The American Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs should be commended for its report, "Marijuana: Its HealthHazards and Therapeutic Potential." Not only does the report outline evidence of marijuana's potential harms, but it distinguishes this concern from the legitimate issue of marijuana's important medical benefits. All too often the hysteria that attends public debate over marijuana's social abuse compromises a clear appreciation for this critical distinction.
Since 1978, 32 states have abandoned the federal prohibition to recognize legislatively marijuana's important medical properties. Federal law, however, continues to define marijuana as a drug "with no accepted medical use," and federal agencies continue to prohibit physician-patient access to marijuana. This outdated federal prohibition is corrupting the intent of the state laws and depriving thousands of glaucoma and cancer patients of the medical care promised them by their state legislatures.
This is an excerpt from a letter written in 1982 to the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Its author was a citizen concerned about the complete lack of rationality exhibited time and time again in the Federal Government's attempts to justify its ban on the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. It was no burnt-out ex-hippie who penned the letter. The concerned citizen was none other than the current Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich. He was co-sponsoring a bill intended to end the Federal prohibition on marijuana as medicine. He has since abandoned support for such initiatives and begun to deal in the sort of hypocrisy and misinformation that is typical of the federal government's policy toward medicinal marijuana.
Gingrich's bill failed despite overwhelming support from both the public and the facts. Legislators, pandering to a vocal minority, struck it down. Fourteen years later, the silent majority spoke. In a move that must have had Nixon spinning in his gr ave, the silent majority, it turns out, supports this drug use. In the Fall of 1996, two states passed referendums legalizing marijuana. Both California's "Compassionate Use Act" and Arizona's "Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act" passed wit h convincing margins despite well-funded opposition. Support for medical marijuana extends far beyond the traditionally libertarian Southwest. A recent survey of the American public by the American Civil Liberties Union showed that 85% of the American p ublic favors making marijuana legally available to the seriously ill.
Unwilling to let the people have the final say, the Clinton Administration quickly moved to impose a de facto veto on these referendums.
There have been many, many court cases throughout the history of the United States. One important case that I believe to be important is the court case of Clinton v. New York. This case involves more than just President Bill Clinton, the City of New York; it involved Snake River Farmers’ as well. This case mostly resolves around the president’s power of the line item veto. In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Line Item Veto Act into law. This would allow the president to get rid of a part of a bill and not disapprove the entire bill. The first time that President Clinton used this power he used it to refine the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, he got rid of a part of the bill that waived the Federal Governments statutory right to get back or receive $2.6 billion in taxes that were levied by the City of New York. President Clinton also line item vetoed a section of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 this wouldn’t allow certain food processors and refiners to sell their stock to farmers to defer the recognition of capital gains. This is when the Snake River Farmers’ and City of New York went after Clinton for doing so this is where the case of Clinton v. The City of New York originated from. In this case there were constitutional issues that were raised, major arguments presented, and the final ruling from the Supreme Court.
Legalization of Marijuana has quickly become a controversial issue in America. In the United States, legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes is spreading to the state level. For example, in November 1996, the people of California and Arizona voted to legalize marijuana for medicinal reasons. As a result of Proposition 215 in California, patients now smoke marijuana provided their physician recommends its usage. A prescription is not required, and marijuana continues to be illegal to prescribe. The Clinton administration responded that it “would not recognize these decisions, and would prosecute physicians who recommend or provide marijuana to their patients.” Although California and Arizona are the only two states to have already passed laws regulating marijuana usage, twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have laws and resolutions regarding marijuana usage. These laws and resolutions range from establishing therapeutic research programs, to allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana, to asking the federal government to lift the ban. Despite the states’ desires to have marijuana legalized for medicinal purposes, the US National Institutes of Health examined all existing clinical evidence about smoked marijuana and concluded that, “There is no scientifically sound evidence that smoked marijuana is medically superior to currently available therapies.”
