Marijuana: A Case for Federal Legalization

Legalization of marijuana on the federal level has been a contentious issue in the United States in recent years. Public opinion in the United States concerning the federal legalization of marijuana is becoming more and more in favor of marijuana’s legalization within the country. According to Roffman, a Pew Research Center poll found that “52% of Americans are in favor of legalization of marijuana – a 10 point increase from poll results in 2010” (1). As more studies and research are revealed in the benefits and harmlessness of marijuana use, it is evident that only an open arena with an accepting government can produce the best results in finding how to best utilize the chemical properties of the drug, marijuana. Historical and current evidence and trends all attest to the importance of the federal legalization of marijuana in the United States for the best utility of such drugs.

Marijuana use for medicinal purposes has been in practice for thousands of years. The history of medical marijuana use reportedly dates back to 2737 B.C., when Emperor Neng “prescribed marijuana tea to treat gout, rheumatism, malaria, and even poor memory” in China (Clark, Capuzzi and Fick 246). In the United States for the past 15 years, the national implementation of the Single Convention legislation allowed 16 states and the District of Columbia to adopt medical marijuana laws. However, on the federal level, medical marijuana use in respective states where discouraged, as they essentially bypassed and violated marijuana’s Schedule 1 classification status under the Controlled Substances Act in the federal government (Roffman 1). According to the Controlled Substances Act, a Schedule 1 classification for marijuana indicates that “growing, selling, or possessing any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law” (2). The sixteen states that have adopted medical marijuana as permissible include Washington D.C., Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Nevada, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont (Pfeifer 339). By passing these regulations for marijuana use, these states are in direct conflict with the federal guidelines of prohibition for marijuana.

However, the prohibition of marijuana at the federal level poses more risk than harm as benefits of federal legalization of marijuana outweigh costs. Revenue from taxes gained from the legalization of marijuana is expected to benefit the country. Since the United States is currently in debt, it is expected that revenue from marijuana will make a dent in the debt figures of the United States. As taxes and license fees are placed upon legalizing marijuana, a more developed revenue stream can be collected by the state. In fact, projections indicate that “the earmarked funding for the public health components of this new policy will begin to flow to the various state agencies,” will allow the program would be able to pay for itself (Hoffman 2).

The ability for marijuana to pay for itself is evident from the prices that are being charged now for the consumption of marijuana. It was found that current wholesale prices in the United States for a pound of commercial-grade marijuana is $500–1500 per pound and $2000–$4500 per pound for a more cultivated type of marijuana, Sinsemilla (Caulkins, Kilmer, MacCoun, Pacula and Reuter 866). Through taxation, whether excise or sales tax, Miron estimates that the legalization of marijuana would create a “net impact in deficit reduction of about $20 billion per year throughout all levels of the government” (“CATO Institute”). Furthermore, this revenue will not come at the cost of the health risk related to marijuana, as opponents of recreational use have championed.

Medical benefits have outweighed the risks and have been documented with monitored marijuana use, which gives cause for the research for marijuana use. It was found by Clark, Capuzzi, and Fick that medical marijuana is effective in treating chronic non-cancer pain, “vomiting associated with chemotherapy, treating wasting syndrome associated with AIDS, and controlling muscle spasms” and as well as other types of symptoms of discomfort (261). In a random-sample survey of the American Society of Clinical Oncology by Doblin and Kleiman, it was found that “a majority (54%) of oncologists opine that marijuana should be available by prescription” (1314). A total of 683 (approximately 63%) oncologists confirmed and indicated that marijuana can be an effective tool in the treatment of emesis (Doblin and Kleiman 1316). Various other studies also attest to the potency of marijuana as neurological enhancers, should the right chemical properties and compounds be extracted.

Not only does the chemical of cannabinoids in marijuana shows promise in better pain management and control over other adverse markers of symptoms, but the hemp of the plant is also a valuable commodity that can be very useful, if legalized, in the United States. As Reeves pointed out, industrial hemp is good for 25,000 different product uses and is considered eco-friendly due to its versatility in renewability (3). It is said that hemp is a cost-effective health benefit that reigns superiority over other product sources (Reeves 3). However, even though the hemp is considered to contain many benefits, there are measurable concerns with the use of it as well. For example, one of the many concerns is that the hemp has derivative drug affiliations with the potency of marijuana. However, it has been found that the chemical which produces a sensation of euphoria or “high,” is identified as THC – tetrahydrocannabinol. The THC level is only .03 percent in hemp, as discovered by Reeves (3). Even though it has limited potency in hallucinations, it is nonetheless considered dangerous and not viable for use. Yet, banning hemp is banning the potential for potential health cures that can be safe, effective, and beneficial for the future. However, the hemp, as with marijuana, has been deemed as illegal throughout the United States on a federal level, and criminal charges abound for those that deal in formats of the plant.

