The Gonzales V. Raich Case
How The Case Started
The California resident Monson had her six medical marijuana plants destroyed by the DEA, so she and another medical marijuana user, Raich, sued the federal government believing they had no right to destroy her plants because she was in compliance with the state laws.
The California resident Monson had her six medical marijuana plants destroyed by the DEA, so she and another medical marijuana user, Raich, sued the federal government believing they had no right to destroy her plants because she was in compliance with the state laws.
How The Case Ended
The court case ended in favor of Gonzales, which protected the Federal government's right to criminalize the production and use of marijuana even in states with legal medical marijuana under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
The court case ended in favor of Gonzales, which protected the Federal government's right to criminalize the production and use of marijuana even in states with legal medical marijuana under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
The Gonzales Vs. Raich case was in essence the federal government deeming it rightful to Ban the possession of legal marijuana given by a state to patients who have a medical need for it. The respondent Raich argued that the court has decided in many other cases that federal government has no right to exercise power if the state already is regulating that class of activities. In the Lopez case, which the respondents used as an example, the court deemed that the state of Texas already regulated gun control in school grounds and the federal government exceeded the power given by the interstate commerce clause. The commerce clause was originally created so we could have controlled trade on a national level; giving the federal government the right to put penalties and taxes in place to prevent having a surplus or shortage of a commodity. Raich argued that home grown medical marijuana has no effect on the interstate market of marijuana, and therefore like the Lopez case fell out of the federal government's control. Although Raich had a valid point, the courts deemed that there was no way to differ home grown medical marijuana from marijuana being exported across state lines.
Another argument which Raich used in their case was much more than just a product, but a medicine that was essential to their health. Raich's need for the drug to alleviate her pain gained her side a lot of sympathy, however the Supreme Court decided that the the patients needs were irrelevant to the case, and the issue at hand isn’t whether Marijuana is an acceptable medicine, but if the federal governments has the right to control a State’s medical marijuana industry, even as far as small amounts of homegrown marijuana prescribed by doctors. Nontheless, The sumpreme court decided that Homegrown Marijuana has too high if a potential to enter the interstate market, and in a 6-3 vote, decided to uphold the federal government’s power to regulate local activities that affect the interstate market.
The point of a democracy is so citizens won’t have to live under laws not supported by the people, so why does the federal government insist on defying the state’s laws when the majority of citizens are in support of the medicine. Not protecting intrastate medical marijuana users from federal prosecution isn’t protecting anyones liberties.
Another argument which Raich used in their case was much more than just a product, but a medicine that was essential to their health. Raich's need for the drug to alleviate her pain gained her side a lot of sympathy, however the Supreme Court decided that the the patients needs were irrelevant to the case, and the issue at hand isn’t whether Marijuana is an acceptable medicine, but if the federal governments has the right to control a State’s medical marijuana industry, even as far as small amounts of homegrown marijuana prescribed by doctors. Nontheless, The sumpreme court decided that Homegrown Marijuana has too high if a potential to enter the interstate market, and in a 6-3 vote, decided to uphold the federal government’s power to regulate local activities that affect the interstate market.
The point of a democracy is so citizens won’t have to live under laws not supported by the people, so why does the federal government insist on defying the state’s laws when the majority of citizens are in support of the medicine. Not protecting intrastate medical marijuana users from federal prosecution isn’t protecting anyones liberties.
What My Sources Said
1. In this article, the author believes that the government was abusing their power given under the commerce clause. Although the author has a bias, it does not impact the legitimacy of the source too much because it explains the court's reasoning pretty well. The most important information this source provided me was how both liberals and conservatives have aspects that make them seem like they should be pro medical marijuana, saying “What happened to the conservatives' commitment to the principles of states' rights and limited government? What happened to liberals' concern for the rights of defendants and to the right to privacy?”. This source showed me how mixed the parties are on this issue. The issue of medical marijuana is very controversial, with each of the sides sticking strongly to their views, and not willing to make a compromise for the wellbeing of the citizens. This source is far different than my other sources because it’s offers much more of an opinion on the case, and is the only one to bring up the political parties views on medical marijuana.
