The federal government and associated United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) have overlooked the potential medical uses of cannabis, choosing instead to treat it as a dangerous drug with more drawbacks than positive benefits. Despite this opinion, “backers of medical marijuana say the drug helps relieve nausea from cancer treatments or AIDS, chronic pain from injuries or arthritis and symptoms from other ailments, such as glaucoma or anorexia” (Sheehan 2). While there are many anecdotal and official statements on the efficacy of marijuana in medical cases, research has lagged behind because of stringent federal guidelines. Furthermore, the few cases that might serve as excellent case studies, such as the legalization period in California, was hindered because the federal government stepped in and asserted its authority. Throughout the debate surrounding medical marijuana, it is clear that the federal government is determined to halt marijuana use—even in a controlled, safe, and secure medical environment.
The advice and directions of doctors and other medical personnel are being ignored in favor of a legal and moral war on drugs. Patients who have used marijuana have claimed that it is the only source for pain alleviation and appetite encourage that has worked for them, yet the federal government maintains that it is still dangerous. Throughout the past decade, there has been a constant and protracted effort on the part of the United States government to quell claims about the benefits of medical marijuana and to squelch voter-sponsored state rights to allow it. In sum, this potentially revolutionary medical breakthrough is being crushed by underhanded attempts at suppression. New laws and ordinances are making it impossible for medical marijuana advocates to have their way and this trend is not changing while many who suffer from severe ailments remain in pain without effective treatment or relief. Even though the federal government is able to override a state’s individual decision, there are larger legal and governmental matters that have not been addressed in the debate. For instance, legal scholars contend that refusing the relief offered by medical marijuana is a violation of substantive due rights guaranteed to all citizens. One critic of the federal government’s overt control states, “Prohibitions on the last-resort use of medical marijuana make it impossible to exercise an array of fundamental rights more basic than the right to use any particular substance and more clearly defined than broad autonomy. This array consists of the rights to live, to die with dignity, to avoid severe physical suffering, and to exercise medical autonomy” (Marsh 1985). The right to avoid pain and suffering that is guaranteed to all citizens should be upheld as vigorously as the tenants of the “war on drugs” yet in its numerous attempts to subvert the possibility of medical marijuana this right is overlooked and undervalued.
The federal government has taken several crucial steps to ensure that marijuana use, even for the most serious medical conditions, will not be an option. Although some states have passed measures legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, federal law takes precedence over these local ordinances, thus making even state-sanctioned use still a criminal offence. One of the most publicized cases involved the legalization decision of California and its subsequent problems with federal authority. In 1996, voters in California allowed those with serious diseases such as cancer, arthritis, glaucoma, and AIDS to obtain prescriptions for medical marijuana without being prosecuted. The medicinal marijuana was distributed at a small number of centers throughout the state in a controlled environment that was the ordained 1,000 feet away from schools, churches, and other community buildings. Although California complied with the requirements, this still did not make the practice “legal” in the eyes of the federal government, even if voters had decided on it. “Federal law classifies marijuana as an illegal drug with no medical use. Furthermore, it is not only illegal but is categorized as one of the most dangerous substances. “The Controlled Substances Act placed psychoactive drugs on a five-tier classification of schedules and placed marijuana on Schedule I, the most restrictive classification” (McCarthy 333). While it may have potential negative effects, the rates of physical addiction are minimal, especially when compared with other less restrictively placed substances. Even still, this classification allows for greater leverage on the part of federal enforcement agencies since they can make it seem more harmful than beneficial.
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the federal government can prosecute medical marijuana users and dispensers even if they act in accordance with state law” (Lochner 3). In other words, this gave the federal government the right to go over the wishes of the state and its voters by invalidating the state law with the more powerful federal law. Many who were suffering from glaucoma or any of the other conditions medical marijuana could relieve were left without the one substance that provided them respite from pain. At first, it seemed as though the Supreme Court was only making a point about its power over state governments, but eventually it exercised its right to exert control and began to enforce its policy. Not long after the 2005 statement about the federal over state rights when it came to marijuana, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) took drastic measures to assert the claims of the Supreme Court. “Federal authorities raided three San Francisco medical marijuana dispensaries, and investigators arrested 13 people as part of an alleged organized crime operation using the clubs as a front to launder money”(Brainard 121). Perhaps what was most interesting about this action is that they did not specifically state their reason for the raid as being related to the statement of the Supreme Court, but rather raided under the pretense of a “money laundering” ring that was never proven. Still, even though federal authorities did not find any evidence of the laundering, they did confisgate the marijuana on hand as well as the records and other private documents of the dispensary. It was clear by this point that there would be no way around the federal power in the medical marijuana arena and this tension between pro-medicinal marijuana advocates and the federal government has persisted. Technically speaking, the authorities would have had every right to enter the premises and make arrests as well as take away the medicinal marijuana because of the statement by the Supreme Court. One can only assume that the only reason they went in under other (shaky) pretenses was to avoid conflict that certainly would have come about if they had stated their real reasons for the raid.
