A modern way of dealing drugs

(Truth, Efficiency, and Values)

it is all about m…Marijuana

Stuff is a medicine?

Today, individuals of all age groups use, use or abuse the drug called Marijuana. It has been illegalized by the Controlled Substances Act and remains a Schedule I drug, next to cocaine and heroine up until today (1). And why exactly is that one may ask? This article will clear many question and pose even more on this issue. According to the National Institutes of Health medical marijuana is referred to the use of the plant Cannabis Sativa. All plant material that contains the active ingredient THC also known as tetrahydrocannabinol is included (1). Therefore, only if this substance is present, marijuana can be used “medically”. Many people do not need to use the drug for medical purposes. The inaccessibility of this drug to any patient is intolerable, because marijuana clearly possesses medical values.

For something to be useful as medicine it has to be curing or treating a symptom, based on the dictionary definition of medical.  Logically, if the substance used helps or cures the disease it should be allowed for medical purposes if the individual approves of the method of treatment the doctor prescribes or recommends. But most importantly, the substance cannot be dangerous to a point were medical use would severely worsen the conditions of the patient. A couple criteria emerge from my definition of medical that are controversial.

The biggest argument with the “medical” value of Marijuana is whether it is a drug that is dangerous and helpful? So what does this mean? Simply, a craving for the substance is often enough to classify something as addictive. But then, is marijuana medically helpful, even if it is addictive? And what if, as long as it does not harm others or yourself greater than the disease would in the first place or perhaps not? Would this not depend on more criteria, so called side effects? Yet, more and more, new side effects are found in drugs that are used medically. So we should keep in mind here that side effects do not necessarily mean dangerous? If a person has the personal right to choose taking other medication with even worse side effects why does that have to also mean that he is harming himself more than allowed by my definition of medical? To match these criteria lets see why marijuana does fit medical.

If marijuana was addictive, it would be dangerous and would serve no medical value. It would simply not be helpful (3). Though remember that dangerous does not exclude medical at all times, even though it potentially can when this criteria becomes too drastic as discussed before. While the Government continues to call marijuana a “mind altering” substance, which all of them are classified as dangerous only two questions remain. If all these substances today with side effects, meet the definition of medical, first why would marijuana not and second why are legal drugs not dangerous then? Otherwise, Oxycottin would long be illegalized due to its immense addiction and abuse rate, that can be life threatening, or dangerous unlike marijuana which to this day after thousands of years in use as pain medication has not collected a single death to its name (4). The argument that regulations cannot completely eliminate abuse is a given factor to take into consideration, but does not make it dangerous. Based on my personal experience, with caffeine addiction however, the mood changes can be horrid and abuse is forced. Without coffee in the morning, I cannot awake properly. It is a stressful morning. It is my personal choice, to drink coffee, harm my body, and enjoy every bit of its side effects, yet without any medical value. If marijuana is helping cancer patients, aids patients, glaucoma patients, and many others to feel as no other substance can make them feel, and let them sleep would you be willing to accept a few side effects for your relief’s sake which are none compared to other choices (2). Of course you would because of your personal rights. So let’s keep ignoring the coffee addicts causing themselves greater harm than relief, just like cigarettes and alcohol addicts and bash down the utterly ill for abusing a potentially addictive drug to cure their pain. Not one product listed above is helpful by the way then neither medically, as coffee must be dangerous because it clearly is addictive.  But to fully understand this controversy let’s go back to the beginning after summing up my criteria: Even though marijuana can be addictive and mind altering and produces mild side effects, they are within the boundaries of my definition of medical because they serve a medical purpose. Marijuana does not harm the individual more than the disease, otherwise every modern medicine would as well, and therefore is helpful because it fails to test more “dangerous” than other medications readily available. The fact that it cannot be deadly is enough to discard it from this category. 