Young, Cathy. "Cathy Young: Boston Globe - The Medical Pot Hysteria." Cathy Young: Boston Globe - The Medical Pot Hysteria. Cathy Young, n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.
2. In this source, there’s no bias whatsoever towards the case but it states the information leaving the reader to have their own opinion, and the legitimacy of the source is actually improved because of the lack of bias. What information this source provided me with was that the ninth circuit of the court actually reversed shortly to being in favor of Raich, because they saw the Controlled Substance Act as unconstitutional when applied to intrastate medical marijuana, because marijuana’s still considered a schedule 5 drug with no medical value under the CSA. The information regarding Marijuana’s ranking as a controlled substance was skipped by my other sources, however they did mention the CSA and its role in the case.
"GONZALES V. RAICH." GONZALES V. RAICH. Cornell Law School, 29 Nov. 2004. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.
3. Another source I used was the ITT Kent Chicago college of law, which is yet another source that had an unbiased view of the case. Their lack of a bias doesn’t have any impact on the source’s legitimacy, and it provided me with a strong understanding of the reasoning behind the court's ruling, saying “The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market”. This information shows that not only could the homegrown marijuana enter the national market, but simply by having California residence growing their own, the national market’s affected because the marijuana that would be sold to the California’s medical users is now going to be sold elsewhere, possibly for recreational use. This information seems to match up with the information given by the other sources, however gave me a deeper understanding.
"GONZALES v. RAICH." Gonzales v. Raich. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2014.
4. The Washington Post also proved to be a solid source for information regarding the raich case. In this source, the Author hints towards his supporting Raich’s sued by only providing quotes that speak against the far too general meaning of interstate commerce that the federal government has, and is optimistic that this issue will soon reach congress to change these laws against medical marijuana. Some of the new information I gained from this source is that the federal government thinks this marks the end of the medical marijuana controversy, with the director of the national drug control policy saying “Today's decision marks the end of medical marijuana as a political issue”, whereas many others think it’s just the start, with Robert Raich, the husband and lawyer of the respondent saying “The decision highlights the opportunity we have to go to Congress and change these laws”. This information is very different than the other sources I’ve used because it elaborates on the possible future steps of the medical marijuana movement.
Lane, Charles. "A Defeat For Users Of Medical Marijuana." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 07 June 2005. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.
5. This source was actually created by the respondent Angel Raich herself, so it has a strong bias in favor of medical marijuana, which impacts the source by not providing a clear argument from the side opposing Raich. What this source did provide me with were the details of Raich’s condition. The reason raich uses medical marijuana is because she has a long list of debilitating illnesses, some of which include Inoperable brain tumors, Radiation Necrosis of the brain, Scoliosis, nausea, and she suffers from pain 24 hours a day. 3 doctors have said her illnesses are terminal, and she uses medical marijuana because there weren’t any other viable, effective treatments for her. The information that I’ve gained about her illness is much more detailed than any of my other sources have been, however it was presented with such a bias that I can’t totally believe all of the information given.
Raich, Angel. "Who Is Angel Raich?" Who Is Angel Raich? N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.
6. This source is a chart comparing the Marijuana related deaths versus 17 other FDA approved drugs. The bias shown in this chart makes it seem as though marijuana’s a whole lot safer than all those harsh drugs being prescribed now. Although it shows a bias, the source is still very legitimate because the information was provided by the FDA itself. This source showed me that in 2005, Marijuana was not the Primary cause of death once, and was suspected to be the secondary cause in only 279 deaths compared to the 11,687 deaths cause by the 17 approved drugs. This source doesn’t compare at all to the other sources because it was totally new information.
"Deaths from Marijuana v. 17 FDA-Approved Drugs - Medical Marijuana - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. ProCon.org, 7 Aug. 2009. Web. 27 Jan. 2014.
