Patient's Rights vs. Criminalization of Cannabis (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Fallacy of a One Size Fits All Cannabis Policy
Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 2022
Although the cannabis plant is one of the oldest herbal products currently in use, the policies and research surrounding its use and associated risks and benefits have been points of contention throughout its modern lifespan. Cannabis has been seen as a revered botanical medicine, a demon substance sure to ruin modern society, and an alternative to Western-born pharmaceutical drugs and treatments. Over time, the debate concerning cannabis has been driven by morality, science, politics, economics and social control. Given its multiple uses (textiles, medicine, and relaxation), developing one policy to encompass these uses in a responsible way remains elusive. This paper seeks to explain why a "one size fits all" regulatory framework is not sufficient for cannabis. Antiquated notions of the effectiveness of botanical medicines compared with pharmaceutical drugs and the difference between curative (curing a diseased state) and palliative (addressing the symptoms associated with a diseased state) treatments have muddied the cannabis policy waters. Efforts to regulate the raw plant alongside cannabinoid-based medications have resulted in a regulatory roadblock, often framing doctors as gatekeepers. I propose that in order to move past this roadblock and to maximize the benefits of the cannabis plant for both curative and palliative treatments of conditions such as substance dependence, the plant and the cannabinoid-based medications must part ways and seek their own, individual regulatory destiny.
2013
To find clearheaded scientific perspective on cannabis use through the prevailing thick smokescreen requires recognizing just what sort of smoke obscures our bet-ter understanding. In the United States, in large part, the smokescreen is made up of culture war-charged political rhetoric and obstructionism from those in posi-tions of authority setting up a prejudi-cial ideological framing for cannabis use. National leaders throughout the twentieth century have taken opportunities afforded by high office or its pursuit to pub-licly opine on the dangers of cannabis, such as when then-Presidential candidate
Prescribing cannabis: freedom, autonomy, and values
Journal of Medical Ethics, 2004
In many Western jurisdictions cannabis, unlike most other psychoactive drugs, cannot be prescribed to patients even in cases where medical professionals believe that it would ease the patient's pain or anxiety. The reasons for this prohibition are mostly ideological, although medical and moral arguments have been formulated to support it. In this paper, it is argued that freedom, properly understood, provides a sound ethical reason to allow the use of cannabis in medicine. Scientific facts, appeals to harm and autonomy, and considerations of symbolic value cannot consistently justify prohibitions.
Commentary: Navigating the complexities of marijuana
Preventive medicine, 2017
Science needs to drive our thinking as we navigate a new legislative environment in which many Americans have access to marijuana for therapeutic or recreational use. With the responsibility to fund, conduct, and make use of the research on marijuana, and understand the impacts of new policies, comes the obligation of not thinking in simplistic, black-and-white terms about this substance. The drug's unique harms include neurodevelopmental impacts that may be long lasting or permanent, yet some evidence suggests the drug may benefit people with certain medical conditions (e.g., chronic pain). Marijuana use is also entangled with other substance use and should not be considered in isolation. Finally, policy options are not limited to the extremes of prohibition vs. full commercialization; a spectrum of intermediate options can and should be considered and evaluated as states create new policies around this drug.
Ethical issues in medical cannabis use
European Journal of Internal Medicine, 2018
The increasing use of medical cannabis (MC) in the past decade raises several ethical considerations for the clinician. Regulatory issues stem from a gap between MC registration and certification in each country. Professional issues derive from the lack of sufficient knowledge of MC characteristics and the intersection between the physician, the patient and commercial interests. Finally, there are medical and psychological implications which are related to the use of MC regimens. We will discuss these issues in the light of the current era, in which policy has rapidly shifted toward legalization of cannabis, which influences the decisions of both clinicians and patients.