One could argue that my criteria do not report of neither physical addictions nor psychological. I see a need to address this because the government was and remains influenced, by several figures like Steven Goldberg as an example, whose studies then are reported by an ABC news Journalist that is obviously aiming at the destruction of the good in marijuana to show that marijuana is “addictive and dangerous”. If that was to be true then nothing would have a medical value we use for such purpose today, again (3). His actual definition of addiction left me doubting if his argument even meant to address both, therefore I saw no point in being more specific in my criteria. He never once stated how the experiment could show that addiction may be an issue not only in animals. What were the cravings he mentions so dearly? Are we to assume this? And if the addiction was more severe than with other commercial drugs today, why was this not mentioned or stressed in his “addiction” article? Of course, to the actual patient, all this is secondary, negligible information. Because this opposing argument could not develop any further at this point, these issues would have to be clarified first. In my opinion anything that causes enough relief, be it relief from stress even can cause an addiction and can be abused, as coffee and cigarettes clearly manage to do prove to us from the legal perspective. As you can see marijuana has a medical purpose. To completely weaken most opposing arguments and close mine, I think it is outright funny that for most studies only a very small population was taken into consideration. This is often neglected and overlooked. Only 4 monkeys represented the “entire population” in most experiments (3). Not to mention the absence of control groups to even see how strong the correlation between health effects/addiction and marijuana really is. As with marijuana and any drug, no medical conclusion can be drawn completely from these studies in the first place (2). As long as marijuana continues to be illegalized for medical purposes, some questions posed in this article may not to be answered in the very near future or maybe never. It should be accessible medically by recommendation of a doctor to everyone regardless of the fact that it is deemed a dangerous and mind altering substance with side effects. Therefore I concur with Mikuriya: “Use or abuse? Cannabis, like any other drug, is a tool. Properly utilized with realistic expectations and awareness of its properties, cannabis is a safe and effective medicine.”

Metamorphosis

Many people who believe that cannabis is harmful also believe that it is not a large legal issue—“justify that to the twenty million fellow citizens currently sitting in prison whose lives are ruined by the legality of this substance” (5). Today, based on modern research, criminal relatedness to the medicinal uses of marijuana is obsolete and impartial in which no individual ought to fear prosecution for its legitimate usage. Presenting an issue that has prior been pronounced even among North Carolina residents, medicinal marijuana has been a topic that deserves attention that current politicians on state and federal levels will not take the time to research. For example, John McCain stirred up this reflection with his recent disinclined stance to discuss marijuana policies during his campaign for presidency (9). And Obama followed these footsteps on his own website, by opposing to clearly answer the Main issue (the legalization of marijuana and the stop of federal raids on patients) the people of United States wanted to discuss. While both parties genuinely argue for the same cause, we as citizens agree that the regulation of the drug is essential. But it is because of the negative consequences of the current approach that we have to reconsider our values about this regulation. The continuance of undermining our knowledge, wasting our tax funds and promoting the creation of a black market under the current effort of regulation is not beneficial to tax payers.

Users of medicinal marijuana may have a prescription to use the drug; however, many of them are not informed on the medical benefits and purposes that scientists have uncovered in recent years, asides their own. Recent medicinal applications of cannabis totally nullify everything kids are currently being instructed in D.A.R.E. programs across the United States. Founded in the ‘70’s the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) has posted the potential therapeutic uses of medicinal marijuana that many citizens are not aware of today. The usefulness of cannabinoids for 17 separate clinical indications: “Alzheimer's disease, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Diabetes mellitus, Dystonia, Fibromyalgia, Gastrointestinal disorders, Gliomas, Hepatitis C, Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Hypertension, Incontinence…”(10). Cannabis is criticized as an addicted substance, especially in D.A.R.E, much like nicotine in tobacco products. The Drug Policy Alliance Network concludes that “Marijuana does not cause physical dependence.  If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild (10).” The negative consequence of the current approach, undermining the public of the substance’s benefits, is not fair to us citizens. These are astounding features we have learned a great deal about in recent years. This is only one of the ways that the “Marijuana Myths” seem to have vitiated our society. We as citizens are extirpating them if we do not learn how to value the good of this substance. The information ought to be available to citizens that are not necessary fond of this idea. A different approach would maybe even bring about more positive consequences on society overall. Tax payers who are currently opposing the drug could potentially find usefulness in it.

Secondly we need to think about the waste of tax funds to fight this war against ourselves. It is immense. We have wasted 40 billion dollars away to incarcerate over 700000 people alone last year; including our neighbors and friends in some cases (11). When we look at how this money was administered though, we find that the war on drugs is not always fair to these citizens. Not only do we throw non-violent drug users in prisons where we mix them with rapists, murders and other violent crime offenders, but also fail to spend more than one fourth of that sum on therapeutic measures rather than prison measures (11). We should try to consider if the money we put into the system to regulate the drug is spend efficiently. While it has also been found true, that when spending time in prison most first time offenders who are serving a sentence for simply use or possession are likely to move on to more criminal agendas, criminal relationships are also more accessible in prison. Critics, socialists and other citizens argue that in order to survive in prison we now have to become criminals. For example in California, fellow American tax payers voted on this issue and legalized medical use of marijuana a simple Google search reveals. Many other states have also joined the medical marijuana legalization campaign so to speak, because the current approach is not efficient, and a waste of tax funds essentially. Therapy could be instated for those that abuse the drug without a prescription. Citizens do not want to send their child to prison if therapy is an option. They saw it as a waste of their money when it started affecting their own families.

