Using Assignments 1, 2, and 3, create a six to eight (6-8) slide PowerPoint presentation in which you:
amiche
mitchela.20marijuana_historical_perspective20revised1.docxRunning head: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 1
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 12
Historical perspective
Ashley A. Mitchel
Rick Humphress
Public Policy Analysis
July 20, 2014
Historical perspective
For over a decade now, many researchers have debated on the legal use of medicinal marijuana. Many studies have been conducted on cancer patients and other people with medical issues whose ailments have lessened through marijuana treatments. In addition to this, many people have used marijuana as a recreational drug and are still using the harmful drug daily. Twenty three states have legalized the use of medical marijuana. “Since 1996, 22 states and Washington, DC have passed laws allowing smoked marijuana to be used for a variety of medical conditions. It is important to recognize that these state marijuana laws do not change the fact that using marijuana continues to be an offense under Federal law. Nor do these state laws change the criteria or process for FDA approval of safe and effective medications (The White House, United States Government, 2012)
“Many of these state medical marijuana laws originated in order to create a legal defense to state criminal possession laws or to remove state criminal penalties for purported medical use of marijuana.” Since then, many have evolved into state authorization for state-based production and distribution of marijuana for purported medical purposes. These state laws vary greatly in their criteria and implementation, and many states are experiencing vigorous internal debates about the safety, efficacy, and legality of their marijuana laws. Many local governments are even creating zoning and enforcement ordinances that prevent marijuana dispensaries from operating in their communities.
The two states that are under this study are the state of Arizona and the state of South Carolina. Arizona has passed a law to legalize medical marijuana in 2010 with about 50% of votes. In Arizona the legal limit for a person to have one ounce of useable marijuana 6 plants (3 mature, 3 immature. In Arizona there is a program that people has to register to medical marijuana and renew their card annually.
In South Carolina there is still a fight to have marijuana legalized for medical purposes. State law allows marijuana, “A law passed back in 1980, says: SECTION 44-53-650. Director to obtain and distribute marijuana. (a) The director shall obtain marijuana through whatever means he deems most appropriate consistent with federal law. (b) The director shall cause such analyzed marijuana to be transferred to various locations throughout the State that provide adequate security as set forth in federal and state regulations for the purpose of distributing such marijuana to the certified patient in such manner as is consistent with federal law. The patient shall not be required to pay for such marijuana but the director may charge for ancillary medical services provided by the department to compensate the department for the cost, if any, of securing such marijuana, and providing it to the patient (Davis et al., 2014)
There has been evidence that marijuana has been a drug that has helped many people with their medical issues such as cancer and also helped pain for most people. Both stated want to use marijuana as a controlled substance like hydrocodone as long as it’s used for medical issues. The issue with marijuana is that many people thinks that it will not benefit people are that the drug is not a controlled substance and should not be used as a controlled substance.
With the legalization of marijuana for the state of Arizona it has generated more revenues and also more people are being able to get the proper treatment that is need for their medical conditions. Also, the prison and jail rates have decreased because those crimes for using marijuana have decreased. In the state of South Carolina the legalization of marijuana will help the state to generate more tax dollars and the prison and jail rate will decrease. Half of the population in Arizona was for the legalization for marijuana and the other fifty percent was against it. In South Carolina their still debating on the reason to legalized marijuana about forty percent of the people feel that marijuana should be legalized. In light of all this information, the legalization of marijuana would be quite a defeat in their investment. It is not only the amount of money invested in the enforcement of anti-marijuana laws or only the jobs that count on marijuana being legal. Nor is it only the pride with which the American government takes in fighting the supposed evils of marijuana. If marijuana were to be legalized then the whole loss of all these factors would be the real heartbreaker. In addition to this, the government, as an investor, is in a rather unique position. They have virtually total control over the decision of legalization.
Would it then be prudent for them to suddenly throw away their money, jobs, and pride without extreme pressure from an outside source? No, it would not; the government would never alienate so many people and so much money, unless they had to politically. It is ironic that the government chose to wage a "war" on drugs, because the current situation with marijuana seems to be strikingly similar to that of the Vietnam War. Because of the government's arrogant stance against communism, Vietnam was prolonged for many more years than it had to be. In explaining the threat of a possible nuclear war, writers George Kahin and John Lewis comment that, "Kennedy appreciated the dangerous potential inherent in any step by step escalation of violence whereby a nation's objectives are gradually broadened as it becomes more committed to a favorable outcome" (Kahin, & Lewis, 1967). The government's new "commitment" for a drug-free America, however, has nothing equivalent to the threat of nuclear war to stop the escalating Drug War.
