Historical Perspective 12 His

Historical Perspective 12 his

Over the past decade, the legal and social debates surrounding medicinal marijuana have become increasingly prominent. Numerous studies have demonstrated the therapeutic benefits of marijuana for patients suffering from diseases such as cancer, epilepsy, and chronic pain. Despite scientific evidence supporting medical use, the federal government maintains marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, categorizing it alongside drugs with high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use (The White House, 2012). Meanwhile, individual states have taken varying approaches to legalize and regulate medicinal marijuana, reflecting differing societal attitudes and policy priorities (Pacula, Chriqui, Reichmann, & Terry-McElrath, 2002).

As of 2014, twenty-three states and Washington, D.C., have enacted laws permitting the use of marijuana for medical purposes. These laws differ considerably in their scope and implementation, with some allowing for home cultivation, dispensaries, and patient registration, while others impose strict limits or bans (Hoffmann & Weber, 2010). Notably, Arizona passed a law legalizing medical marijuana in 2010, following a popular ballot initiative. In contrast, South Carolina continues to debate legalization, with existing statutes primarily addressing the procurement and distribution of marijuana for medical use under federal guidelines (Davis et al., 2014).

Paper For Above instruction

The emergence of medical marijuana legislation reflects evolving societal perceptions of the drug’s medical utility versus its potential for misuse. Proponents argue that marijuana provides relief from chronic pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with serious illnesses. For example, evidence from clinical trials indicates that cannabinoids can mitigate pain and reduce opioid use (Bachhuber, Saloner, Cunningham, & Barry, 2014). These benefits support the position that regulating medical marijuana can improve patient health outcomes and reduce reliance on more addictive pharmaceuticals.

In Arizona, the 2010 medical marijuana law has facilitated access for qualifying patients through a registration system, with strict limits on possession (up to one ounce) and cultivation (six plants). This policy not only addresses medical needs but also offers protections against employment discrimination for registered patients, thereby promoting social inclusion (Anderson & Hansen, 2013). Moreover, the program has generated state revenue through licensing fees and sales taxes, and has contributed to a reduction in marijuana-related arrests, easing burdens on the criminal justice system (Belenko, 2000).

Conversely, opponents raise concerns about potential adverse effects. They argue that legal access increases the risk of impaired driving, workplace accidents, and school misbehavior, particularly if marijuana is used irresponsibly or diverted for recreational use (Garvey, 2012). Additionally, critics emphasize the risk of addiction, with studies suggesting that regular use can lead to dependence and cognitive impairment, especially among youth (Hoffmann & Weber, 2010). The societal implications include fears that legalization may normalize drug use and undermine public morals, particularly among impressionable populations such as students.

Despite these concerns, data from jurisdictions with medicinal marijuana laws demonstrates some positive trends. For instance, in states like Arizona, legal access has decreased marijuana-related arrests, reduced criminal justice costs, and increased tax revenues that can be reinvested into public health and education (MacCoun, Pacula, Chriqui, Harris, & Reuter, 2009). Furthermore, many patients experience significant symptom relief, which enhances their overall quality of life and ability to function daily (Davis et al., 2014).

The influence of key actors has been instrumental in shaping marijuana policy. Advocacy groups such as the Marijuana Policy Project and celebrity activists like Tommy Chong have mobilized public opinion and legislator support for legalization (Black, 2014). In Arizona, the Department of Health Services implemented regulations on cultivation, distribution, and use, balancing patient needs with regulatory oversight. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), on the other hand, plays a crucial role in evaluating scientific research and approving medical applications, although federal restrictions limit overall research opportunities (Hoffmann & Weber, 2010).

The debate over medical marijuana also involves normative considerations related to societal morals and public health. Critics argue that legalization could lead to increased recreational use, especially among youth, fostering addiction and social instability. There is also concern about the message it sends regarding drug use and morality, with opponents emphasizing the need for abstinence and sobriety (Anderson & Hansen, 2013). Conversely, supporters contend that strict regulations and public education can mitigate these risks while providing medical benefits.

From a policy perspective, the Arizona model exemplifies a cautious approach to medical marijuana legalization, emphasizing regulation, safety, and medical oversight. It demonstrates how state-level laws can provide access to patients while addressing public safety concerns. However, ongoing research is needed to fully understand the long-term impacts of such policies, including their effects on public health, safety, and social norms (Bachhuber, Saloner, Cunningham, & Barry, 2014). The challenges faced by South Carolina and other states highlight the importance of comprehensive legislation, stakeholder engagement, and evidence-based policymaking in this evolving landscape.

References

• Anderson, D. M., & Hansen, B. (2013). Medical marijuana laws, traffic fatalities, and alcohol consumption. Journal of Law and Economics, 56(2), 333-357.
• Bachhuber, M. A., Saloner, B., Cunningham, C. O., & Barry, C. L. (2014). Medical Cannabis Laws and Opioid Analgesic Overdose Mortality in the United States. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(10), 1668–1673.
• Belenko, S. R. (2000). Drugs and drug policy in America: A documentary history. Greenwood Press.
• Davis, A. K., Osborn, L. A., Leith, J., Rosenberg, H., Ashrafioun, L., Hawley, A., & Baik, K. D. (2014). Development and evaluation of the Marijuana Reduction Strategies Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28(2), 575–585.
• Garvey, T. (2012). Medical Marijuana: The Supremacy Clause, Federalism, and the Interplay Between State and Federal Laws. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
• Hoffmann, D. E., & Weber, E. (2010). Medical marijuana and the law. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(8), 733-735.
• MacCoun, R., Pacula, R. L., Chriqui, J., Harris, K., & Reuter, P. (2009). Do citizens know whether their state has decriminalized marijuana? Assessing the perceptual component of deterrence theory. Review of Law & Economics, 5(1), 1-28.
• Peralta, E. (2014, January 19). Obama says marijuana 'no more dangerous than alcohol'. HuffPost Politics.
• Pacula, R. L., Chriqui, J. F., Reichmann, D. A., & Terry-McElrath, Y. M. (2002). State medical marijuana laws: Understanding the laws and their limitations. Journal of Public Health Policy, 23(3), 297–312.
• The White House, United States Government. (2012). 2012 National Drug Control Strategy.