The state`s marijuana liberalization policy has evolved over the past five decades, yet it is widely accepted that the scientific evidence for the effects of this policy is inconclusive. In this review, we summarize some of the key limitations of studies assessing the impact of decriminalization and medical marijuana laws on marijuana use, highlighting their inconsistencies in terms of policy heterogeneity, timing of assessments, and measures of use considered. We suggest that heterogeneity in the responsiveness of different populations to certain laws is important in interpreting the mixed results of the literature, and we highlight the limitations of the existing literature to provide a clear overview of the likely effects of marijuana legalization. At its core, the legalization of medical marijuana represents a centuries-old battle between federal and state laws. As we have examined in detail here, since the founding of this nation, states have sought to govern their inhabitants in a manner appropriate to the circumstances of that particular state and without interference from the federal government. For example, the southern states remembered the discontent that eventually led to the civil war and felt that the federal government had lost touch with their predominantly agricultural society compared to the predominantly industrial society of the northern states, and therefore believed that they should be able to govern themselves. At the federal level, cannabis remains classified as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, Schedule I substances have a high addictive potential and no accepted medical uses, making the distribution of cannabis a federal offence. In October 2009, the Obama administration sent a memo to federal prosecutors urging them not to prosecute people who distribute cannabis for medical purposes in accordance with state law. Coinciding with President Bill Clinton`s re-election in 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215 to legalize the medical use of cannabis, and a similar (but ultimately ineffective) measure was passed in Arizona. In response, the Clinton administration reiterated its strong opposition to the medical use of cannabis and threatened to revoke the ability to write prescriptions for doctors recommending or prescribing the drug. [39] [40] In addition, threats were made to sue doctors and ban them from participating in Medicare and Medicaid. [41] A group of physicians challenged this policy as a violation of First Amendment rights and pressured Conant v.
McCaffrey in September 2000, which affirmed the right of physicians to recommend (but not prescribe) cannabis. [2] Prior to the judgment, an injunction issued in April 1997 prevented the administration from taking these steps. [2] The history of medical marijuana use goes back thousands of years. The medical use of marijuana dates back to 2737 BC. AD dates back to Emperor Shen Neng prescribing marijuana tea to treat gout, rheumatism, malaria, and even memory impairment [4]. The popularity of the drug spread across Asia to the Middle East and Africa, and many ancient doctors prescribed marijuana for many ailments, from pain relief to childbirth [5]. In Western medicine, more than 100 papers were published between 1840 and 1900, citing the therapeutic properties of marijuana in American and European medical journals. These early American medical journals recommended hemp seeds and roots for conditions such as skin inflammation, incontinence, and venereal diseases, and in 1851, the United States Pharmacopoeia included hemp in its catalog of medicines. Marijuana was commonly prescribed by American doctors and enjoyed legal status in the United States until 1937, when the U.S. legislature passed the first federal law against marijuana – the Marihuana Tax Act.
This legislation introduced a $1 per ounce tax on marijuana purchased for medical purposes [6]. Later, in the 1950s, Congress passed the Boggs Act and the Narcotics Control Act, which established mandatory sentences for drug-related offenders, including marijuana owners and traffickers [4]. Finally, the Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug, making it illegal to possess a Schedule I drug such as marijuana, heroin, ecstasy, LSD, GHB and peyote [6]. Under this Act, there are five formularies – Schedules I, II, III, IV and V. A Schedule I drug has a high potential for abuse and has no accepted medical use in treatment due to an accepted lack of safety for the use of the drug. A Schedule II drug has a high potential for abuse like a Schedule I drug, but it has an accepted medical use for treatment. Schedule III, IV and V drugs have a low potential for abuse and are accepted for medical treatment. The federal government`s basis for the threat of prosecution is due to the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug in 1970 [7]. The purpose of this article is therefore fourfold: first, to examine the medical aspect of marijuana by examining relevant scientific research; second, to examine legal issues related to the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes; third, to provide an ethical analysis of the arguments for and against the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes; and fourthly, to conclude with concrete recommendations.
MEDICAL USE UPDATE: As of February 3, 2022, 37 states, three territories and the District of Columbia allow the medical use of cannabis products. In November 2020, Mississippi voters passed a voting initiative to authorize medical use, but it was overturned by the state Supreme Court on May 14, 2021. The legislature passed a new law, which was signed into law by the governor on February 2, 2022. See Table 1 below. In QPA v. Anaheim, the Court noted that Section IX, § 7 of the California Constitution provides that “a county or city within its boundaries may issue and enforce any local, police, health, and other ordinance and regulation that is not contrary to the general laws” of California. Such permissible regulations are those that mitigate a public nuisance. California law defines a public nuisance as “a nuisance that simultaneously affects an entire community or neighborhood or a significant number of people, although the level of harassment or harm inflicted on individuals may be uneven.” The court argued that the mass distribution of medical marijuana through dispensaries, which are largely unregulated, is a public nuisance.