For Vietnam, it took an almost revolutionary social movement for the government to pull out of their investment. This is also the case with the war on drugs. No matter how badly it is working or how wasteful it is for taxpayers, the government is not one to throw away its investment on its own. There must be strong pressure from the American people for the government to let go of the investment. However, herein lies the problem; for the cause of legalizing marijuana is not perceived as a noble cause, and the vast majority, especially middle and upper class, of Americans would not lift their pinky finger for legalization. They perceive the use of marijuana as a social vice and non-beneficial. The interest group that marijuana has impacted is the age group of 18 -35, majority fall under the lower class of the society. They are majorly impacted due to the amount of idle time they have at their disposal. So until these changes, the government will most likely get to keep the huge investment that they have in fighting marijuana. The president himself is quoted, “Use of Marijuana Is Not 'More Dangerous Than Alcohol” Obama (Peralta, 2014)
The Arizona medical marijuana policy. Comment by RHUMPHRE: Assignment 2 begins here
This policy was initiated in the year 2010 and approved by the state of Arizona through the November ballot as an initiated state statute. The policy allowed people of Arizona state who had specific medical conditions to be diagnosed with certain quantities of marijuana. This served as the policy’s main purpose. The qualified patients could purchase the drug at specified clinics. Its legality allowed for zero discrimination on hiring as well as no termination of employment contracts of the registered marijuana cardholders.
One of the problems with this policy came in when workers attended their duties while on medicinal marijuana. This might eventually lead to worker impairment hence contradicting the safety pre cautions at a workplace.
There should be measures to maintain safe work places if the use of medical marijuana is allowed. Furthermore, “medical marijuana should be banned in colleges, campuses and other learning institutions.” (Anderson & Hansen, 2013, p.340)
There are several actors who played various roles in the legalization of medical marijuana; Jack Black, comedian and activist sat on the advisory board of the Marijuana Policy Project, aimed at reforming US marijuana laws. Tommy Chong, comedian and activist has pretty much been the poster child for marijuana use since 1978's Up in Smoke, so it's no surprise he wants to legalize the drug. On the website CelebStoner, he wrote, "Hey stoners, don't forget to vote for Prop. 19! Legalize it! Get it Legal! Let's grow up as a country and recognize the plant that can and will save the world!" The Arizona Medical Marijuana policy project, the Arizona Department of Health Services, The Pima County Board of Supervisors, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state of Arizona voters are all groups that are with legalization of marijuana. The most influential group is the activist, artists, and comedians that mainly support the cause of legalizing marijuana.
The Arizona Department of Health Services released rules on who can grow, distribute and consume the cannabis plant for medical use. This department dealt with the regulation of the sale and use of medical marijuana. The FDA checks on the authenticity of the medical marijuana research analysis for approval. Before the approval the FDA consults with the department of Health and Human services. Several consultations and meetings between the two departments were vital in the formulation of this policy. Comment by RHUMPHRE: You have made revisions to assignment 1 and you have provided a summary but I do not see that you have described the influential actors and made a special analysis of two key actors. This is a requirement of the rubric. Please resubmit with the required elements of Assignment 2. Comment by RHUMPHRE: I cannot see that you made the suggested changes. Why not?
The Arizona medical marijuana policy Comment by RHUMPHRE: Assignment 3 begins here
Position in favor of the Arizona medical marijuana policy
The Arizona medical marijuana policy is an advantageous policy to patients who require dosage(s) of marijuana to facilitate their healing processes. In line with the policy, the patients can get only get access to the drug at specific hospitals & clinics and is an indication that the drug cannot get in the hands of other people who will use it for other purposes other than the intended medical purpose that it serves.
The legality accorded to marijuana in the Arizona Medical Marijuana policy has also made it possible for non-discrimination of people in terms of hiring as well as the termination of employment contracts to the certified marijuana card holders. In line with this, the accorded marijuana users will be secured in their occupations without the risks of losing their jobs as a result of using an otherwise know illegal drug. The essence of their usage after all is for medical benefits.
The FDA also checks on the authenticity of the medical marijuana research analysis for approval. Before it is approved, serious consultations do take place between the FDA and the department of Health and Human services. These consultations form a strong basis that is vital for the formulation of this policy.
Positive argument
Medicinal marijuana may be a more appropriate alternative medication for patients who suffer from chronic pain as a result of cancer or other diseases. In America, where the percentage of patients who have opioids for non-cancer pain prescriptions has amore than doubled over the past ten years, about sixty percent of fatal opioid analgesic overdoses happen in people who have these medical prescriptions (Bachhuber, et al, 2014).
Response to the argument in favor of the Arizona medical marijuana policy
The argument that supports the policy adopted by Arizona towards the legalization of marijuana for medical benefits is satisfactory based on the facts presented. In as much as marijuana is illegal and restricted in use in most parts of the world, it has been proven to be beneficial in the medical field. Its benefit arises when it is used in medication whereby specific ailments are treated through the use of certain quantities of marijuana. This serves as the policy’s main purpose.
Having seen the beneficial nature of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy, it is evident that its benefits supersede the harmful side effects it brings to patients from the medical perspective. As a result of this, more States ought to adopt such a policy and this will save the lives of patients who require marijuana as medication.