7. This source isn’t an article, but a chart showing the national opinion on medical marijuana by both doctors and everyday citizens. The bias that the chart had was very much in favor of medical marijuana, but didn’t impact its legitimacy at all because the surveys used to get the data was taken at random. What the charts made clear was that the common citizens were typically 60-70% in favor of the use of medical marijuana, and a staggering 80% of doctors were in approval of medical marijuana. This information is made apparent in other sources, however this was the only source that has legitimate figures from surveys.
"Votes and Polls, National - Medical Marijuana - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. ProCon.org, 6 Nov. 2013. Web. 27 Jan. 2014.
8. In this article, it explains why Justice Scalia voted in favor of the Commerce Clause in Raich’s case, Even though he voted against the Clause in similar cases such as Lopez and Morrison. The authors opinion was in favor of the Commerce Clause, as he seemed to back Scalia’s very well justified explanation for his decision. Scalia’s concurrence on the case was that “Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local”.” This source elaborates more on the difference between the lopez case and the Raich case than my other sources have.
"Gonzales v. Raich." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2014.
9. This article is written to explain the views against the Commerce Clause, and the most important information I gained from it was Justice O’connor’s dissenting opinion on the case, “This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.”. This source is very much like many of my other sources, but gets a much more direct view on the topic. There was more of a bias towards upholding the commerce clause in this source, however it mut in this view to show an alternative side.
"Gonzales v. Raich." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2014.
10. This source has a strong bias of disapproval to how the Raich case ended. The authors bias does impact the legitimacy of the source by him only justifying his side of the case, but it also has some direct quotes from the justices involved in the case. The information this source provided me with was a quote from the dissent justice thomas gave, saying “The majority’s rewriting of the Commerce Clause seems to be rooted in the belief that, unless the Commerce Clause covers the entire web of human activity, Congress will be left powerless to regulate the national economy effectively….If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states.” This dissent shows how split even the justices were on the case, and my other sources seem to agree with this information.
"Judicial Activism." The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2014.
Young, Cathy. "Cathy Young: Boston Globe - The Medical Pot Hysteria." Cathy Young: Boston Globe - The Medical Pot Hysteria. Cathy Young, n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.
2. In this source, there’s no bias whatsoever towards the case but it states the information leaving the reader to have their own opinion, and the legitimacy of the source is actually improved because of the lack of bias. What information this source provided me with was that the ninth circuit of the court actually reversed shortly to being in favor of Raich, because they saw the Controlled Substance Act as unconstitutional when applied to intrastate medical marijuana, because marijuana’s still considered a schedule 5 drug with no medical value under the CSA. The information regarding Marijuana’s ranking as a controlled substance was skipped by my other sources, however they did mention the CSA and its role in the case.
"GONZALES V. RAICH." GONZALES V. RAICH. Cornell Law School, 29 Nov. 2004. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.
3. Another source I used was the ITT Kent Chicago college of law, which is yet another source that had an unbiased view of the case. Their lack of a bias doesn’t have any impact on the source’s legitimacy, and it provided me with a strong understanding of the reasoning behind the court's ruling, saying “The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market”. This information shows that not only could the homegrown marijuana enter the national market, but simply by having California residence growing their own, the national market’s affected because the marijuana that would be sold to the California’s medical users is now going to be sold elsewhere, possibly for recreational use. This information seems to match up with the information given by the other sources, however gave me a deeper understanding.
"GONZALES v. RAICH." Gonzales v. Raich. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2014.
