Sociology

Introduction
Medical marijuana, smoking the leaf as an alleged type of treatment for a variety of medical ailments, has generated a substantial amount of controversy.  Despite the fact that federal law prohibits the general use of marijuana medically, and despite the fact that the scientific evidence finds no persuasive basis for believing that smoking marijuana is an effective medical treatment, an increasing number of states have created ballot initiatives in order to legalize marijuana for medical purposes at the state level.
This is the danger that was referred to in the class text regarding states passing different laws in violation of federal law and without considering the broader effects.  This essay will argue that these state ballot initiatives are ill-advised by showing that these initiatives are not designed to truly serve medical goals, that federal law strictly prohibits the use of medical marijuana, and that there is no persuasive scientific evidence to justify the assertion that marijuana when smoked has medical benefits.

State Ballot Initiatives  Broader Drug Legalization Objectives
As a preliminary matter, it is well-established that many states have created ballot initiatives designed to legalize marijuana for medical purposes.  One leading commentator has pointed out, for example, that in the past fifteen years nine states have legalized marijuana for medical use, a figure which is likely to increase in the coming years given the overwhelming support for medical marijuana among voters and drug policy reform leaders continuing focus on state ballot initiatives  HYPERLINK httpwww.questiaschool.comPM.qstaod5001986408(Kreit, 2003, p. 1788).  The problem is that many advocates of these state ballot initiatives have relied on medical marijuana terminology when they are simultaneously encouraging drug legalization as part of a larger drug policy reform agenda.    These state ballot initiatives are therefore, to a certaint extant, dishonest because many supporters are simply using the medical marijuana issue as a method for reforming drug policies more broadly.  This is an abuse of the state ballot process and an abuse of those people being misled into believing that marijuana is to be legalized solely for medicinal purposes.

The confrontations between those advocating the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes and the federal government have become increasingly violent.  Deadly force has even been used by the federal government in an effort to intimidate medical marijuana proponents. Indeed, as a leading legal scholar has noted

When thirty federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents armed with M-16s burst into a medical marijuana hospice in Santa Cruz, California, on September 5, 2002, arresting the two owners and a wheelchair-bound patient disabled by polio, they propelled an already contentious debate between the federal government and state leaders to new heights.  HYPERLINK httpwww.questia.comPM.qstaod5001986408(Kreit, 2003,  p 1787).

The medical marijuana movement is ironically rooted in the recreational use of marijuana.  More specifically, a number of recreational users in the 1960s claimed that they experienced a variety of medical benefits from smoking marijuana.  This historical connection is significant for two reasons.  First, by connecting the medical marijuana movement to recreational users in the 1960s, it can be seen that this movement is rooted in a broader drug legalization agenda.  Second, the fact that recreational users claimed certain medical benefits falls far short of convincing scientific evidence.

It emerges, from even a cursory examination of the history and the literature related to medical marijuana, that these state ballot initiatives are simply using the medical marijuana issue as a pretext for more sweeping drug legalization efforts.  The medical marijuana movement is rooted in the recreational use of drugs.  This movement was not, to be sure, a result of new scientific discoveries or medical advances.  The state ballot initiatives, in sum, are a ruse and a distraction.

Federal Law Governs Growth and Distribution
Congress, elected by the American people, has already created legislation through the Controlled Substances Act that defines marijuana as a controlled substance that may not be grown or distributed.  The United States Supreme Court has rejected constitutional challenges to the federal regulation of marijuana, noting in a landmark decision that there was no current accepted medical use or medical benefit of marijuana to warrant an exception granted to other drugs under the Act HYPERLINK httpwww.questiaschool.comPM.qstaod5001976445(Herman, 2002, p. 121).   Federal law, both statutory and constitutional, preempts and supersedes any state laws that attempt to regulate the growth and the distribution of marijuana.  The state ballot initiatives therefore are doomed to failure because federal law prevails when there is a conflict between a state law and federal law.  Congress is the only elected body with the power to change the legal treatment of marijuana and the state ballot initiatives are a waste of financial resources.

