Prob?bly the most controversi?l issue in the m?riju?n? question h?s to do with leg?liz?tion. Current views sp?n the spectrum of possibilities—from complete leg?liz?tion ?nd unrestricted use to the institution of even stricter pen?lties. Of the three more common views, however, one holds th?t the present leg?l st?tus, with its present pen?lty structure, should be m?int?ined; ?nother holds th?t though illeg?lity should be m?int?ined, the pen?lties should be lessened. ?nd the third f?vors leg?liz?tion with restrictions ?n?logous to those pl?ced on the consumption of liquor.
Erich Goode (1969) expl?ins the influence of opinions on policy in the following w?y: “Obviously, one’s posture tow?rd leg?liz?tion is l?rgely, ?lthough not solely, sh?ped by one’s perception of the effects of m?riju?n?. Those who believe th?t it stimul?tes violence ?nd le?ds to heroin ?ddiction will oppose leg?liz?tion, while those who believe it to be ? h?rmless subst?nce will f?vor leg?liz?tion. But there ?re ?lso those who feel th?t m?riju?n?, ?lthough b?sic?lly h?rmless, might, in some people, h?ve ? deleterious effect. For this group leg?liz?tion becomes ? question of civil liberties: ? question of whether its neg?tive effect on the few would overb?l?nce its neutr?l effect on the m?ny.” The ?nswer to this c?n be found in the re?lm of politic?l v?lues, not in sociology. Two people might ?gree ?s to the effects of m?riju?n?, yet one will f?vor leg?liz?tion ?nd the other oppose it, simply bec?use one is unwilling to restrict civil liberties in ?ny w?y, reg?rdless of the thre?tened d?nger, while the other one m?y feel th?t the risks ?re not commensur?te with the loss of rights (Goode, 1969, p.138).
Evidently, c?nn?bis w?s used in m?ny forms throughout history. For inst?nce, it is believed th?t b?ck in 600 B.C. C?nn?bis w?s used ?s incense ?nd w?s ? source of good he?lth ?nd long life. ?fter th?t, C?nn?bis is thought to h?ve been used in Centr?l ?si? ?nd then spre?d to ?fric? where it w?s ?ccepted by the tribes. Some h?ve even s?id th?t Prophets used it to see the future ?nd tell of m?ny things to come. In Chin?, C?nn?bis w?s used ?s ? source of fiber in m?ny foods. Eventu?lly the Sp?ni?rds took C?nn?bis to Mexico ?nd Peru, ?nd the English brought it to North ?meric?. Hemp cultiv?tion beg?n with the British in the new world ?nd used in m?ny colonies. Hemp w?s considered ? good source of fiber for the British colonies ?nd w?s used to m?ke hemp rope ?nd clothing. Hemp h?s been used widely in m?ny countries. During the Rom?n Empire it w?s given to the soldiers ?s ? form of strength. Even tod?y scientists s?y th?t this w?s the re?son Rome w?s ? gre?t empire ?nd its forces crushed enemies.
In the United St?tes before 1937 C?nn?bis w?s used for industri?l, medic?l ?nd recre?tion?l purposes bec?use it w?s not illeg?l. B?ck in those d?ys the use of m?riju?n? w?s ?ssoci?ted mostly with Mexic?n immigr?nts ?nd bl?ck j?zz musici?ns. There were wild ?nd undocumented t?bloid newsp?per ?rticles ?bout how people who used m?riju?n? bec?me drug cr?zed, murderous m?ni?cs ?nd how this scourge on society must be stopped. These ?rticles helped in the p?ss?ge of the M?riju?n? T?x ?ct, which crimin?lized the possession of m?riju?n? by imposing exorbit?nt t?xes on its possession ?nd use. Since then there h?ve been progressively more restrictive l?ws p?ssed on not only the use ?nd possession of m?riju?n? but of ?ll drugs. «By 1969, the possession of drugs resulted in pen?lties th?t were higher th?n for virtu?lly ?ll other crimes in m?ny st?tes» (Economics Resource Center, 2005). Over the ye?rs we h?ve seen ? rel?xing of the l?ws in v?rious st?tes reg?rding the use of m?riju?n?, especi?lly for medic?l use. There ?re m?ny people who ?ctively lobby for the complete leg?liz?tion of m?riju?n? not only on ? st?te level but ? n?tion?l level ?s well. This h?s put m?ny st?te l?ws ?t odds with the l?ws en?cted by the feder?l government reg?rding the cultiv?tion ?nd use of m?riju?n?.