Finally, potential grow houses, crime rings develop, mostly in poor locations. Entire neighborhoods convert to sales corners and business locations. Marijuana is now potentially attainable to children under 18 or 21. Communities cannot avail from the control of this market being in the hand of crime rings. This leads to our prison problem because we in fact battle against it. Now one in every 20 black men over the age of 18 is in a state or federal prison, compared to one in every 180 whites. In another five states, an amazing one in 13 and one in 14 black men are currently incarcerated (8). As most communities, we start segregating away from these mostly “poor” locations to find saver places to live. In most cases, we see entirely black or mostly white neighborhoods. Our current regulation attempt also makes the drug more expensive as the drug rings have control of the supply. As the demand for the substance rises it leads to this problem in our communities. Now, selling the drug becomes lucrative to individuals that do not even use or abuse the substance. This negative outcome on our community and therefore fellow tax payers is staggering and not necessary (11). Instead, we could offer rehabilitation to those that are seeking such. Instating forms of tax funded therapy centers is a friendlier and for our community most importantly, more human approach. There is no excuse when rehabilitation on one hand promotes stability in our society as well as a more peaceful way to solve the problem on the other. Prison as most fellow citizens agree is the last resort to rehabilitate our communities because it seems less beneficial to the taxpayer.

American taxpayers could argue that marijuana consumption in fact is dangerous and therefore needs to be illegalized. The physical and psychological effects were worse than with common drugs and were part of the problem. They could argue that the information is only debating the cures/treatments of the drug and neglects to mention harmful properties and side effects for that reason. They could claim they are the reasons for the need of our current regulation. Regulation brought about positive change and imprisoning was effective because people cannot harm themselves and other fellow taxpayers when the drug is not obtainable. To defend my argument, most of the “harmful” or “negative” effects are not worse than alcohol or tobacco, which are legal without medical prescription by the way, for the following reasons. The Drug Policy Alliance Network concludes that “Marijuana does not cause physical dependence.  If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild (10).”  This has been further researched and approved by the Federation of American Scientists. This organization also states that while cannabis is commonly believed to be more harmful than tobacco, the reality is that there is no correlation of lung cancer to the inhalation of Marijuana smoke (10). Emphysema is also unattainable because Marijuana smoke does not obstruct the esophagus like tobacco does.  People have questioned whether or not Marijuana may potentially cause mental illness, which is again, not true as it does not cause profound alteration in behavior-especially not permanently (10). The argument that the drug is more harmful than either tobacco or alcohol is therefore not true and not beneficial at all to our communities.

Today, we are drawing a similar picture if we approach the regulation of medicinal marijuana in this way. In the end it does not seem to be serving our communities well to generate tax funds and use them for hate campaigns and personal gain. Nor does it serve the poor people that may not necessarily pay taxes. The illegalization creates this very market, as critics have agreed. Potentially we as citizens are not helped. The historical fallacies governing cannabis legalization coupled with our faulty approach in battling the war on drugs all play a part in patient’s inability to legitimately receive Marijuana as medication. It is my hope to spread the true intellect of the negative consequences of this effort against cannabis consumption. Therefore, for us citizens and our rights as well as a better use of tax-funding that we will not only see patients given access to this substance, but instead cultivate global acceptance and a change of the laws currently instated within society.

Criminalization of stuff

The stories of cancer patients being raided and harassed by federal agents in California is the reality of marijuana’s current existence.  The actions from this drug war have cost tax payers $1.2 billion yearly which has widely been criticized as a waste of money. Ron Paul, who was left in the dust by the media during the 2008 Primary Election, criticized the Federal Government’s intervention on users of medicinal Marijuana.  He also said that as President he would decriminalize it on the national level, leaving the state-level government with the option to vote its legality. Cannabis has been clearly misunderstood over the years and it is time that our government opens its eyes to the will of its citizens. Asides from the medicinal uses scientists have uncovered that I discussed in my previous essays, there is illegitimacy in the politics and history that have brought cannabis to the degraded social standard it now stands that prevents medical users from obtaining it. While we continue to waste money and time to debate this issue over and over without any real change, we always neglect the history of the drug, what brought us where we are. There are two main causes for the illegalization of marijuana, which are sadly connected to capitalism and not medicine. The historical criminalization of marijuana is from wrongful and greedy descent that prevents patients from medically obtaining the drug. It is because of theses causes, Racism and Personal profit that we see marijuana illegalized today and millions of patients prosecuted.