If he chooses to veto, it can be over-ridden by two-thirds vote of the house and the senate. If the veto is not overridden, it does not become law. A governor may choose to line veto a bill. A line veto is the ability to make certain changes to a bill without having to veto the entire bill. These usually happen if the governor thinks the budget needs to be adjusted.
The controversy of legalizing marijuana has been raging for quite a while in America. From some people pushing it for medical purposes to potheads just wanting to get high legally. Marijuana has been used for years as a popular drug for people who want to get a high. All this time it has been illegal and now it looks as if the drug may become legal. There has been heated debate by many sides giving there opinion in the issue. These people are not only left wing liberals either. Richard Brookhiser, a National Review Senior editor is openly supportive of medical marijuana yet extremely conservative in his writing for National Review (Brookhiser 27). He is for medical marijuana since he used it in his battle with testicular cancer. He says "I turned to [marijuana] when I got cancer because marijuana gives healthy people an appetite, and prevents people who are nauseated from throwing up. "(Brookhiser 27) Cancer patients are not the only benefactors from the appetite enhancer in marijuana, but so are any other nauseous people. Arizona and California have already passed a law allowing marijuana to be used as a medicinal drug. Fifty Six percent of the California voters voted for this law. "We've sent a message to Washington," says Dennis Peron. "They've had 25 years of this drug was, and they've only made things worse." (Simmons 111) The Arizona proposition garnished an even wider margin of separation between the fore's an against in a sixty five percent support tally. Ethan Nadelmann insists that " these propositions are not about legalization or decriminalization. They're about initiating some non radical, commonsense approaches to drug policy." General Barry McCaffery disagrees saying, "I...
There has always been controversy about marijuana and the affects it has on health and the issue of legalization. Some people believe it is very destructive to one’s health, and yet others feel the complete opposite about it. Is Marijuana truly harmful to one’s health? “Marijuana, the Deceptive Drug”, written by George Bierson, was published in the Massachusetts News. In this article, Bierson determines that marijuana is harmful in many ways. He seems to think that it damages the brain, the reproductive system, and also contributes to the halt of production in the immune system. Bierson also tries to persuade the reader that marijuana is a “gateway drug” that leads to larger drugs in the future. However, by conducting research of my own, I have come to the conclusion that Bierson’s article simply lacks truth.
Legalization of marijuana in the United States has received much attention and controversy in recent months. The federal government outlaws the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, despite proven research studies that have discovered the plant’s potential to treat the lives of many Americans affected by disease and chronic pain. Medicinal use of the marijuana plant dates back to 2700 B.C. in China. Emperor Shen Nung discovered its’ healing properties and recommended marijuana for a variety of ailments (Mack and Joy 14). Today, bias views and laws plague the advancement of marijuana in present day medicine.
Of course, the status quo of vote seeking politicians and conservative policy makers has put up a strong resistance to this "new" reform lobby. The reasons for the resistance to the changes in drug policies are multiple and complex. The issues of marijuana’s possible negative effects, its use as a medical remedy, the criminality of its distribution and usage, and the disparity in the enforcement of current drug laws have all been brought to a head and must be addressed in the near future. It is apparent that it would be irresponsible and wrong for the government to not evaluate it’s current general drug policies and perhaps most importantly, their marijuana policy. With the facts of racial disparity in punishment, detrimental effects, fiscal strain and most importantly, the history of the drug, the government most certainly must come to the conclusion that they must, at the very least, decriminalize marijuana use and quite probably fully legalize it.