It is a well-known reality that there are a big number of patients who require marijuana as part of their treatment in different parts of America (MacCoun, et al, 2009). The medication, however, is not provided to these patients as a result of the illegality accorded to this drug as per the laws of many States. As a result of that, they end up not fully meeting their health needs hence end up getting complications in health that worsen their conditions.
It is advisable for other States to formulate laws such as this. However, proper precautions should be taken in those states to ensure that the medication doesn’t land into the wrong hands. For instance, students who are still learning should not be permitted to undertake the medication.
.
Arguments against the Arizona medical marijuana policy
One reason as to why this is not a worthwhile policy is that this policy will be administered at a time when patients attend to their normal duties while on medicinal marijuana. Taking into consideration the effects that come to a person under the influence of marijuana as a drug, therefore, there might be increased cases of impairment and reduced level of productivity hence leading to the contradiction of the safety precautions (Anderson & Hansen, 2013, p.340).
Therefore, in as much as this policy has been put in action, there should be effective measures that should be put in place to ensure that safety at the work premises is maintained in line with the permitted marijuana users present at the workplace. The outcome of their actions at the workplace might be disappointing. They should therefore be kept under close supervision to ensure that no damage comes up as a result of their actions. In addition, medical marijuana should be totally ruled out in learning institutions such as colleges, campuses and other learning campuses.
This is because of the high probability that students will not use the drug for the documented medical reasons. Rather, they are bound to abuse the drug for reasons best known to them as a recreational drug. Through peer pressure, they may influence other people in their environment who may end up becoming addicted to the use of marijuana. This would have a lot of consequences in their social lives and in their academics.
Normative argument
Some people are- to some extent- justified to be opposed to this policy. It should be noted that marijuana is an illegal drug in most States, therefore its legalization, even just for medical purposes, should raise eyebrows on the kind of morals the society is inculcating on its people.
Response to the argument in favor of the Arizona medical marijuana policy
In as much as this may be deemed to be an advantageous policy, it is not something that the society can be proud of. Measures should be taken to ensure those policies and others that enhance the usage of illegal drugs for purported medical reason.
Whereas people do have medical needs, there are alternatives to the use of marijuana as medication. In addition to that, it is not a generally essential medicine. Hence, the marijuana cardholders should look for alternative ways of medication. This reasons provided for the adoption of this policy are a mere fallacy to the society. Marijuana is an addictive drug; as a result, it is highly probable that the users will become marijuana addicts such that they will not be able to go on with their lives normally because they are taking dosages of the drug. This might be during a period where there is no essence of marijuana in their lives in relation to their medical requirements (Garvey, 2012).
The purported use of medicinal marijuana for treatment reasons may also be adopted by students in the learning institutions such as campuses. Through this, it will be a confirmation that marijuana shall have fallen into the wrong hands as some students may find ways of getting it from the medical institutions and then resort into peddling them in school in order to get easy money. This is a criminal offense. Therefore, this policy should be done away with and other alternative ways of medication that will achieve the same result as the medical marijuana should be adopted. This can be made possible through heavy investments in medical research. The use of medicinal marijuana use should not be tolerated in the society, be it for medical reasons or any other reason whatsoever.
References Comment by RHUMPHRE: References Guidance for Reference Section: >> You have used 9 references of which 6 are credible and recent >> Credible sources come from academic journals. Newspapers, books, and websites can give valuable background but they are not always credible sources. >> Strayer APA Guidelines may be found at https://icampus.strayer.edu/lrc/apa-guidlines Ashley, By assignment 3, your paper should have 12 recent and credible references. You only have 6 by my assessment.
Anderson, D. M., Hansen, B., & Rees, D. I. (2013).Medical marijuana laws, traffic fatalities, and alcohol consumption. Journal of Law and Economics, 56(2), 333-369.
Bachhuber, M. A., Saloner, B., Cunningham, C. O., & Barry, C. L. (2014). Medical Cannabis Laws and Opioid Analgesic Overdose Mortality in the United States, 1999-2010. JAMA Internal Medicine.
Belenko, S. R. (Ed.). (2000). Drugs and drug policy in America: A documentary history. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Davis, A. K., Osborn, L. A., Leith, J., Rosenberg, H., Ashrafioun, L., Hawley, A., ... & Baik, K. D. (2014). Development and evaluation of the Marijuana Reduction Strategies Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28(2), 575.
Garvey, T. (2012, March). Medical Marijuana: The Supremacy Clause, Federalism, and the Interplay Between State and Federal Laws. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Hoffmann, D. E., & Weber, E. (2010). Medical marijuana and the law. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(16), 1453-1457.
MacCoun, R., Pacula, R. L., Chriqui, J., Harris, K., & Reuter, P. (2009). Do citizens know whether their state has decriminalized marijuana? Assessing the perceptual component of deterrence theory. Review of Law & Economics, 5(1), 347-371.
Pacula, R. L., Chriqui, J. F., Reichmann, D. A., & Terry-McElrath, Y. M. (2002). State medical marijuana laws: Understanding the laws and their limitations.Journal of Public Health Policy, 413-439.