4. The Washington Post also proved to be a solid source for information regarding the raich case. In this source, the Author hints towards his supporting Raich’s sued by only providing quotes that speak against the far too general meaning of interstate commerce that the federal government has, and is optimistic that this issue will soon reach congress to change these laws against medical marijuana. Some of the new information I gained from this source is that the federal government thinks this marks the end of the medical marijuana controversy, with the director of the national drug control policy saying “Today's decision marks the end of medical marijuana as a political issue”, whereas many others think it’s just the start, with Robert Raich, the husband and lawyer of the respondent saying “The decision highlights the opportunity we have to go to Congress and change these laws”. This information is very different than the other sources I’ve used because it elaborates on the possible future steps of the medical marijuana movement.
Lane, Charles. "A Defeat For Users Of Medical Marijuana." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 07 June 2005. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.
5. This source was actually created by the respondent Angel Raich herself, so it has a strong bias in favor of medical marijuana, which impacts the source by not providing a clear argument from the side opposing Raich. What this source did provide me with were the details of Raich’s condition. The reason raich uses medical marijuana is because she has a long list of debilitating illnesses, some of which include Inoperable brain tumors, Radiation Necrosis of the brain, Scoliosis, nausea, and she suffers from pain 24 hours a day. 3 doctors have said her illnesses are terminal, and she uses medical marijuana because there weren’t any other viable, effective treatments for her. The information that I’ve gained about her illness is much more detailed than any of my other sources have been, however it was presented with such a bias that I can’t totally believe all of the information given.
Raich, Angel. "Who Is Angel Raich?" Who Is Angel Raich? N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.
6. This source is a chart comparing the Marijuana related deaths versus 17 other FDA approved drugs. The bias shown in this chart makes it seem as though marijuana’s a whole lot safer than all those harsh drugs being prescribed now. Although it shows a bias, the source is still very legitimate because the information was provided by the FDA itself. This source showed me that in 2005, Marijuana was not the Primary cause of death once, and was suspected to be the secondary cause in only 279 deaths compared to the 11,687 deaths cause by the 17 approved drugs. This source doesn’t compare at all to the other sources because it was totally new information.
"Deaths from Marijuana v. 17 FDA-Approved Drugs - Medical Marijuana - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. ProCon.org, 7 Aug. 2009. Web. 27 Jan. 2014.
7. This source isn’t an article, but a chart showing the national opinion on medical marijuana by both doctors and everyday citizens. The bias that the chart had was very much in favor of medical marijuana, but didn’t impact its legitimacy at all because the surveys used to get the data was taken at random. What the charts made clear was that the common citizens were typically 60-70% in favor of the use of medical marijuana, and a staggering 80% of doctors were in approval of medical marijuana. This information is made apparent in other sources, however this was the only source that has legitimate figures from surveys.
"Votes and Polls, National - Medical Marijuana - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. ProCon.org, 6 Nov. 2013. Web. 27 Jan. 2014.
8. In this article, it explains why Justice Scalia voted in favor of the Commerce Clause in Raich’s case, Even though he voted against the Clause in similar cases such as Lopez and Morrison. The authors opinion was in favor of the Commerce Clause, as he seemed to back Scalia’s very well justified explanation for his decision. Scalia’s concurrence on the case was that “Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local”.” This source elaborates more on the difference between the lopez case and the Raich case than my other sources have.
"Gonzales v. Raich." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2014.
9. This article is written to explain the views against the Commerce Clause, and the most important information I gained from it was Justice O’connor’s dissenting opinion on the case, “This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.”. This source is very much like many of my other sources, but gets a much more direct view on the topic. There was more of a bias towards upholding the commerce clause in this source, however it mut in this view to show an alternative side.
"Gonzales v. Raich." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2014.
10. This source has a strong bias of disapproval to how the Raich case ended. The authors bias does impact the legitimacy of the source by him only justifying his side of the case, but it also has some direct quotes from the justices involved in the case. The information this source provided me with was a quote from the dissent justice thomas gave, saying “The majority’s rewriting of the Commerce Clause seems to be rooted in the belief that, unless the Commerce Clause covers the entire web of human activity, Congress will be left powerless to regulate the national economy effectively….If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states.” This dissent shows how split even the justices were on the case, and my other sources seem to agree with this information.
