LEGALIZE MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, cannabis, also known as
marijuana, has been federally classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning
that it has no legally accepted medical use and has the same
classification as, for example, heroin. Over the last couple of
decades, however, that classification has started to be challenged,
especially at the state level.

Currently, 13 states have passed some form of legislation allowing the
use of medical marijuana. California was the first, passing the
Compassionate Use Act in 1996 that legalized medical marijuana and
ostensibly set regulations for the production and distribution of the
drug. In recent months, New Mexico has begun "breathing life," to
quote an Associated Press report, into its own 2007 legislation that
legalized medical marijuana. That New Mexico has taken so long to
formalize the systemization of medical marijuana is indicative of a
larger national resistance to the notion of legal weed in the United
States.

Before further discussion, the fact that marijuana does indeed have
undeniable and considerable medical benefits must be made clear.
Marijuana is unparalleled in its propensity for alleviating the side
effects endured by chemotherapy patients, and in general the drug has
well-chronicled benefits for chronic pain relief such as combating
migraines and nerve pain in HIV patients. As Dr. Donald Abrams, a
cancer specialist at San Francisco General Hospital, said, "I can
recommend [this] one drug for all those [pains], instead of writing
five different prescriptions."

In fact, even the American Medical Association, or AMA, agrees with
the need to reclassify marijuana. The current classification of
marijuana as a Schedule I drug puts it on par with drugs like heroin
and LSD, which clearly have no medical use. On November 10, the AMA
called for a federal review of marijuana's status under the Controlled
Substances Act, stating its hope for "the goal of facilitating the
conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based
medicines, and alternate delivery methods." The AMA was promptly
ignored by the relevant federal authorities.

This dismissal speaks again to the long-standing unwillingness of our
nation to enter proper dialogue concerning medical marijuana. The
recreational and cultural use of marijuana, most prominently
associated with the flowery 70s, has stigmatized the drug to the point
where, it can be argued, many are unable to delineate between
supporting the legalization of medical marijuana and supporting the
legalization of marijuana for, simply put, getting high.

Nevertheless, there is indeed a distinction. Marijuana has
scientifically supported medical benefits, ones that are so persuasive
that even the AMA felt compelled to call for its reclassification. But
marijuana seems doomed by its negative connotations.

To resist the legalization of such a positive social good for reasons
extraneous to its inherent medical benefits is simply a fundamentally
flawed approach to enacting progress.

Detractors say that there is a high probability that the legalization
of marijuana for medical use will lead to rampant abuse. And a Sept.
23, 2007, "60 Minutes" special on California's notorious "pot shops"
seemed to confirm this worry. Essentially, as long as a patient -- and
this term is used in the loosest fashion imaginable -- can convince the
doctor that marijuana is necessary to relieve his pain ("You know, all
I can do is take my patients' statements as factual," said one
doctor), he can easily gain access to marijuana.

But this lack of discipline can be partly attributed to the
incoherence of medical marijuana's legalization. The aforementioned
"60 Minutes" feature highlighted the blatant conflict between
marijuana's legal status as a medical drug and the virtually arbitrary
raids that federal authorities conducted on California's pot shops.
This summer, furthermore, New Hampshire's governor vetoed medical
marijuana legalization, citing its inconsistency with federal
regulation. But clearly, the evidence says the current federal
regulations are wrong.

Unless the government -- and this country -- are willing to approach
marijuana reasonably, we will not even get the chance to attempt
proper systemization of medical marijuana. California's marijuana
policy, the state's doctors readily admit, is of course not stringent
enough, but that does not mean the law needs to swing back to the
other extreme.

In New Mexico, then, cautious steps are being taken to define a
template for the production and distribution of legal medical
marijuana. There are 15 qualifying conditions for medical use of the
drug and there are five nonprofit organizations permitted to produce
it. Each producer is limited to 95 plants. The success of New Mexico's
scheme is far from guaranteed, but it represents a willingness to at
least explore the potential and limitations of a properly regulated
system of medical marijuana.

Nobody is denying that marijuana, as a product, has its downsides.
Science is not yet sure of its lung cancer-inducing properties as well
as its addictive properties. But these risks are analogous to (which,
to pre-empt the decriers, does not mean "are equal to") the risks of
other drugs that the federal authorities seem willing to condone --
Vicodin and Valium come to mind. Why should marijuana be treated any
differently?

What is needed is a paradigm shift, one that allows us to look at
marijuana not as some taboo indulgence but as a legitimate medical
product. Condoning medical marijuana is not the same as condoning
marijuana for other purposes.

To use the words of one of New Mexico's approved marijuana producers,
"The faster we move away from a paranoid drug dealer model to a normal
business model, the better it's going to be [for medical marijuana]."
Fortunately for its proponents, medical marijuana seems to have a
strong ally in the current administration. Obama's stance on state
legalization, as of February, is that the federal government will no
longer interfere in the form of raids and other similar attacks.

But for real change to be enacted, there still needs to be a
fundamental rethinking of whether it remains appropriate to oppose
medical marijuana based on concerns peripheral to its merit as a
medical drug. Until then, the question of how best to maximize its
medical usefulness through regulation and systemization remains a
theoretical one.