To explain, the president has little control with regard to current events and policy making, his wishes are ignored, and his hands are tied. With such circumstances, the president’s desires are viewed as, just that, desires, rather than commands. Unless of course he holds the power of persuasion. In order to reach political power and presidential achievement, the president must persuade other political actors his interests are theirs (Howell 243). Howell counter argues Neustadt, explaining the president exerts influence not by the power of persuasion, but by his unilateral powers. “The president can make all kinds of public policies without the formal consent of Congress”. The unilateral powers emerge from institutional advantages such as the structure, resources, and location within the system of separated powers. (Howell 246-247). By that Howell means, the president’s power does not derive from persuasion, but from simply being the
Ever since marijuana’s introduction to the United States of America in 1611, controversy of the use and legalization of the claimed-to-be Schedule I drug spread around the nation. While few selective states currently allow marijuana’s production and distribution, the remaining states still skepticize the harmlessness and usefulness of this particular drug; therefore, it remains illegal in the majority of the nation. The government officials and citizens of the opposing states believe the drug creates a threat to citizens due to its “overly-harmful” effects mentally and physically and offers no alternate purposes but creating troublesome addicts hazardous to society; however, they are rather misinformed about marijuana’s abilities. While marijuana has a small amount of negligible effects to its users, the herbal drug more importantly has remarkable health benefits, and legalizing one of the oldest and most commonly known drugs would redirect America’s future with the advantages outweighing the disadvantages.
Cannabis, since its discovery, has been used for recreational and medical purposes. It was seen as a drug that was “safe” and did put the body at risk but benefited it. However, this is not the case anymore because the government under I Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970 law banned the use of the narcotic and has the right to persecute anyone who attains the substance. Nonetheless, the question is not whether the drug is “safe” to use but whether the States should have the power to regulate marijuana or the federal government should continue having the control over the drug. Since 1996, 23 states including Washington D.C have passed laws that have legalized the medical use of marijuana, yet the federal government does not protect or even recognize the rights of users or possessors. The debate over marijuana has picked up momentum and many would agree that all this uprising conflict can be traced back to the constitution and the flaws it presents. The constitution is blamed for not properly distributing the States and Federal powers. Although the federal government currently holds supremacy over marijuana, States should have the power to regulate the drug because under the 10th amendment the federal government only has those powers specifically granted in the constitution, Likewise the States have the right to trade within their own state under the Commerce Clause.
The public has been highly respondent to the idea of legalizing marijuana. Many states are making decisions independently from the federal government. “A growing share of the American public supports liberalizing marijuana laws. For years surveys by CNN and other news organizations have found that most Americans agree pot smokers should not go to jail. In polls taken this year by Zogby, CBS News, and Rasmussen Repor...
Abramsky then goes on to discuss in the article how liberal politicians, Betty Yee and Tom Ammiano, are pushing for a bill to change the drug laws and legalize marijuana. Yee wants to excise “fees on business owners applying for marijuana licenses, impose an excise tax on sellers and charge buyers a sales tax” and if that is done the right way, she believes that the state could gain “about $1.3 billion a year” Timothy Lynch, writing in the conservative magazine the National Review, writes about how the drug war has not made very much progress and has essentially failed. Lynch writes about how voters in California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Alaska, and Maine that have rejected ideas to improve the war on drugs and instead they “approved initiatives calling for the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes” (40). Lynch also writes that “the supply of drugs has not been hampered in any serious way by the war on drugs” (41).
In determining the ethicality of legalizing marijuana, it is necessary to understand the background of the issue, and to identify the most important stakeholders. In the 1930s, many states began outlawing the substance; ironically California was the first of these states (Rendon). In 1937, the federal government outlawed the substance, which pushed the growth and sale underground (Rendon). In 1970, President Nixon declared the substance a Schedule I Substance, which indicates that the substance has “a high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use” (Controlled Substances Act). The federal government has specified that for marijuana to have an accepted medical use, it must “be subjected to the same rigorous clinical trials and scientific scrutiny that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) applies to all other new medications” ("Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Marijuana"). There are numerous stakeholders in an ethical dilemma of this magnitude, which...
Despite the 1976 ruling by the federal government that marijuana has “no acceptable medical use”, sixteen states have passed medical marijuana laws that allow for patient use o...
Stanley, Janet E., Stanley J. Watson, and John A. Benson. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Washington D.C.: National Academy P, 1999.