Minor Analysis Paper #1

Medical marijuana has been a hotly debated issue for many years now. As more and more states have made the decision to legalize the drug for medical use, the federal government has maintained its status as a schedule 1 substance, having no recognized medical uses. States like California, Washington, Colorado, and 11 others have passed bills allowing for doctors to prescribe marijuana to their patients, but they are going directly against federal law. This means that the DEA and other federal agencies are fully allowed to treat people who grow and sell medical marijuana as ordinary drug dealers, and can prosecute them as such.

In an editorial in the New York Times, the board argues that the federal war on medical marijuana has “escalated out of control.” They give Ed Rosenthal’s case as an example, a man who was convicted of charges that carry a five-year minimum sentence despite the fact that he was acting within state and local laws. His marijuana farm was for sick people, they argue, and he should not be prosecuted as a big time drug dealer. Another editorial, in the Boston Globe, argues the same basic point: these people are sick and need medicine, and some of the time marijuana fits the bill perfectly.

The federal government, on the other hand, obviously doesn’t approve of these state laws. This whole debate is created around the fact that the DEA claims that federal law trumps state drug laws under the commerce clause of the constitution. They also argue that medical marijuana can contribute to recreational marijuana activity and gangs. Since the average marijuana dispensary sells over a pound of it a day, they sometimes might have to go the “back-alley” route to get enough of it to fulfill their demand.

What the Federal Government doesn’t seem to realize is that a full embrace of medical marijuana would solve most of the problems that they have with it. I support the full legalization of medical marijuana, and think that if the federal government embraced it we could see distribution become safer and less tied to the black market. In addition, taxes on the drug could be a gold mine for Washington considering marijuana is sometimes referred to as the U.S.’ number one cash crop, ahead of even corn.

In the Boston Globe editorial, the article makes several fairly simple arguments. The editorial board takes the problems that the federal government has with marijuana and one by one knocks them down. The argument that medical marijuana helps swell the illegal drug market is countered by the fact that morphine has been “prescribed by doctors for years with no corresponding surge in its availability on the street.” The board also argues in defense of state’s rights, saying that the commerce clause doesn’t apply because the drugs aren’t usually transported across state lines, and some of the time no money even changes hands. There is also an emotional appeal with the example of Angel Raich, who suffers from an inoperable brain tumor and may die without access to marijuana, but her home was raided anyway.

Reading as a doubter, there are definitely some holes in the argument. Comparing marijuana to morphine is silly, as morphine just isn’t a street drug. You never hear of people using it to get high. If medical marijuana were allowed at the federal level, there would almost definitely be an increase of illegal marijuana for recreational use. In addition, the drug is transported over state lines frequently, and money almost always changes hands in a transaction of it. There are also researched medicines for the various medical conditions that people use marijuana for, and most of the time they’re healthier than inhaling raw combustion material.

As a believer, there are also some very strong arguments. They cite an example of research that shows marijuana has been shown to relieve symptoms caused by “cancer, AIDS, and glaucoma,” by “reducing nausea and vomiting and improving appetite.” They also make the case that decreasing states’ rights, which may be necessary for things like the new deal and expanding civil rights, has to be stopped when it’s used to deny citizens medically necessary care. These are all very strong arguments that appeal who care about other people and want the practice of medicine to be as complete and effective as possible.

Most newspapers have come out in support of medical marijuana, and for good reasons. Most newspapers are also left leaning, which could describe their collective agreement on this topic. But as more and more states have a majority of people supporting this medicine, the conversation seems to be between most of the country and the federal government. Newspaper editorials can’t do much to change the opinion of the President, and even representatives and senators who support it are scared to make it known out of fear that they’ll be labeled “soft on drugs.” These articles are aimed at convincing enough people that marijuana is a valid form of medicine, and hoping that such collective knowledge will help change something in Washington.