"Judicial Activism." The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, n.d. Web. 27 Jan. 2014.
Medical Marijuana: The Conservative View
The conservative perspective on medical marijuana is that it’s not an adequate medicine, and that it’s a cover for legalizing the drug. Although there’s evidence that the use of Marijuana can be beneficial for certain illnesses, Many doctors disagree with using marijuana as a medicine. For instance, in Elin Condrads study titled “Colorado Family Physicians’ Attitudes Toward Medical Marijuana” he explains how many doctors they surveyed don’t even prescribe medical marijuana, saying “Of responding physicians, 46% said that physicians should not recommend marijuana as a medical therapy at all … Most physicians surveyed agreed that there were significant physical (61%) and mental (64%) health risks with marijuana use” The conservative viewpoint is that if many doctors think medical marijuana’s benefits don’t outweigh its risks, then how does it make sense to legalize it as a medicine?Another conservative view is that many of the patients have fraudulent claims for needing the medicine. Hillary McQuie, The Americans for Safe Actions Communications Consultant gives evidence of how the medicine is being abused, stating “Since the passage of California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996, more than 1,500 physicians statewide have recommended medical cannabis to their patients. But over 80 percent of medical cannabis recommendations have come from 10 doctors” This is a clear indication that these ten doctors are abusing their power of prescribing marijuana medical cards, and that many of the patients are faking their illness to get high, legally.
What Liberals Think About Medical Marijuana
The liberal perspective on medical marijuana is that it’s less harsh than the other medicines that would be prescribed, and that it has some benefits other medicines can’t provide. As Lester Grinspoon, the Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School believes that marijuana has many features making it a more practical medicine, saying “Doctors and nurses have seen that for many patients, cannabis is more useful, less toxic, and less expensive than the conventional medicines prescribed for diverse syndromes and symptoms” If marijuana can be cheaper, cleaner, and more effective than other medicines than why is it illegal? Another liberal view is that although medical marijuana has some of its own health risks, terminally ill patients who aren’t concerned with the risks benefit hugely from marijuana. Kate Scannell, Co Director of the Northern California Ethics Department agrees with marijuana’s benefits as a medicine, saying “From working with AIDS and cancer patients, I repeatedly saw how marijuana could ameliorate a patient's debilitating fatigue, restore appetite, diminish pain, remedy nausea, cure vomiting and curtail down-to-the-bone weight loss … almost every sick and dying patient I've ever known who's tried medical marijuana experienced a kinder death” Imagine if it were you who had a terrible illness and were stuck spending the rest of your days stricken with pain, nausea and fatigue, uncomfortable in your own skin, wouldn’t you want to try medical marijuana if it could help?
The Moderate Take On Medical Marijuana
The moderate perspective of medical marijuana is that it should be allowed as a treatment, however it still needs further research into its effectiveness and possible side effects. the benefits of medical marijuana are undeniable in some illnesses and patients, however it can be useless or even harmful when used in others. The Director of Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Andrew Weil admits that marijuana has some negative aspects, but still believes in its benefits to patients, stating “Like all medicines, marijuana has its drawbacks, particularly in smoked form... I support research into safer delivery systems such as low-temperature vaporizers or inhalers, which offer the fast action of inhaled medicine without the irritants found in smoke. Still, I have seen in my own studies that marijuana is less toxic than most pharmaceutical drugs in current use, and is certainly helpful for some patients, including those with wasting syndrome, chronic muscle spasticity and tractable nausea” Although Dr. Weil admits they need to do further research into a safer delivery system, but is convinced the benefits gained from medical marijuana outweigh the possible risks. Another doctor that agrees marijuana needs to have more research is Dr. Barry Dworkin, who doesn’t prescribe medical marijuana on account of it not being tested enough, says “Most physicians will prescribe a drug that has been through thorough patient safety testing and clinical efficacy trials. Patients must choose their own treatment plan using all credible evidence. I and many other physicians choose not to prescribe marijuana for long-term chronic illness based upon this evidence. I cannot prescribe a medication that has the potential over years of use to cause more known harm and health complications in addition to the patient's original condition" Dr.Dworkin’s very moderate approach is not denying the benefits of medical marijuana, but doesn’t prescribe it because he’s not willing to risk causing more possible health issues to his patients. Moderates view medical marijuana as something that’s worth trying, but are nervous because the lack of information about possible health risks.