In the early 20^th century, tension grew between Mexico and America after the Mexican Revolution crossed outside its borders (7). Large and small farms were beginning to recruit cheap labor that immigrants offered (7).When the Great Depression hit, tension was high enough against Mexicans that they we’re made the public scapegoat for the introduction of Marijuana-even though it had been growing in the United States since 1619 (7).  Many are not aware that in Jamestown, Virginia it was actually instructed that farmers start growing Indian Hemp seed (7). Harry Anslinger and William Randolf Hearst, who owned a great deal of newspapers, were responsible for the racist, yellow journalist publications attributing cannabis to Mexicans that fooled the public. Hearst was not keen to the Mexican race likely due to the fact that he had lost 800,000 acres of land to Pancho Villa and the Mexican dispute.  In Hearst’s San Francisco Examiner:

“By the tons it is coming into this country -- the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms.... Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him” (7).

The overstated dangers of the drug were released in the media along with national columns that included race attributing factors. From then on Marijuana’s public image was destroyed. This image is haunting, especially today, when we know so many benefits that stem from Marijuana’s consumption. It is sad to think today the cause is non medicinal, and properties of Marijuana are hindered on the foundation of racist ideology. The historical evidence is prevalent. If we could for once look at the drug without sharpening our knives, patients who need the drug could gain access to the substance instead of being prosecuted under racist accusations.

Another cause leading to the illegalization of marijuana is the pressure against the legalization by oil companies. Suppressed for reasons much farther than the obvious, we have to dig deep into the debate and why we are where we are today. We end up at an industry sector in our economy that is enabled total control over markets due to this cause.  Monopoly so to speak! Marxists would say that it is a natural thing to happen, but we have to at least consider it as a “real” cause of the illegalization and therefore the cause of the war on the drug. With the continuing influence of lobbyists in Washington the oil companies do not want energy demands to fall into the control of the hemp industry, as we have recently uncovered its uses for fuel (13). Entire industries are flourishing only because the drug remains illegal. This reason is widely known unlike the wide range of medicinal benefits of the plant. Lobbyists for alcohol and tobacco are not willingly open to introducing competition to their markets because Marijuana stands as the third most recreationally used drug, right behind alcohol and tobacco (12). We need to think about the millions of dollars that would go towards new markets created by a new policy. These already existing industries would not benefit from the legalization laws. These existing industries would lose billions. And although it does not constitute the medicinal properties of cannabis, the industrial benefits of marijuana are a co-existing cause to why it is not obtainable by medical patients currently requesting it. Prosecution of citizens under this cause is unjust and against the constitutional rights of patients.

People argue that marijuana is illegal because it is harmful. I have established arguments why marijuana is less harmful than other legal drugs. To conclude my thesis and those of experts I want to touch this subject again. People have been influenced by much of the negative debate and also argue that marijuana is a gateway drug. It led to the use of heroin and you would likely be an alcoholic tomorrow I remember my mother say when I was younger. Some claim that marijuana consumption will lead to the abuse of other, harder drugs that they are even more feared of. Studies show, that marijuana is in fact not a gateway drug. I would argue, because of the negative consequences on our communities due to the illegalization, we are degrading socially by blaming the poorer people for being more accessible to the drug and then throw them in jail. Studies show, that the environment as well as income of the individual play a key role in the drug use pattern (15).

“The emphasis on the drugs themselves, rather than other, more important factors that shape a person’s behavior, has been detrimental to drug policy and prevention programs. To become more effective in our efforts to fight drug abuse, we should devote more attention to interventions that address these issues, particularly to parenting skills that shape the child’s behavior as well as peer and neighborhood environments (15).”