In order to counter some of the backlash after the raid, the DEA updated its stance on marijuana, stating on its website that there were more sinister ideals at play behind medical marijuana. For instance, one such statement conveys the idea that there is a grand conspiracy on the part of pro-medical marijuana advocates to legalize all drugs beginning with pot. According to the DEA, “It is important to realize that the campaign to allow marijuana to be used as medicine is a tactical maneuver in an overall strategy to completely legalize all drugs. Pro-legalization groups have transformed the debate from decriminalizing drug use to one of compassion and care for people with serious diseases” (U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency). In fact, it seems that this rhetoric is exactly the kind of “tactical maneuver” they accuse pro-medical marijuana advocates of. They insist that there is a conspiracy, yet they also invent their own set of conspiracies to raid certified dispensers of the drug. There is a lack of honesty on the part of the federal government in the debate since they have never raided a dispenser for the official reasoning provided by the Supreme Court. While one could easily speculate on the reasoning, it seems as though throughout the process of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use these skirmishes can be expected. The federal government has poured far too many resources into its “war on drugs” for medical marijuana to be allowed so easily and given its track record we can only assume that this underhanded battle will continue.
The problem with this federal versus state involvement is extensive and can be put most succinctly into two categories. First of all, those suffering from painful conditions will no longer have the one relief that was temporarily granted them, and secondly, this battle involves arrests and jail time for something that has been deemed legal in a resident’s state. Consider the number of marijuana arrests in the United States, for example. Granted, many of these are not likely medicinal users, but throwing those in jail for seeking relief (that is sponsored by a state such as in the case of California) only compounds the problem further. For instance, “Since 1992, according to a recent analysis of federal crime statistics by the Sentencing Project, arrests for marijuana have soared from 300,000 per year to 700,000. The government spends an estimated $4 billion a year arresting and prosecuting marijuana crimes—more than it spends on treating addiction for all drugs—and more and more of those busts are for possession rather than dealing” (Dreyfuss 46). It seems as though the initiative of the federal government is to eradicate even the most petty offenses of marijuana use. Instead of going after those who are dealing it in large quantities, the majority of the offenders merely posses it. This is important to this debate because it shows the limitless sense of prosecution ability. If one state were allowed to open dispensaries unchecked and develop a solid base, it seems natural to conclude that one day the federal government would step in and halt it by confiscating the medicine and arresting all of those in the centers. Furthermore, instead of funneling money into further research or help for those with real drug problems (which does not include many of those who use marijuana simply as a pain reliever) it goes toward incarceration and prosecution of small offenders. Worse yet, it prevents and criminalizes those seeking an effective treatment for several illness and pain.
Other essays and articles related to this topic in the Arguments Archive include : Argument in Favor of Legalizing Marijuana for Medical Use • 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
Works Cited
Brainard. “IASOC Update.” Trends in Organized Crime (2005): 121.
Dreyfuss, Robert. “Bush’s war on pot.” Rolling Stone 980 (2005):
“Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana: the Facts.” DEA. 2005. United States Drug Enforcement Agency. 10 Apr. 2006 <http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.html>.
Lochner, Tom. “Cannabis Club Moratorium Prolonged.” Contra Costa Times 6 Apr. 2006, sec. A3
Marsh. “Last resort and fundamental rights: The substantive due process implications of prohibitions on medical marijuana.” Harvard Law Review 118.6 (2005): 1985
McCarthy, Kathleen I. “Conversations about medical marijuana between physicians and their patients.” Journal of Legal Medicine 25.3 (2004): 333.
Sheehan, Tim. “Pot Dispensary Site Rejected: Proposed Site to Provide Medical Marijuana in Visalia is Too Close to a Park, the City Rules.” Fresno Bee 30 Mar. 2006, sec. A:2
