring in revenue? Sure. Should we stop criminalizing marijuana use to lighten the burden on the law/drug enforcement system? I can see that. But simply put, as a health policy issue, non-medicinal pot use is probably not going to make Americans healthier.
No comments:
Post a Comment