By fighting the war on drugs using a false cause, we promote the “gateway” to harder drugs as we make them more accessible. A 12 year study established by the University of Pittsburgh followed over 200 boys from age 10 to 12 till 22. The study showed that only environmental factors seem to have any influence on the gateway pattern and not the drug itself. While studies like these can define links to behavior and drug use based on the individuals surroundings, it also clearly indicates that a gateway between multiple drugs does not necessarily exist. People usually argue that there are studies that have found marijuana users in great percentages that started with nicotine and alcohol consumption and moved then to harder drugs.  They deny the fact that most of these users started smoking tobacco at an age, where it was still ILLEGAL to them (14); This suggests not only that the pattern to abuse is already existent at that point, but cannot be purely substance related. If we even considered that there was a gateway pattern, it would be the inaccessibility itself that causes it, not the substance. Don’t you think the average teenager trying to get his high on the weekend is going to accept a joint if alcohol is not available at the time or the other way around? I think this is the real problem and we deny it by blaming the substance for all the evil. Patients have not contributed or moved to heroin use because of their pain. If a doctor prescribes marijuana as a sleeping medication, do you think these patients will likely use that prescription to get morphine pills or heroine to find a suited sleep?

After all, we cannot draw a straight line and only keep pushing the blame around. Our Communities are at stake, our future generation.  The war on drugs is neither beneficial nor justifiable. The causes, historical ignorance towards a substance that with its unique abilities has helped millions of people are an attack on freedom and citizens. Continuing for over 100 years, the anti-marijuana campaign has withstood many attacks against it and its false legislation. Not until the 21^st century, where we have managed to pass several medical cannabis laws on state levels based on updated research, have the people spend this much attention to the debate. The number of folks promoting the legalization of medical marijuana is rising daily, yet the above discussed causes are still keeping us from real change. All while the real causes do not DARE tell you what marijuana really is. When we are considering the tons of facts but seem to be unable to reach our congressmen on an issue, that the American tax payers are willing to vote into law, I would like to raise the question -- How much control and especially how much choice and freedom do we really possess democratically?

A modern way of “dealing” drugs

Before entering to the United States, I had never endured a drug search at school before. I came to experience this for the first time, in High School, in 9^th grade to be exact. Not being a drug user, I was never feared of the searches even afterwards, yet it gave everyone in the classroom a bad feeling that could be observed. It did not help to interrupt our lesson, lock down the entire school and classroom as if there was an emergency. Many students would complain that it was going too far. Some kids reported of searches and suspensions without reasoning, and most importantly without evidence. I myself have been victim of this nonsense. When getting searched in High School as a senior several years, drug searches, harassments and interruptions of class lessons after my 1^st encounter, for no apparent reason, the drug dog must have just had a bad day. Besides the missed course work that they assumed I had already made up, suspension on suspicion seemed to be enough as I was never charged for possessing anything by legal terms, yet suspended for a full week as the dog must have been right and a green flake of outdoor grass that had probably fallen of my shoe, the size of a needle tip, that was never sent off to any laboratory, was taken as evidence! The rationality of my 2 day prior passed drug test papers from work that had come back clean and laying in my back seat were not even negotiable on any rational level with the law enforcement as they had been trained to do so in the war on drugs. No tolerance.

The Drug Facts website, one of the largest anti-drug promoters of this country, lists many drugs and their effects as well as dangers and also broadcasts its message through the local television networks. Surely everybody has seen a commercial produced by them. They almost always show some teenagers, using the drug trying to peer-pressure a non-user into trying the drug to fit in. Another good example of their promotional commercials against drug use was the message to their viewers, which I saw on television the other day, that showed a teen who had used marijuana and suffered severe consequences in many ways starting with body impairment or hospitalization to law enforcement encounters and the beating of the own wife at home. I always came to wonder why they do not mention the benefits, friends have described to me throughout the years from a drug called marijuana.  Especially since, at the turn of a century, the American population values one thing more than anything else; freedom and individualism.

Problem:

First, misinformation is spread through media outlets. Believers of the war on drugs, which promotes the illegalization of marijuana, will usually insert that despite the glitches in schools and other small exceptions, we had seen the seizure of multiple million dollars worth of cocaine shipments cutting into the black market profits of drug lords to defend their unfair policies in these extreme cases. Another very good point they often make is that it is an attempt to regulate the drug in a for most citizens’ safe way (17). All of their arguments sound good but on the closer look appear to be mythical. On one hand, statistics show that the seizure of the vast amounts of cocaine imported to the United States only estimates around 30 % of the market share and is not helping the citizens fight abuse effectively as they claim. On the other hand citizens are quickly neglected by the zero tolerance policies such as in schools. While the citizen is not fully aware of the entire program and all details, the citizen also believes the war on drugs targets only serious drug offenders and are therefore lied to in commercials that clearly state so. Though, this spread of misinformation is not the only problem with current legislation as the struggle for which side has the better facts continues.    

