Ian McAdoo

UWRT 1102

Professor Douglas

30 March 2017

The Voices on Medical Marijuana

In the United States today, the validity of marijuana as a medical treatment is one of the

most divisive and polarizing issues facing a host of different groups. The everyday person is

being thrust into a conversation over medical marijuana and at the same time time being told to

pick a side and they are not the only ones. Both medical professionals in the field and high

ranking legislators in the government are also seeing added pressure to choose a side in the

argument for marijuanas legitimacy. The author is recognizing three voices for this essay, the

common person affected with an ailment that could be considered treatable by medical

marijuana, the research perspective of the issue and the actual medical component which could

be considered the most important.

Some of the everyday individuals in the United States have some of the most fiery takes

on the issue. That could be due to the fact that health care impacts the everyday person more so

than a government official or an accredited medical professional knowledge whose jobs come

with benefits such as health care. The viewpoints come from both sides of the aisle when it

comes to being for or against the legalization of medical marijuana in every state across the

country. All different kinds of people are affected by ailments ranging from epilepsy to multiple

sclerosis and a number of these patients have dropped the traditional treatment of opioids and

have put their faith in medical cannabis. This voice is very important to the line of inquiry
because these individuals have experienced both treatments and they are the only group that can

give a correct answer into whether or not is a viable treatment for serious ailments other than

direct studies into medical cannabis. In the case of Abby Muszynski, a six year old girl with a

severe case of epilepsy the treatment worked. When they left Florida, she was having about two

to four a week, each lasting about 8 to 12 minutes. In Colorado, she's had about one a week, and

they last only a few seconds: Just a drop of high-THC marijuana oil under her tongue stops the

seizures almost immediately (Cohen 5). The Muszynski family would be a voice advocating for

the legitimacy of marijuana as a treatment due to the fact that their daughter experienced such

relief from her condition as a result of medical marijuana. Although it worked in this case, some

research shows that the results are not always so concrete. Only twenty-four percent of

individuals were considered to be oral cannabis extract responders, meaning that they had a fifty

percent or more reduction in epileptic episodes. Meanwhile nineteen percent of patients that

participated in the study experienced adverse events such as drowsiness and worsening of their

seizures (Treat 1). Such statistics lead one to believe that the patients opinion about the validity

of this treatment would not be consistent and will be determined case by case.

The people who treat the patients are also able to provide a unique perspective and voice

to the argument. Individuals throughout the medical community are well suited to have an

opinion on whether or not medical marijuana works due to the fact that their field of work lies

directly in the category of the argument. The viewpoint amongst specialists in the medical

community seems to be split. Dr. Sanjay Gupta started out as a non-believer in medical

marijuana, but as time has worn on Dr. Gupta has changed his stance and is now one of the most

recognized advocates of medical marijuana. In his article titled Why I Changed my Mind on

Weed, Gupta apologizes to his audience. I apologize because I didn't look hard enough, until
now. I didn't look far enough. I didn't review papers from smaller labs in other countries doing

some remarkable research, and I was too dismissive of the loud chorus of legitimate patients

whose symptoms improved on cannabis (Gupta 1). There is always a differing view though, and

giving somewhat of a rebuttal was Dr. Howard Samuels who is based out of California, a state

leading the discussion on medical marijuana. Samuels is against the legalization of marijuana for

any purpose, including medical and states that, I, for one, am absolutely against the legalization

of marijuana. Period. There isnt an argument in the world that will change the fact that

psychoactive substances produce emotionally crippled adults (Samuels 1). He represents the

argument of individuals who feel as if people want to legalize medical marijuana for the wrong

reasons (i.e to get high) instead of actually treating something. Both of these Doctors provide

facts and present their argument very well, but what may be showcased in this difference of

opinion is not who is right and who is wrong, but rather the split amongst persons in the medical

community. These two medical professionals are on completely different sides of the spectrum,

with one that leads heavily towards yes and the other towards no. As it pertains to the

legalization of medical marijuana, the real battle does not involve the doctors in the United

States, it comes between courts, federal and state governments.

The final voice will play an integral role in the court's decision to legalize medical

cannabis or not. This voice comes from the perspective of the researcher, the individuals who put

the time into studying cannabis and the effects that it can have. In order to be able to state

without a doubt that marijuana is an acceptable form of treatment for people suffering with a host

of issues research has to be done, but one of the largest hurdles facing the researchers and people

seeking to legalize marijuana for medical use is the schedule one status of marijuana, which

means that it is considered to be in the same category as other drugs such as meth, heroin and
ecstasy. Scientists are becoming frustrated with the federal government in this situation because

they do not feel as if the government is allocating resources towards the right types of research or

enough resources at all for that matter. This is evidenced in an article titled Scientists Want the

Smoke to Clear on Medical Marijuana, Between 2008 and 20014 1.4 billion dollars was

allocated to research marijuana, of that sum only $297 million of it was spent on potential

medical uses and the other $1.1 billion was used to study abuse and addiction as it relates to

marijuana (Noonan 2). The researchers also have to adhere strict regulations as they study

cannabis and its possible benefits and hazards. Such obstacles have led to an almost unified front

from scientists and researchers in this field of study, and the statement that has most often been

used is that more research is needed to know what marijuana can do.

So far, twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for

medical use, so it seems as if the pro marijuana argument is gaining a bit of traction (Compton

1). Every perspective deserves to be heard, especially when it comes to a decision that could

change the way that the population of the United States views healthcare. The assembled

roundtable provides the reader with multiple perspectives out of the same community and also

perspectives of those in other communities. This roundtable provokes deeper thought into this

issue and what the future of medicine in America could be.

 Works Cited

Cohen, Elizabeth. "Medical marijuana and new hope for Florida family." CNN. Cable

News Network, 23 Nov. 2016. Web. 28 Feb. 2017.

Compton, Wilson M., et al. "Use of Marijuana for Medical Purposes Among Adults in The

United States." JAMA: Journal of The American Medical Association 317.2 (2017): 209-

211. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Feb. 2017.

Gupta, Sanjay. "Why I Changed My Mind on Weed." CNN. Cable News Network, 8 Aug. 2013.

Web. 22 Mar. 2017.

Noonan, David. "Scientists Want the Smoke to Clear on Medical Marijuana Research." Scientific

American. N.p., 15 Apr. 2016. Web. 25 Feb. 2017.

Samuels, Dr. Howard. "Legally Blind: Why I'm Against Legalizing Marijuana." The Huffington

Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 4 Feb. 2017.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-howard-samuels/legalizing-

marijuana_b_4144180.html>.

Treat, Lauren, et al. "Duration of Use of Oral Cannabis Extract in a Cohort of Pediatric

Epilepsy Patients." Epilepsia (Series 4), vol. 58, no. 1, Jan. 2017, pp. 123-127. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1111/epi.13617.