Unfortunately, since any current involvements in marijuana results in arrests and criminal charges – resources that otherwise would have dispensed to other criminal activities are directed towards such misdemeanors. With the legalization of marijuana on a federal level, “mass arrests for low-level possession… due to the enormous underground marijuana market” can be adequately curbed and controlled (Caulkins, Kilmer, MacCoun, Pacula and Reuter 874). By legalizing marijuana, it is anticipated that there will be a reduction in both the costs to government in individual arrestees and negative sentiments toward certain at-risk racial groups. Furthermore, since “punishment itself but also stigma” to certain racial groups, it is anticipated that such measures can aid in the politics of decreasing stigma against these often identified racial groups (Caulkins, Kilmer, MacCoun, Pacula and Reuter 866). Through the legalization of marijuana, it is expected that black markets will be undercut, hence reducing the number of arrests for marijuana dealers. Such efforts will free up police resources, whereby attention and manpower can be redirected toward other more important priorities (Caulkins, Kilmer, MacCoun, Pacula and Reuter 867).

While there are risks associated with marijuana, there is a clearly identified need for further research to isolate significant benefits from the medical application of cannabinoids for maximum benefit. By discovering appropriate delivery mechanisms and formulations to determine how cannabinoids might play in legitimate medical applications, the drug can be used with more safety and effectiveness, with less side-effect (Lamarine 1). The current society has only begun to understand the medicinal properties of marijuana that are potent for treatment in multiple areas, like ancestors before us. Multiple health care groups and the majority of the healthcare professionals have agreed that “clinical trials of cannabinoid drugs for symptom management should be conducted” so to find the best, most effective and secure way to treat patients (Nunberg, Kilmer, Pacula and Burgdorf 2). It is indubitable that an open forum for discoursing, researching, and regulating marijuana on a federal scale can only lead to a positive development that produces financial, social, and political well-being for the states of America. Only with federal legalization of marijuana will open discourse and disciplined forum be available for citizens of America to truly harness the full utility of the plant.

Works Cited

Caulkins, Jonathan, Beau Kilmer, Robert MacCoun, Rosalie Pacula, and Peter Reuter. "Design Considerations for Legalizing Marijuana." Addiction for Debate. Selected Works, Jan. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.

Clark, Peter, Kevin Capuzzi, and Cameron Fick. "Medical marijuana: Medical necessity versus political agenda." Medical Science Monitor. U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health, Dec., 2011: 249-261. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.

Doblin, Richard and Mark A. Kleiman. "Marijuana as antiemetic medicine: a survey of oncologists' experiences and attitudes." Journal of Clinical Oncology 9.7 (1991): 1316-1219. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.

Lamarine, Roland. "Marijuana: Modern Medical Chimaera." Journal of Drug Education 42.1 (2012): 1-11. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.

Miron, Jeffrey. "Marijuana Legalization in California.” Cato Institute. 2010. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.

Nunberg, Helen, Beau Kiler, Rosalie L. Pacula, and James Burgdorf. "An Analysis of Applicants Presenting to a Medical Marijuana Specialty Practice in California." Journal of Drug Policy Analysis 4.1 (2011): 1-16. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.

Pfeifer, Daniel. "Smoking Gun: The Moral and Legal Struggle for Medical Marijuana." 27 Touro Law Review. 19 October, 2011: 339. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.

Reeves, Thomas. "Hemp: An Agricultural Super-Crop Held Hostage." Aquosus Potentia. (2012): 1-14. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.

Roffman, Roger A. "Legalization of Marijuana: unraveling quandaries for the addiction professional."Frontiers in Psychiatry. 31st May, 2013: 1-2. National Institute of Health. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.

Savage, Charlie. "Administration Weighs Legal Action Against States that Legalized Marijuana."Marijuana Anti-Prohibition Project. 6 Dec. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.