Second, we are not using funding efficient in regards to marijuana as the war seems to be failing. Believers of the war on drugs will defend, that marijuana, as the only drug, has decreased in percentage of users since the war on drugs initiated (19). This is true for the last year, yet they also show a decrease in older users and an increase in use in young adults. As there are lesser children than adults we cannot conclude that abuse rates aren’t still going up and new user rates are not affected. And even though the government officials stated that problems were getting better and the strategy was working effectively based on this one decreased variable, we have also seen only rising numbers in all other drugs used across the board including heroine, cocaine and crack or meth (19); Therefore, the war on drugs must not be as efficient as claimed and it shows the ineffectiveness of the taxes spent on the war on drugs regarding this legislation. While this flaw of spending can range from law enforcement to schools all the way to the raiding of patients, marijuana is not as dangerous as crack, and does not need to be fought in an inefficient way that requires zero tolerance.

Our values are destroyed by this law. In the United States, we can consider rationality to drive our choices. Rational choices are made, after all facts have been analyzed. Only then, taxes can be spent efficiently while ensuring to preserve our values. For this to hold true, we would have to see true information, which has been tested by health professionals and has been accepted in agreement by all of them, and not government funded studies. For example, countless studies reveal the measures marijuana can potentially be useful for diseases such as H.I.V and AIDS (16). This is not recognized by the federal government. The problem is nobody really seems to know a definite answer and is left having to undermine our values and rights in order to make their point better. One side exaggerates the dangers by lying about the dangers, and the other praises its usefulness by lying about the lies of the dangers and perhaps even patient testimonies if necessary (17). The current attempts of regulation where we see an entire population feared of the potential benefits of the drug marijuana, has not worked fully to the degree it was set up to reach. The population has come, -through experiences with the herb or encounters as mine-, to literally laugh at the fact that marijuana is listed as a drug as harmful and dangerous as heroin or cocaine. They know, that marijuana cannot kill a person, and that the effects of marijuana are often less dangerous than those from alcohol consumption.

The federal statute treats heroin and marijuana as similarly dangerous without health benefits.

“That's wrong”, says Bill Locker, California's attorney general. “Sixty years ago, during the era of reefer madness, these laws were written in ways that don't distinguish and don't allow for the benefits that AIDS patients and other terminally ill patients might receive from use of medical marijuana.” In his opinion, “taking medicine on the recommendation of a doctor for a legitimate illness is not a crime” (19).

The problem expands while the population has come to show a degree of disrespect towards government to protect their rights and values, which it was clearly not designed to do. Furthermore we have accepted that the lies of many officials are the normality in our democratic society. Even though the war on drugs may essentially not be aiming to destroy the freedom of citizens, or after all should not be, the war on drugs is not always negative as it is attempting to regulate drug abuse. However, it does indeed need reform when it comes to the drug marijuana due to these lies and inefficiencies that are very closely tied together.

Proposal:

To address these problems, and change legislation I propose to exclude marijuana from the war on drugs, to continue to hold these values upright within society and free the medically ill people from not only greed and influence and these negative effects on society but also allow for choice within a government that has set a constitution to do so through a better use of tax funding set by the states.

First I propose that the drug is regulated differently to solve the first major problem, by allowing the use and spreading both the dangers and potential uses of the drug through health officials that hold a degree in medicine. Many people think legalization meant complete chaos as they are only aware of the dangers at this time. If I think about the commercial I saw last week, I ask myself how they could not. If rational choices were made, the government had no right nor need at all to interfere with the production of the drug unless they are ensuring quality and quantity measures for the patient, thus supply and demand are in check as with many items sold in the free market today. Only then, the government shall interfere with the means of production or handling off in any form (sale, growth) and should be regulated by a tax which in turn favors the tax payers. Therefore, I propose there should not be any advertisement of the drug in any form as it misleads consumers. Regulation is arguable and even proponents state that it is necessary for this very reason alone. While we do not need FDA to approve of the substance as it is not a state-operated institution. This proposal is not calling for complete ratification of the law against drug use, but hopes to result in a change to reduce the demand of only illegally obtained marijuana (after time) from black markets, thereby regulating the drug’s quality automatically by making it readily available. Let us consider especially the children who are under influences of unregulated black markets. We are indeed able to regulate a substance that still seems completely unregulated today.  