Now th?t we h?ve ? brief history of the m?riju?n? us?ge ?nd restrictions lets look ?t the v?rious methods in which m?riju?n? is used. The first method of us?ge we will discuss is the most common ?nd well known method ?nd th?t is to smoke m?riju?n?. The second method of us?ge we will touch on is the ingestion or e?ting of m?riju?n?. ?nd fin?lly we will discuss the v?poriz?tion method. These ?re not the only three w?ys you c?n use the drug, but they ?re the most common ?nd well known methods.
There ?re m?ny different w?ys ?nd techniques of smoking m?riju?n? ?nd inh?ling the drug into your lungs, including rolling ? joint (m?riju?n? cig?rette), smoking out of ? bowl, using ? w?ter pipe (or bongs) ?nd ? gr?vity bong. Joints ?re very common ?nd well known throughout the drug community. Joints ?re better known for ? rel?xed ?tmosphere ?nd typic?lly rel?ted to «if you ?re listening to Bob M?rley you ?re smoking ? joint» (Ch?melion, 2005). Joints c?n be m?de with ?utom?tic tob?cco rollers, p?pers ?nd even ? doll?r bill c?n be used. It is s?id th?t smoking from ? bowl is one of the best methods to smoke m?riju?n?. There ?re m?ny different w?ys to m?ke ? bowl; the simplest is to go out ?nd buy one for ?n ?ver?ge price of $25. ?luminum c?ns, ?pples, ?nd even cert?in sticks c?n be used ?s bowls. Using w?ter pipes, or bongs ?s they ?re most commonly known, is ? popul?r bowl smoking method. The smoke is filtered through w?ter to cool down, ?llowing you to keep it in your lungs longer. W?ter pipes c?n be bought ?nd m?de from ? j?r, ?luminum c?n ?nd PVC pipe. W?ter pipes ?re ? more intense version of ? bowl ?nd c?n ?ffect you sooner ?nd h?rder. Fin?lly, using ? Gr?vity bong you c?n get ?n extreme ?mount of concentr?ted smoke in your lungs ?t once. The gener?l purpose of ? gr?vity bong is to fill your lungs with ? l?rge ?mount of smoke ?nd overwhelm the individu?l.
Ingesting the drug is something th?t is most commonly ?ccomplished by mixing «pot» in with brownie mix ?nd b?king it into the brownies to e?t. There ?re not ?ny other popul?r w?ys of Ingesting m?riju?n? other th?n the most f?mous pot brownies; people h?ve been known to e?t the pl?nt by itself, but h?s little or no effect.
The l?st method of using m?riju?n? is v?poriz?tion, which is ? technique used to ?void irrit?ting respir?tory toxins in the smoke by he?ting C?nn?bis to ? temper?ture th?t ?llows the psycho?ctive ingredients (THC) to ev?por?te without using combustion. V?poriz?tion is commonly used with medic?l p?tients th?t rely on m?riju?n? but ?re concerned ?bout the respir?tory h?z?rds of smoking the drug. The method of v?porizing m?riju?n? is by he?ting the drug to ? temper?ture of 180-200 degrees Celsius. ?t this point ?ny h?rmful toxins ?re cooked out of the drug ?nd the person will only get the ?ffects of the pl?nt without the h?rmful toxins th?t ?re cont?ined in the smoke.
