Electronic References
Home Register login Logout

Should Marijuana Be Legalized For Medical Purposes?

TitleShould Marijuana Be Legalized For Medical Purposes?
# of Words2227
# of Pages (250 words per page double spaced)8.91

Should Marijuana be Legalized for Medical Purposes?




Should Marijuana be Legalized for Medical Purposes?


        Marijuana has been used extensively as a medical remedy for more than
five thousand years.  In the early 1900s, medical usage of marijuana began to
decline with the advent of alternative drugs. Injectable opiates and synthetic
drugs such as aspirin and barbiturates began to replace marijuana as the
physician's drug of choice in the twentieth-century, as their results proved to
be more consistent than the sometimes erratic effects of the hard-to-dose
potencies of marijuana (Grinspoon).  The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 made cannabis
so expensive to obtain that its usage as a medical remedy in the U.S. came to a
halt.  Although now illegal in the U.S., marijuana continues to be used for both
medical and recreational purposes by many Americans.  There are a variety of
opinions both for and against the re-legalization of marijuana today. Perhaps
the most controversial aspect of the legalization debate is whether marijuana
should be legalized for medical purposes.
        All drugs, both prescription and non-prescription, are federally
'Scheduled' by the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency). A drug's scheduling under
Federal law is determined “according to [its] effects, medical uses, and
potential for abuse” (Claim V).  In this classification system, marijuana is a
Schedule I drug, grouped with heroin, LSD, hashish, methaqualone, and designer
drugs. These are drugs having “unpredictable effects, and [causing] severe
psychological or physical dependence, or death” (Claim V).
        A closer analysis of the DEA's Federal Scheduling system reveals that,
according to various studies by physicians on both sides of the legalization
debate, marijuana does not  meet the requirements of a Schedule I drug, but not
those of Schedule II.   The difference between the two classes is that Schedule
I drugs may lead to death, while those on Schedule II are less likely to do so.
Proponents of legalization cite information that indicates marijuana is a
relatively “safe” drug. “There is no known case of overdose; on the basis of
animal models, the ratio of lethal to effective dose is 40,000 to 1” (Grinspoon).
Even some opponents of marijuana legalization support reclassification. Two
physicians, in a widely distributed opinions piece entitled “Marijuana Smoking
as Medicine: A Cruel Hoax”, wrote;  “While the reclassification of THC to
Schedule II might be understandable, this would not be the result of smoking the
crude drug marijuana, which would as a result become more available and more
readily diverted for non-medical use”  (Nahas).  Although this evidence clearly
does not support the legalization of marijuana, it highlights one of many
discrepancies that cloud this smoky debate.
     Lester Grinspoon, MD, is a proponent of the medical legalization and re-
classification of marijuana. In the Journal of the American Medical Association,
Dr. Grinspoon wrote an article entitled “A Plea for Reconsideration”.  In this
plea, Grinspoon suggests that marijuana should be reclassified to a Schedule II
class drug, so that it might be legally prescribed.  He writes:

           In a 1990 survey, 44% of oncologists said they had suggested
           that a patient smoke marihuana for relief of the nausea
           induced by chemotherapy. If marihuana were actually unsafe
           for use under medical supervision, as its Schedule I status
           explicitly affirms, this recommendation would be unthinkable.
           It is time for physicians to acknowledge more openly that
           this present classification is scientifically, legally, and
           morally wrong. (Grinspoon)

Like many other physicians fighting for the re-classification of marijuana, Dr.
Grinspoon makes claims only towards the drug's medical benefits.  However, their
rhetoric in calling the issue “morally wrong” suggests that they may have other
motives as well.
        Furthermore, the fact that “44% of oncologists” suggested their patients
use marijuana, despite its i...This is ONLY a preview of the article. If you would like to view the entire document, you must subscribe to Electronic References. Please register below now!

Get This Full Article After Registration

When you subscribe to Electronic References, you get complete access to the meta-collection of full text articles and papers written by researchers and students spanning the last 5 years. For $19.95 a month, you will receive unlimited access and the ability to expand your research opportunities and knowledge.

This subscription package includes:

  • 24-hours-a-day, 7 days a week unlimited access on any computer with Internet access
  • Complete access to all 60,000 articles, essays, and research papers
  • Ability to view, save, print and download any document you find
  • Ability to browse through perfectly arranged catalog of articles
  • Superior search and relevancy ranking techniques using our optimalized search engine
  • Instant access to the online database after registration
You can pay by credit card or checking account. You get instant access after registration:

1 Month ($ 19.95)
3 Months ($ 29.95)
6 Months ($ 39.95)


You will be billed $19.95 every 30 days or $29.95 every 90 days (recurring billing) starting on the day you subscribe.
Your credit card or checking account will automatically be renewed for your convenience until you cancel.


Home | Register | Login | Logout | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Help | FAQ | Contact Us | Cancel Subscription

Copyright 1998-2007 Electronic References. Electronic References is designed only to assist students and researchers in the preparation of their own work. Anybody who use our services are responsible not only for writing their own papers, but also for citing Electronic References as a source when doing so. By accessing and using this page you agree to the Disclaimer.