Perspectives
on Cannabis Reform Shape its Maturation
A skim through
American media outlets might catch ones attention to the very contentious issue
over marijuana and scientific research. Particularly interesting is the
kaleidoscopic vantage points forwarded from scientists, policy analysts, and
media anchors. Each perspective obscures certain aspects of marijuana while
simultaneously distinguishing others that has consequences for how we
understand marijuana reform. It is crucial to be aware and reflexive of these
repercussions as we move towards marijuana reform.
For example, a recent TED talk by Josh Stanley about medical marijuana’s utility with treating pediatric epilepsy focused on the ‘revolutionary medicine’ found within properties in cannabis1. What he leaves out completely about the utility of changing marijuana laws is the dramatic impact it could have for the hundreds of thousands of Americans making their way through the legal and prison system for possession, consumption, or distribution of marijuana2. This blog post will point to contentious areas to illustrate how some of the issues of marijuana reform are being assessed and resolved by actors in this debate.
For example, a recent TED talk by Josh Stanley about medical marijuana’s utility with treating pediatric epilepsy focused on the ‘revolutionary medicine’ found within properties in cannabis1. What he leaves out completely about the utility of changing marijuana laws is the dramatic impact it could have for the hundreds of thousands of Americans making their way through the legal and prison system for possession, consumption, or distribution of marijuana2. This blog post will point to contentious areas to illustrate how some of the issues of marijuana reform are being assessed and resolved by actors in this debate.
The first piece,
an article that I found in the USA Today, dealt with the discovery that marijuana
is linked to physical alterations in critical brain structures. My interest in
the piece focused on the funding source of the study mentioned in the article, the
Office of National Drug Policy funded the study. The ONDP is part of the
executive branch and was constructed to oppose any measures and legislation
that proposed drug reform. The problem boils down to a question of ethical dilemmas
that could arise from mandates put on the research by the sources of income.
Biologist Gregory Gerdman at Eckerd College, who shares this sentiment, felt that he
saw no reason to doubt the research findings but is worried about marijuana
research being funded by federal agencies such as the ONDP. He states that "If
you're getting money from the drug czar's office, that money's not going to
continue if you don't end up publishing something that at least supports the
general story of the danger of drug abuse,"(Weintraub; 2014). To Gerdman, the difficulty of current
marijuana research is directly linked to questions of scientific ethics and transparency.
We can see that information about the source of this funding that raises
questions about the underlying demands of the study, particularly those coming
from prohibitionist organizations such as the ONDP.
The other piece
was about the recent approval of clinical and observational studies in
Colorado. The legislation establishes funds to be utilized by specifically
state-sponsored cannabis research. Although the questions forwarded by Gerdman
could be applicable to this piece as well, my focus had more to do with a
review of research conducted on marijuana in California. The review published
in The Open Neurological Journal
illuminated the fact that “Based on evidence currently available the
Schedule I classification is not tenable; it is not accurate that cannabis has
no medical value, or that information on safety is lacking”(Armentano;
2014). This says a lot about the
changing stance towards marijuana scholarship in the science community.
However, it is telling also of the changes occurring in governmental agencies.
In the same article it says that the DEA “publicly announced
in the Federal Register that it increasing its marijuana quota from 21 kilograms to 650 kilograms
(about 1,443 pounds) in order to meet increasing demand for the plant from
clinical investigators”(Armentano; 2014).
The issue of marijuana research, from the information gathered in the piece,
shows that it is being resolved amongst and in between the active agents, the
scientific community, legislators, and government agencies. What all these pieces share is the simple fact that the differing vantage points, not only shape how issues regarding marijuana are handled, but also that the different vantage points interact with each other to respond to these issues.
References
1. TED Talk with Josh Stanley 10/14/2013
2.Whitehead, John W. “Jailing Americans for profit: The Rise
of the Prison Industrial Complex”. The Huffington
Post 4/10/2012
3. Weintraub, Karen. “Casual marijuana use linked to brain
changes”. USA Today 4/15/2014
4. Armentano, Paul. “Colorado Lawmakers Approve Bill to Fund
State Sponsored Medical Marijuana Research”. The Daily Chronic 5/21/2014 http://www.thedailychronic.net/2014/32460/colorado-lawmakers-approve-bill-to-fund-state-sponsored-medical-marijuana-research/
