While there are also patent issues (drug companies cannot make money off cannabis sativa since it’s naturally-occurring, but can make money off their own variety of synthetic replacement). In fact, there have been numerous studies for several decades regarding the medical use of marijuana, particularly in terms of its potential to increase appetite, help with sleep, and ease the general pain caused by the above and other conditions. Although it would be beneficial for a company to patent a synthetic product for both legal and financial reasons (they are not making something illegal and can make a lot from the patent) the plant exists in wide supply for immediate cultivation and thus immediate use and relief.

One of the greatest barriers facing the fight to allow the use of marijuana for vital medical purposes is general public perception. For instance, one critic of numerous state proposals to allow the drug for medical purposes states that as a country, “We cannot afford to further erode youth attitudes towards drugs by allowing marijuana to be falsely depicted as a safe drug and as effective medicine. Labeling marijuana as ‘medicine’ sends the wrong message to children that it is a safe substance” (Khatapoush 2004). The idea that marijuana is a dangerous drug that should not be openly condoned, particularly to children, is one created to deflect the attention away from the many proven benefits of medical marijuana. It attempts to deny the possibility that for a small segment of the population suffering from painful and often chronic conditions such as cancer (and complications arising from chemotherapy treatments) as well as AIDS and glaucoma, a large population will somehow be affected.

It can be argued that to remedy the possibility that young people connect marijuana with medicine further and existing programs to educate children about the negative side of recreational use should be implemented. Still, despite this suggestion, this main claim against allowing special cases for medical marijuana use will somehow lead to widespread youth drug use is a fallacy-laden slippery slope argument without real validity. The scientific and medical evidence (which unlike counter-arguments) is not based on speculation, concurs with the idea that marijuana has the potential to greatly assist those in need.

In short, the barriers preventing many people from experiencing relief from painful conditions are often based on speculation or go in with the notion that all drugs are essentially bad. These arguments ignore the many benefits of medical marijuana use and further ignore the suffering of others and their natural rights to relief and freedom from pain and suffering. While it is clear by the approval of synthetic forms of marijuana that federal regulatory agencies such as the FDA recognize the benefits associated with marijuana in a medical context, the “drugs are bad” stigma as well as faulty reasoning and logical fallacies are preventing many people from receiving the kind of important relief they need and seek.

Other essays and articles related to this topic in the Arguments Archive include  A Reasoned Approach to Medical Marijuana and the Law • Argument in Favor of Maintaining the Legal Drinking Age • Argumentative Analysis of the Essay “First Amendment Junkie” by Susan Jacoby  •   Capital Punishment, Ethics, and Public Opinion  •  The Multifaceted Argument for Advancing Stem Cell Research

References

Cohen, P. J. (2006). Medical Marijuana, Compassionate Use, and Public Policy: Expert Opinion or Vox Populi? Hastings Center Report, 36(3), 19-22

Khatapoush, S. (2004). “Sendign the Wrong Message: Did Medical Marijuana Legalization Change Attitudes about the Use of Marijuana? Journal of Drug Issues, 34(4), 751-770

Younts, K. (2005). Last resorts and fundamental rights: the substantive process implications of prohibitons on medical marijuana. Harvard Law Review, 118(6), 1985-2006.