We just h?ve covered the three most common methods th?t ?re being used to t?ke ?dv?nt?ge of the benefits th?t ?re cont?ined in m?riju?n?. There m?y be m?ny more, but the three we h?ve covered ?re the most common methods th?t ?re in pr?ctice with the «M?riju?n? Community» tod?y. It is s?id th?t there ?re two sides to every story; such ? st?tement c?n be ?pplied to m?riju?n?. There ?re effects of m?riju?n? us?ge which ?re desir?ble ?nd effects th?t ?re undesir?ble. No m?tter wh?t the perceived effects, they both pose points th?t c?n be used on either side of the issue of leg?liz?tion ?nd he?lth issues.
The desir?ble effects ?ssoci?ted with m?riju?n? ?re m?de possible by the ?ctive ingredient, THC (delt?-9-tetr?hydroc?nn?binol). THC th?t h?s been m?nuf?ctured into ?n or?l medic?tion is currently being used to tre?t the n?use? experienced by p?tients who ?re involved in c?ncer chemother?py ?nd r?di?tion tre?tments. THC is ?lso used to stimul?te the ?ppetites of p?tients with w?sting due to ?IDS. Clinic?l tri?ls rel?ted to the use of smoked m?riju?n? for ther?py h?ve been done but due to inconsistent dos?ge of THC th?t is delivered to the p?tient, tri?l results h?ve not proved to be v?lid. Other rese?rch is currently underw?y to study smoked m?riju?n? ?nd the benefits th?t m?y be re?lized in the effects it m?y h?ve on ?ppetite stimul?tion, sp?sticity due to multiple sclerosis, ?nd cert?in types of p?in.
In reg?rd to undesir?ble effects person?lity disturb?nces, ?nxiety, ?nd depression h?ve been ?ssoci?ted with m?riju?n? ?nd its use. Other short-term effects of m?riju?n? include memory ?nd le?rning problems, trouble with thinking ?nd problem-solving, incre?sed he?rt r?te, loss of motor coordin?tion, ?nd distorted perception. He?vy m?riju?n? users struggle in ?ccumul?ting intellectu?l, job, or soci?l skills bec?use the drug ?ffects the ?bility to le?rn ?nd remember inform?tion. Workers who smoke m?riju?n? h?ve been ?ssoci?ted with t?rdiness, workers’ compens?tion cl?ims, incre?sed ?bsences, ?ccidents, ?nd job turnover. In the comp?rison of high school ?chievement, gr?du?tes ?nd non-gr?du?tes, studies show th?t students who smoke m?riju?n? get lower gr?des then their non-smoking peers ?nd ?re less likely to gr?du?te. T?sks th?t involved l?ngu?ge comprehension, sust?ined ?ttention, ?nd memory were performed poorly ?s comp?red to people who h?d not been exposed to m?riju?n?. B?sed on this inform?tion, the results demonstr?te the undesired effect m?riju?n? h?s on school, work, ?nd soci?l life.
With the findings on the ?cute ?nd short-term effects of m?riju?n?, the question of the long-term effects h?s yet to be ?nswered. This poses ? question, «Is m?riju?n? ?ddictive?» C?n m?riju?n?, when used he?vily ?nd long-term, le?d to ?ddiction? F?cts h?ve proven th?t the smoke from m?riju?n? cont?ins 50% to 70% more c?rcinogens th?n tob?cco smoke. Bec?use m?riju?n? smokers inh?le deeper, their lungs h?ve incre?sed exposure to c?rcinogenic smoke. This f?ct then suggests th?t m?riju?n? smoke m?y pose more risk of promoting c?ncer th?n does tob?cco smoke. ?nother study shows th?t during the first hour ?fter smoking m?riju?n? the risk of he?rt ?tt?ck qu?druples. ?s rese?rchers st?te ?nd suggest, this m?y be due to the f?ct th?t smoking m?riju?n? incre?ses the he?rt r?te ?nd r?ises blood pressure while reducing the oxygen-c?rrying c?p?city of blood. So it looks ?s though there ?re some serious issues th?t should be looked ?t on ?n individu?l level when one is coming to ? decision on whether or not to use m?riju?n? but it looks ?s though there ?re other leg?l subst?nces th?t ?re just ?s h?rmful.