This is true even when state laws incorporate a medical need provision into the legislative framework.  In California, for example, a medical marijuana initiative was supported by fifty-six percent of the population in a statewide election.  The initiative legalized both the possession and the cultivation of marijuana for seriously ill patients and their caregivers for use by the patient if the patients physician recommends such treatment HYPERLINK httpwww.questia.comPM.qstaod5001976445(Herman, 2002, p. 125).  Thus, even when a physician recommends the marijuana for medical use, federal law still preempts and supersedes state law because Congress if the sole governing power with respect to marijuana.  The medical need provisions are therefore legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

There have been many suggestions to the effect that Congress is treating marijuana too seriously.  In the Controlled Substances Act, for example, Congress placed marijuana, along with LSD and heroin, in Schedule I upon passage of the Act and it has remained in Schedule I to the present day. HYPERLINK httpwww.questia.comPM.qstaod5001976445(Herman, 2002, p. 128)  It is quite reasonable to argue, as the medical marijuana advocates have done, that marijuana is not nearly as dangerous a controlled substance as heroin or LSD.  Such an argument is irrelevant because in the same way that there is no medical necessity exception, neither is there an exception based upon the comparative dangers of a prohibited or regulated drug.  These types of arguments have no legal significance.

The problem is that too many people believe that the United States Supreme Court is the proper venue for resolving these contentious debates.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that Congress is responsible.  This is because members of Congress are elected for fixed terms whereas the nine members of the United States Supreme Court are appointed for life through a non-electoral process.  Congress has the power to amend the Controlled Substances Act to allow for the use of marijuana in medical situations.  Therefore, medical marijuana advocates should pressure Congress rather than filing endless lawsuits that are destined to fail.

No Scientific Support
Finally, there exists no persuasive scientific evidence for the proposition that the smoking of marijuana constitutes a verifiable drug-delivery device.  Quite the contrary, Experts who have dealt with all available data do not recommend that the goal of research should be smoked marijuana for medical conditions. Rather, they support development of a smoke-free, rapid-onset delivery system for compounds found in the plant HYPERLINK httpwww.questiaschool.comPM.qstaod5001799226(Mcdonough, 2000, p. 51).  The experts agree that some compounds found in marijuana may have certain medical benefits, however, they further agree that these compounds cannot be effectively delivered by simply smoking the marijuana leaf.  State ballot initiatives which seek the legalization of smoking marijuana for medical purposes, as the majority of the initiatives do in fact propose, are contradicted by the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion.

A more meaningful approach, with respect to the use of marijuana to treat people with certain chronic ailments, would focus on how to deliver the potentially beneficial compounds rather than always demanding a right to smoke the marijuana leaf.  One must wonder why medical marijuana proponents are so adamant about creating a right to smoke marijuana when chronic pain might be alleviated through other delivery systems.  If the proponents main concern is the alleviation of medical suffering, rather than smoking marijuana, then why can they not harmonize their specific goals with the available scientific evidence. In this respect, one scholar has observed that

Two recent studies of the potential medical utility of marijuana advocate development of a non-smoked, rapid onset delivery system of the cannabis compounds. But state ballot initiatives that seek legalization of smoking marijuana as medicine threaten to circumvent credible research. HYPERLINK httpwww.questia.comPM.qstaod5001799226(Mcdonough, 2000,  p. 51)

It would appear, in short, that suffering is not the primary concern of certain medical marijuana advocates.  If it were a primary concern, then both sides to the debate would ignore the smoking marijuana and pursue other delivery mechanisms.  The scientific community is willing to carry out research in these types of alternative delivery systems.  The medical marijuana community, on the other hand, seems unwilling to relinquish the right to smoke marijuana even it endangers their cause.

Conclusion
In the final analysis, state ballot initiatives that propose the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes are flawed for several reasons.  They are flawed because advocates of drug legalization are manipulating the medical marijuana issue for broader forms of drug legalization reforms, because federal law controls all issues pertaining to the growth and the distribution of marijuana, and because the scientific evidence clearly establishes the fact that smoking marijuana is an ineffective means of delivering potentially beneficial compounds to the body