I propose a change of the inefficiency of taxes spend, stopping the continued harassment of patients who use the drug. Children under a certain age should not be subject to the drug of course, nor should the drug be used immediately around them. Parents know the side effects of cigarettes, and often fail to acknowledge the risk when smoking around their children. Yet, in my proposal patients will have the choice for a cleaner form of inhalation called vaporization. Besides the other regulations such as the proposed age limit of 18 to purchase any type of marijuana of up to 5 grams for personal use as long as the use would take place in a guided environment and outside of public display, I do not propose coffee shops as other countries have set up. While it may increase revenues for local businesses, this would end up in a zoo-like environment, with clubs and pubs as in Amsterdam perhaps. Agreeably not a good solution, as we currently seem to be stuck in a zoo-like environment as well, only difference, the clowns are wearing blue here, and nothing at all in Amsterdam. Also, the production limit for the individual that wants to garden their own crops can also be set by the state similar to Canadian laws. Furthermore I propose that all these limits shall be set by the states, as the peoples consent rests within the states power of the constitution (7). Then the tax funds, can be spend as the people wish. States can then be run by the people and regulated through the health administers efficiently. Instead of using the tax funds to fight marijuana abuse, this money can now be used to ensure these regulations are kept in place and are not abused. The state can prevent high abuse by regulating the age, amount, production /sale and continue to use their other funding to fight hard drug use leading to thousand of deaths in our streets, degrading our values even worse, every day.

I also propose promoting the dangers as well as benefits instead of using the scare tactic by changing the course of funding to regulate the substance better, in order to uphold these values in society. We have to accept that fearing our future generation cannot result in a good outcome.

Despite the Obama administration's tactics support of more liberal state medical marijuana laws, the federal government still discourages research into the medicinal uses of smoked marijuana. That may be one reason that they claim “-- even though some patients swear by it -- there is no good scientific evidence that legalizing marijuana's use provides any benefits over current therapies (16).”

Legalization would ensure the research of marijuana to be non governmental as well. Since “marijuana is the only major drug for which the federal government controls the only legal research supply and for which the government requires a special scientific review”, we cannot agree to let the regulation be overtaken and rights neglected completely (16). Our values depend on it such as individualism to find some truth. Therefore I proposed to control the supply of research through dedicated health organizations and private doctors and professors. If the right rests within the doctors and health officials that are getting paid the same amount to begin with no matter what the research will say, rather than the politicians who are managed by corporations in order to get promotions and to get re-elected by collecting votes, we may find more truth in the reports and statements and can be assured we are not necessarily being influenced by a money driven figure but by a rational one. If we continue to promote the wrong values of marijuana, as we are with the current regulation, we may fail to effectively fight drug abuse overall and not only marijuana.

Justification:

Though, there are many attacks against a proposal to legalize such a substance. While tobacco remains legal, and is by far more dangerous, alcohol is government accepted as well with the 400.000 collected dead bodies to its name last year. In many aspects, the critics will argue that legalization will result in a peak of interest in marijuana use as it had been seen with these two deadly substances. Even if this would occur, the total death-rate due to marijuana would spike to a total of 0 deaths per year (12). Since this proposal only subjects marijuana and excludes other drugs from decriminalization, as it accepts their statues of harmful with deaths collected in the name of the substances this argument is flaw when applying it to marijuana. Multiple proponents of a similar policy also argue that there will always be a given number of drug addicts anyway (besides the death rates).

Some legalization advocates assert that a certain level of drug addiction is inevitable and will not vary, regardless of government policies; thus, they claim, even if legalization increased the number of users, it would have little effect on the numbers of users who become addicts.

I have to add that if we are going to assume a number of addicts regardless of the law in place then the war on drugs is not decreasing the numbers of drug addicts of any kind, neither. With all respect Marijuana should not be illegal. 

Additionally, the dangers attached to the substance are reported through government studies that only use a single source of production. There is no variety in studies from differently produced plants outside of this one source. We would open the market to studies in multiple varieties. We are not studying the black market share of marijuana. Instead of using the same source that keeps the medicine illegal, we could help science rather than suppressing it. This is also illustrated by several doctors that do not believe that current medication is necessarily a better alternative for some patients.

Patients who call Dr. Braverman's clinic are, when put on hold, told that the clinic may prescribe supplements and other alternative treatments that have even less scientific justification than marijuana. Dr. Braverman said such alternatives rendered marijuana unnecessary, but his embrace of alternatives is a reminder that medicine has long been driven by more than science (16).

