Pubdate: Fri, 16 Oct 2015
Source: News-Journal (Mansfield, OH)
Copyright: 2015 News-Journal.
Contact: http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/customerservice/contactus.html
Website: http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2413
Author: Paul E. Robinson
Note: Paul E. Robinson, Ph.D., is a psychologist from Mansfield.

MEDICAL MARIJUANA: HOPE OR HOAX?

This is a plea for a rational and compassionate perspective on the 
issue of medical marijuana. I must be honest. It is personal for me 
as I suffer from multiple sclerosis. The opinions expressed here, 
however, were formed long before it became a personal issue. My 
objectivity has not changed, but my compassion has deepened.

The medicinal qualities of marijuana were recognized as far back as 
2737 B.C. In fact, from 1850 to 1937, marijuana was legally and 
readily available as a medicine for a wide range of maladies in the US.

After the failure of Prohibition, marijuana came under fire. Repeal 
of all laws permitting the use of medical marijuana became the 
passion of then Commissioner of Narcotics, Harry J. Anslinger. He 
personally conducted a smear campaign against marijuana, creating 
irrational fears among the public and politicians alike-irrational 
fears that persists even to this day!

I was once affected by that hysteria myself. In 1984, my 15-year-old 
son was receiving chemotherapy to combat leukemia. No medicine would 
help with his nausea. It was so severe that he was only able to keep 
three meals down in seven weeks. He lost 35 pounds off his already 
thin frame. I had heard that marijuana might help, but, out of fear, 
I could not bring myself to get him some to try. I would not hesitate today!

Despite the American Medical Association's opposition and its support 
of medicinal marijuana, Anslinger was successful in getting Congress 
to pass laws that had the eventual effect of criminalizing any use of 
marijuana.

Fifty-one years later, however, marijuana was once again recognized 
as a legitimate medicine. After a thorough review, Judge Francis L. 
Young of the Drug Enforcement Agency recommended that marijuana be 
reclassified from a Schedule I drug (no medical use and highly 
addictive) to a Schedule II drug (recognized medical use but 
addictive). The DEA failed to do so because of political pressure not 
because of science or the lack thereof!

To continue to argue that marijuana has no known medical use is an 
erroneous argument. The May 25 issue of TIME and the June 15 issue of 
National Geographic, for example, cites some of the research 
establishing the medical usefulness of marijuana and the hopes 
researchers have for it.

I never cease to be amazed by the number of good, decent people who 
once they hear I occasionally use marijuana share with me that they 
do too. For example, a friend of mine who suffers from MS, a mother 
of five wonderful children, finds great joy in her improved ability 
to walk and climb stairs after she uses marijuana. There are 
countless stories much like this, of people with cancer, Parkinson's, 
arthritis, PTSD, epilepsy, depression, anxiety, etc., finding 
marijuana helpful, if you take the time to listen and have their trust.

To argue that marijuana is a dangerous drug is an equally deceptive 
argument as well. To be sure, all drugs possess the potential to 
harm. Marijuana is no exception. But to believe that marijuana is so 
dangerous that it should not be legalized flies in the face of the facts!

Besides, if the potential for harm was a criterion to disqualify a 
drug from legal use, countless drugs would have to be taken off the 
market. The result would be that millions of Americans would 
experience untold suffering. Even a casual listening to drug 
advertisements makes the informed person cautious about using the 
advertised drug. Many are far more dangerous than marijuana, but they 
are legal because of the power of the drug lobby.

Any rational and compassionate approach to marijuana must consider 
the possible effects of legalized marijuana on our youth. Perhaps its 
legalization would result in an increase in its use. How much, if 
any, is an unknown. What is known is that if it were legal, it would 
not have to be purchased from a dealer who is also pushing harder drugs.

Whatever the relationship between marijuana and harder drugs (the 
so-called gateway effect) is, it is more the result of dealers than 
it is marijuana. Some dealers want the user to try harder drugs in 
order to get them addicted because marijuana is not that addictive. 
Legalizing it may, in fact, reduce the incidence of users going on to 
harder drugs.

If marijuana were legal, at least as a medicine, patients would be 
able to buy the exact strain of marijuana they need. They would not 
have to break the law. They could be certain of its purity and not 
have to be concerned if it is laced with harmful chemicals. They 
wouldn't have to buy it from a dealer who might want to get them 
hooked on some more dangerous drug, including many prescriptions 
medicines and so-called synthetic marijuana which is potentially deadly.

This all brings me to Issues 2 and 3. Issue 2, if passed, would 
negate Issue 3. Issue 2 is an attempt by our legislators to thwart 
the will of the people if the voters should decide in favor of Issue 
3 and also pass Issue 2. It is a cowardly, dastardly act on their part.

A rational, compassionate voter will vote "NO" on Issue 2 and "YES" 
on Issue 3. Lives would be saved, much suffering would be relieved, 
and quality of lives would be improved if Issue 2 fails and Issue 3 
passes. Please vote "NO" on Issue 2 and "YES" on Issue 3.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom