The Case for Cannabis

In the last few years marijuana, and efforts both in favor of its legalization and opposed to such legislation have increased exponentially. Many maintain that the drug has been classified as a schedule one substance for good reason, and that it promotes lethargy and poor health. Others assert that studies involving the dangers of marijuana have never been set in the right context, arguing that marijuana is perhaps the only drug to have never resulted in a single death of its users. Proponents of legalization also argue that, compared to the effects of cigarettes and alcohol, marijuana is an essentially harmless substance. Still, advocates in favor of maintaining the illegal status of the drug say that some of the main problems associated with its legalization would stem from drug lords and whether or not such individuals or organizations would pay heed to the laws of the land. Ultimately, the drugs ability to generate revenue via taxation, and its medicinal properties, represent strong arguments for widespread legalization.

Marijuana is not, and never was, listed as a schedule one substance because of the dangers it poses to those who use it, and many would assert that its classification as such is simply fallacious. The Drug Enforcement Administration’s website states that substances are classified into one of five schedules based on their potential for medicinal applications and their potential for addiction (Justice.gov, 2014), with schedule five substances demonstrating the most potential for medical use and the least potential for addiction, and schedule one substances posing the most risk for abuse and the least potential for medicinal purposes. However, given the myriad studies that purport the drug’s usefulness in pain relief and other applications, it seems strange that the drug maintains its schedule one classification. In fact, the reason that marijuana has never been rescheduled to a less regulated class is that maintaining it as a schedule one substance gives law enforcement agencies more leverage when dealing with criminals. Detaining reputed drug dealers in possession of a schedule one substance, marijuana for example, carries far more weight than finding a schedule five substance, something like Robitussin, on their person. Facing the threat of a prolonged prison sentence, detainees in this position are often laxer to supply law enforcement officials with details concerning the drug trade, their suppliers, etc. Additionally, some argue that maintaining the schedule one rating of marijuana represents a significant source of revenue for local police departments, though the drug’s legalization would also serve to promote increased revenues via taxation.

One of the strongest arguments in favor of legalizing marijuana stems from the notion that the millions of pounds of marijuana currently distributed throughout the nation, resulting in billions of dollars of untaxed income, has the potential to serve as a major source of tax revenue in the event that legalization materializes. However, one article notes that assertions lauding marijuana taxation as the cure for many state’s fiscal deficits is somewhat farfetched, arguing that such statements are based on certain presumptions, most notably the government’s ability to maintain a $50 per ounce tax rate, which are simply unrealistic (2010). With per ounce rates on the black market starting around $100, it is not difficult to imagine the continuity of the black market for such substances, as dealers operating outside the bounds of the law could easily undersell dealers whose rates were higher based on such steep taxation (2010). Even for the highest grades of marijuana which sell for between $200-300 per ounce, a $50 tax represents, at best, an almost 17% tax rate. In this regard, the argument for increased revenues via taxation seems somewhat less feasible than what proponents have suggested. Still, one must consider the overall impact that such legalization and subsequent reforms could represent, even with respect to more modest tax rates.

States like Washington and Colorado, the first two states to legalize the recreational sale and use of marijuana, have already experienced steep surges in revenues as a result of the drug’s taxation. One article from Malinowski reports that in Washington, where the drug is taxed three separate times, at the grower, the processor, and those selling retail, for a rate of roughly 25%, revenues are expected to fall in the range of $500 million in 2013 (2013, p. 9). Meanwhile in Colorado, where the tax rates on marijuana are capped at 15% of the wholesale price, revenues are projected to reach $60 million for the year (p.9). More importantly, both states plan on using a significant portion of the revenues to improve their education system via the construction of new schools, allocations that few would contend are beneficial to society. While academics and armchair theorists seem to believe that tax rates in the 17% range are unsustainable, it seems that advocates of the drug’s mental, physical, and psychological benefits are willing to pay a premium to experience its effects. In doing so, not only are users bolstering the revenue streams for their respective states, but their quality of life may also receive a jolt.

While the medicinal benefits of marijuana have received conflicting assessments across numerous studies, the sheer amount of studies whose participants indicated as positive the benefits of the drug represents substantial evidence as to its medicinal applications. A recent study from Carhart-Harris and Nutt explored the behaviors of a group of 11 experienced drug users from the UK in assessing the potential benefits of various elicit substances and found that from among 13 different substances ranging from heroin and cocaine to ketamine and LSD, users ranked marijuana as the most beneficial and least harmful substance among the group behind only magic mushrooms (2013, p. 324). When asked about what specifically the users felt were the benefits associated with marijuana use, responses were largely centered around the drugs ability to relieve anxiety and stress, as well as its ability to promote more sound sleep and its pain-relieving properties (p. 325). In addition to this study, there have been many others that examined the use of marijuana as a pain reliever, particularly in alleviating the symptoms associated with glaucoma, with results that corroborate with those of this particular study.