The regulation therefore would ensure the quality of the drug to measure a specific standard and also ensure marijuana users were not continuing to be influenced by a black market that offers a product which is consumed by millions of citizens daily, without any regulation at the moment at all, since we have a given number of citizens that use the drug in any case.

Critics will charge that decriminalizing and eventually through that process legalizing the drug would result in a drastic spike in crime rates. This is assumed, as there is no profound evidence to support this claim. Studies show, that crime rates do not always increase, depending on location. While Switzerland indeed has seen increases in crime rates and abuse (yet mostly in hard drugs, too) Great Britain has not.

“Elsewhere in the world, in Britain the government recently announced that it would take steps to effectively decriminalize marijuana. The plan was announced after a six-month experiment with the policy in the London borough of Lambeth. Citing reports that major crime was reduced in the area, advocates of decriminalization say that expanding the approach nationwide will give British police more time to pursue those they consider to be more serious offenders (18).

Also, marijuana is known to be a depressant. The likelihood of engaging in aggressive behavior and therefore much of the crime included in the crime rate statistic while using marijuana is vague.

The safer way for society and patients seems to be a more tolerant approach, at least for marijuana. While I certainly agree, that saved funding should be used to fight these very drugs which damage society, with these propositions in place individuality may thrive again and the Republic can live up to its values without having to always result in prison. Finally, a reform is moderate and again, lives up to the expectations of a Republic, which is governed by the law, that the people insist on. Society in the 21^st century endures a world that is constantly changing, inhibiting new ideas and technology as well as judicial attributes. We ought to be able to take a different perspective on issues than one aimed at purely profits and sometimes even irrationality.

References:

1. National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC).“National Drug Intelligence Center”.Marijuana Fast Facts.Archived January 1, 2006. Web. February 16, 2010.
2. Mikuriya,Tod H.,M.D.“ Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative”.Medical Admissions Criteria. Updated: October 15, 2008. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative LDF, Oakland CA. Updated: October 15, 2008. Web, February 15, 2010.
3. Ritter, Malcolm. “ABC News Health”.Monkeys on Marijuana Wanted More. Copyright© 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures. New York, October 16, 2000. Web, February 15, 2010.
4. Peele, Stanton.“The stanton peele website”Marijuana is addictive: So what? Copyright 1996-2010 Stanton Peele. January 7, 2006. Web. February 16, 2010.
5. Armentano, Paul. 20 Million Arrests, and Counting.25 Sep. 2008. Web. 5 Mar. 2010.
6. Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis & Cannabinoids. Recent Research on Medical Marijuana. 2 June 2008. Web. 6 Mar.2010
7. Guither, Pete. Why is Marijuana Illegal. DrugWarRant.13 Feb.2008. Web.4 Mar.2010.
8. Human Rights Watch. Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs. Washington, DC: Year 2000. Web.6 Mar.2010.
9. Morgan, Scott. John McCain is Sick of Being Asked about Medical Marijuana. Stop the Drug War. 10 Mar 2007. Web. 7 Mar. 2010.
10. Myths and Facts About Marijuana. Marijuana: The Facts. Drug Policy Alliance Network 2008. Web. 4. Mar. 2010
11. Rawson, Steven. “Where are we going?” On the Legalization of Marijuana. N.d. Web. 4 Mar.2010 "US Policy on Drugs." LegalizationOfMarijuana. N.d. Web. 4. Mar. 2010. 
12. About Marijuana. (2008, September 15). Retrieved from http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7305
13. Cannabis for fuel. (2004, April 19). Retrieved from http://www.chanvre-info.ch/info/en/Cannabis-for-Fuel.html
14. Safety for use: cannabis as a gateway drug. (2002, October). Retrieved from http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_gateway.html
15. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. (2006, December 4). Study says marijuana no gateway drug. Retrieved from http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116.html
16. Harris, G. (2010, January 19). Researchers Find Study of Medical Marijuana Discouraged. Retrieved from TOPIC search database
17. Kleber, H. and Califano J.A Jr. (2006). Legalization: Panacea or Pandora's Box? Retrieved from SIRS Researcher
18. Other Countries Explore Legalization. (27 Sept. 2002). Retrieved from Issues & Controversies database
19. Update: Medical Marijuana. (Issue date 15 July 2009). Issues & Controversies on File. Retrieved from Issues & Controversies database