Way Back When: Some Of Medical Marijuauas' Significant Events
There’s been many significant events, especially in the past few years regarding the use of marijuana as a medicine. Although the recent events are more relative to our society today, I feel it’s important to find the root of how marijuana became illegal in the first place. During the 1930’s, Marijuana extracts were widely sold by pharmaceutical companies as medicine for americans suffering from pain and other conditions and symptoms, but as Mark Eddy stated in the CRS Report for Congress, “By the end of 1936... all 48 states had enacted laws to regulate marijuana. Its decline in medicine was hastened by the development of aspirin, morphine, and then other opium-derived drugs, all of which helped to replace marijuana in the treatment of pain and other medical conditions in Western medicine” Marijuana was made illegal and was replaced by opium products, such as heroin and morphine which are far more addictive and disastrous drugs than marijuana. Even though Marijuana was made illegal and seemingly abandoned as a medicine, there were still some groups for it, such as the american medical association, who opposed the proposed marijuana tax act and supported research on medical cannabis. As William Woodward stated to the US House of Representatives on May 4th, 1937, “To say, however, as has been proposed here, that the use of the drug should be prevented by a prohibitive tax, loses sight of the fact that future investigation may show that there are substantial medical uses for Cannabis." Although being recently made illegal, many supported the belief that marijuana has medical benefits, and that putting taxes on it will only slow down the research of marijuanas uses.
There’s been many significant events, especially in the past few years regarding the use of marijuana as a medicine. Although the recent events are more relative to our society today, I feel it’s important to find the root of how marijuana became illegal in the first place. During the 1930’s, Marijuana extracts were widely sold by pharmaceutical companies as medicine for americans suffering from pain and other conditions and symptoms, but as Mark Eddy stated in the CRS Report for Congress, “By the end of 1936... all 48 states had enacted laws to regulate marijuana. Its decline in medicine was hastened by the development of aspirin, morphine, and then other opium-derived drugs, all of which helped to replace marijuana in the treatment of pain and other medical conditions in Western medicine” Marijuana was made illegal and was replaced by opium products, such as heroin and morphine which are far more addictive and disastrous drugs than marijuana. Even though Marijuana was made illegal and seemingly abandoned as a medicine, there were still some groups for it, such as the american medical association, who opposed the proposed marijuana tax act and supported research on medical cannabis. As William Woodward stated to the US House of Representatives on May 4th, 1937, “To say, however, as has been proposed here, that the use of the drug should be prevented by a prohibitive tax, loses sight of the fact that future investigation may show that there are substantial medical uses for Cannabis." Although being recently made illegal, many supported the belief that marijuana has medical benefits, and that putting taxes on it will only slow down the research of marijuanas uses.
My Opinion
After getting a chance to see each perspective on medical marijuana, I still support the legalization of medical marijuana. The most persuasive argument that made me consider keeping medical marijuana illegal was that its health risks were widely unknown, which could make a patient have even more health issues. Although I find the lack of research shocking, marijuana was widely used throughout history with no known fatalities directly caused by it. For example, it was already in use as a medicine in the US during the 30’s, but no one ever contracted lung disease like they would from smoking tobacco. Also, we can’t determine if there’s any health risks until people are allowed to use it. For example, the AMA predicted that the taxation of marijuana would slow down the research of there being any substantial use for marijuana as a medicine. Marijuana is a natural alternative to other medicines, and has benefits that shouldn’t be overlooked due to lack of knowledge, or fear of it being abused.