Introduction
The use of marijuana as a drug or a form of medical treatment in the rehabilitation of patients with a wide range of disorders has long been a controversial topic. Some countries in the continent of Europe have already accepted the researched fact that marijuana, either for medical or leisure purposes, does not pose any real and direct threat towards the person using it. Majority of the countries in other continents, on the other hand, still have not accepted the idea. Policies regarding the use of marijuana for medical purposes vary from one state to another. It is therefore important to know the regulations in a particular state and also get an updated knowledge base related to the issue of marijuana being used for medical purposes. The objective of this paper is to investigate on the recent updates regarding the use of marijuana for medical purposes by drawing evidences and analyses from the current pool of literatures.
It Can’t Hurt to Ask: A Patient Centered Quality of Service Assessment of Health Canada’s Medical Cannabis Policy and Program
Canada is one of the countries which that have legalized the use of marijuana or cannabis, albeit for medical purposes only. This statement can be evidenced by the court of Ontario’s decision to establish two new organizations that would address the problem regarding the use of marijuana they were trying to respond to in 2001: the Marijuana Medical Access Division (MMAD) and the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) . The objective of this study was to evaluate and identify present issues in Canada’s Health system, specifically delving into the issue whether medical marijuana patients are getting the accessibility they require to medically maintain their conditions. The authors relied on the use of a pair of a 50 question online survey that aims to address the personal experiences of patients who belong to the federal cannabis program, and 25 semi-guided interviews. The results showed that at least 72% of the respondents who participated in the study were only either “somewhat” or “totally” satisfied with the government’s medical cannabis program. Nonetheless, this study affirms the legalization of the use of marijuana for medical purposes, and even the encouragement and facilitation of its use.
Reflections on Medical Marijuana Prosecutions and the Duty to Seek Justice
Legal provisions on the use of marijuana for medical purposes have been paired with both positive and negative reactions from the states forming the Federal Government of the United States. California has been integrating the use of medical marijuana for the past sixteen years. And although not a good thing, the government has concluded that the use of medical marijuana has led to a significant rise in number of cases complicated by the use of the immunity acquired by the use of marijuana for medical purposes as a form of legal defense against a plaintiff’s accusations. So far, within the over 16 years of practice of legalized medical marijuana use in California, only two cases that correspond to such descriptions have been recorded. The authors have concluded that “in comparison to the ethical problems facing private attorneys who represent medical marijuana users, medical marijuana prosecutions present equally compelling—albeit less precise—ethical questions, and because of the unique relationship between state and federal laws concerning medical marijuana and the unusual history of federal enforcement, federal prosecutors who pursue medical marijuana cases should carefully evaluate how they exercise their discretion” .
Stirring the Pot: Local Municipalities’ Influence on Prosecutorial Discretion under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) and an Ultimate Call for Reform of the MMMA
Lawyers and other professionals tasked with the duty to interpret and enforce whatever the law dictates face challenges and one of such that they have continued to face in the past and are still bound to face in the future is the ambiguity of certain statutes, passed by legislators, regarding the use marijuana for medical purposes. “A statute is said to be ambiguous when it “is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in two or more different senses”” . This paper’s objective was to discuss on the influence of local municipalities, particularly municipalities in Michigan, on the prosecutorial discretion under MMMA. It was then concluded that the conflict that exist between federal law (which states that marijuana even for medical use is still considered illegal) and the law being imposed in local governments (which in some cases, allow the use of medical marijuana), impairs the prosecutors and law enforcement officers’ ability to exercise neutrality in making legal decisions. In relation to that, the author suggested that the MMMA be amended, focusing on the removal of ambiguous articles and details.
Medical Marijuana and the Political Safeguards of Federalism
The conflict that existed between the federal and local state laws regarding the use of cannabis for whatever purposes, be it for medical or leisurely use, has been a key federalism battleground since the past 20 years. While state governments are seen experimenting by attempting to view the use of marijuana liberally, at least from a medical perspective, the federal government has maintained a zero-tolerance stance. This paper focused on that existing conflict. The author suggested that the conflict over medical marijuana exposes the shortcoming of the federal government in enforcing the stringent cannabis ban they passed more than four decades ago because of lack of fiscal and political capital, giving the state governments protection or in a technical way, permission to ratify medical marijuana policies that may create conflict with what the federal law states about it. As long as there is political and fiscal undermining of the ban, states governments would not have to have fear for anything.
Colorado’s 2010 Update to the Medical Marijuana Law: Three Problems, Three Solution
Colorado has taken meaningful steps towards the legalization of marijuana for medical use. It, however, experienced the complications of allowing any individual that could show a valid physician’s referral to use cannabis, to have access to the drug without fear of being legally charged. There have been numerous cases of abuse of doctor’s referrals and overly accessible dispensaries and the absence of tax money policies on medical marijuana law in Colorado. The authors concluded that if “Colorado or other states wish to proceed with medical marijuana program, they should heed these problems and adopt workable solutions” which they enumerated as limiting the number of dispensaries, making doctor referrals more meaningful, and making the relationship between the patient and physician real and long lasting, and lastly, making medical marijuana facilities capable of self-funding or self-maintaining .
Conclusion
All of the academic journals reviewed in this paper establish one thing—that the use of marijuana even for official, medical purposes remains to be a very controversial and sensitive issue. Despite the bold move towards its legalization, medical marijuana policies remain to be challenged by the federal government which has actually passed a ban on cannabis more than 40 years ago. This could mean that chronically and terminally ill patients who rely on the substance for treatment and relief would have to suffer for many more years as long as this conflict between the state and federal government remain unaddressed.
References
Kreit, A. (2012). Reflections on Medical Marijuana Prosecutions and the Duty to Seek Justice. Denver University Law Review.
Lucas, P. (2012). It Can’t Hurt to Ask: A Patient Centered Quality of Service Assessment of Health Canada’s Medical Cannabis Policy and Program. Harm Reduction Journal.
Ludlum, M., & Ford, D. (2011). Colorado’s 2010 Update to the Medical Marijuana Law: Three Problems, Three Solution. Mustang Journal of Law and Legal Studies.
Mikos, R. (2012). Medical Marijuana and the Political Safeguards of Federalism. Denver University Law Review.
Steber, K. (2013). Stirring the Pot: Local Municipalities’ Influence on Prosecutorial Discretion under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) and an Ultimate Call for Reform of the MMMA. University of Toledo Law Review.