Some of the most convincing studies for the legalization of marijuana are found in studies examining its effect on pain management of patients with severe medical ailments. One article notes that marijuana use has been effective in the treatment of pain in patients with glaucoma and multiple sclerosis, and has also shown efficacy in the treatment of those with AIDS in terms of stimulating patients’ loss of appetite, one of the primary accelerators of the disease’s bodily destruction (Chon, 1997). Other medicinal benefits of marijuana include pain relief from more serious conditions such as breast cancer, as one article notes that as an inhaled substance, inhalation representing the quickest turnaround time between administration of a substance and its effects being felt, there is simply no other substitute as effective as marijuana in relieving pain (Bostwick, Reisfield & DuPon, 2013, p. 867). It is also worth mentioning that the patients in such studies are not merely a select group of teenagers who happened to fall ill with glaucoma or cancer and regard marijuana as the ultimate drug, but working adults with children and families who may have even been opposed to the legalization of the substance prior to their experiences with it. Regardless of a patient’s age or marital status though, marijuana has demonstrated time and again that it’s applications in pain relief and its mitigating effects on anxiety are superior to other forms of medication designed to treat such symptoms.

While the tax benefits of marijuana legalization and the drug’s medicinal properties represent two distinct yet powerful arguments in favor of such legislation, perhaps the most relevant argument surrounding the legalization of marijuana stems from its classification as a schedule one substance under the Controlled Substances Act. However, as schedule one drugs are classified as having no medicinal application while also demonstrating a strong potential for abuse, it seems that marijuana might have been miscategorized as a schedule one substance. One expert relates that “it is a betrayal of the public trust to treat cannabis as if it has the same potential for abuse as heroin or cocaine…” (Gettman, 2001, p. 105). Most would agree that it seems absurd to place marijuana in the same class of drugs to which narcotics like heroin belong, yet its schedule one classification has long stood the test of time and does not show signs of reclassification any time soon. Moreover, as far back as 1970, many experts were reluctant to classify marijuana as a schedule one substance, with one article noting that even officials from the Department of Health Education and Welfare were expressing concern over the possibility that marijuana had been misappropriated in the schedule line-up (Gettman, 2004, p. 5). This particular piece described a letter from Roger Egeberg, an official with the DOHEW in which he expressed his wish that marijuana retain its schedule one classification until the completion of studies indicate a more appropriate designation (p. 5), though in the midst of thousands of reports corroborating the effectiveness of the drug in terms of anxiety and pain relief, its current classification remains a mystery to many. Clearly, one can see that the legalization and schedule classification of marijuana is contingent on factors outside of medicinal applicability or potential for abuse, though why such contingencies exist will likely continue to baffle academics and advocates for many years to come.

Ultimately, the legalization of marijuana, along with its classification in the scheduling of the Controlled Substances Act, is a multifaceted issue with no clear-cut solution. Those opposed to such legislation argue that its schedule one classification represents a unique stronghold on the networks of illegal drug distribution that plague our society and claim that there is no reason to legalize such an addictive drug. Proponents assert that contrary to what many believe, the potential for abuse, and more importantly for addiction, is relatively non-existent when compared to other schedule one drugs such as heroin. Also, the drug’s medicinal applications, from pain relief to its hunger promoting properties, are superior not only in their efficacy but in their absence of side effects as well. In the aggregate, there is much evidence that seems to point to the legalization of marijuana, both medically and recreationally, as the most sound and logical conclusion.

References

(2010, April 8). Benefits from a marijuana tax? California is dreaming. Christian Science Monitor. p. N.PAG.

Bostwick, J., Reisfield, G. M., & DuPon, R. L. (2013). Medicinal Use of Marijuana. New England Journal Of Medicine, 368(9), 866-868. doi:10.1056/NEJMclde1300970

Carhart-Harris, R., & Nutt, D. (2013). Experienced Drug Users Assess the Relative Harms and Benefits of Drugs: A Web-Based Survey. Journal Of Psychoactive Drugs, 45(4), 322-328. doi:10.1080/02791072.2013.825034

Chon, G. (1997). Medical Marijuana: A Dream Up in Smoke?. Human Rights, 24(4), 16-17.

Gettman, J. 2004. Rescheduling Cannabis Under the US Controlled Substances Act Selected Bibliography, Timeline, and Reference Materials.

Gettman, J. (2001). Cannabis and the US Controlled Substances Act. Journal Of Cannabis Therapeutics, 1 (1), pp. 95--109.

Justice.gov. (2014). DEA / Drug Scheduling. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml [Accessed: 3 Apr 2014].

Malinowski, W. (2013). Revenues High on Marijuana. Planning, 79(4), 9.