The use of m?riju?n? for medicin?l purposes «d?tes b?ck to 2800 B.C., when the Chinese Emperor Shen-nung used it ?s ? muscle rel?x?nt ?nd p?inkiller» (?kh?v?n, 1996, ? 2). The ?ncient Egypti?ns used M?riju?n? to help subdue p?in during childbirth (?kh?v?n, 1996, ? 2), ?nd m?ny other cultures h?ve continued the use of m?riju?n? for medicin?l purposes. Medic?l use of m?riju?n? w?s common in the United St?tes up to 1937 when Congress b?nned it (?kh?v?n, 1996, ? 3). Common uses of m?riju?n? in the medic?l field before its prohibition in 1937 were «prim?rily uses ?s ? p?inkiller during childbirth, ?s ? tre?tment for ?sthm?, ?nd gonorrhe? symptoms, ?nd ?s ? rel?x?nt for ?nxiety-prone p?tients» (?kh?v?n, 1996, ? 3).
Medic?l m?riju?n? h?s been tested ?nd used by p?tients with ?ll types of illnesses, especi?lly those with c?ncer ?nd ?IDS. M?riju?n? is helpful for n?use? in c?ncer p?tients undergoing chemother?py ?nd helps to stimul?te ?ppetite which is ?lso helpful to p?tients suffering from ?IDS w?sting ?w?y syndrome. Other studies h?ve shown th?t m?riju?n? h?s helped p?tients with gl?ucom? bec?use it «reduces intr?ocul?r pressure» which is «the b?sic ?im of ?nti-gl?ucom? ther?py» (Gieringer, 1996, p. 3).
Other studies conducted on p?tients with epilepsy reported th?t m?riju?n? del?yed «the first onset of complex p?rti?l seizures»; while 88% of p?tients with spin?l cord injuries «reported th?t it reduced their muscle sp?sms» (Gieringer, 1996. p.5). P?tients with multiple sclerosis use m?riju?n? for p?in, ?nd to help reduce tremors ?ssoci?ted with the illness. M?riju?n? is used by m?ny p?tients for p?in relief from migr?ines, menstru?l cr?mps, post surgic?l p?in, ?nd studies h?ve shown th?t ?sthm? suffers get relief from ?sthm? ?tt?cks bec?use m?riju?n? «produces bronchodil?tion, therefore relieving ?sthm? ?tt?cks» (Gieringer, 1996, p.7).
M?riju?n? h?s helped p?tients with depression ?nd ment?l illness. 79 ment?l p?tients who used m?riju?n? were surveyed ?nd «reported relief from depression, ?nxiety, insomni?, ?nd physic?l discomfort, ?s well ?s fewer hospit?liz?tions; ? second survey ?lso found fewer hospit?liz?tions in schizophrenics who used m?riju?n?» (Gieringer, 1996, p.7).
The purch?se of medic?l m?riju?n? is illeg?l in most st?tes in the United St?tes. In 1980 ? synthetic drug c?lled M?rinol, ?lso known ?s dron?binol, «?n or?l form cont?ining THC (the prim?ry ?ctive ingredient found in m?riju?n?)» (?kh?v?n, 1996, ?10) w?s used by the N?tion?l C?ncer Society ?s ?n experiment on c?ncer p?tients ?cross the United St?tes. The results from the tests of the p?tients th?t took M?rinol were comp?red to the results of the c?ncer p?tients who h?d smoked m?riju?n?. Thous?nds of p?tients cl?imed th?t m?riju?n? w?s more effective ?s ? solution to their n?use? symptoms. Despite the overwhelming response of these studies, «the government sold the p?tent for M?rinol to Unimed, ? comp?ny b?sed in New Jersey», ?nd the FD? ?pproved the drug in 1985 (?kh?v?n, 1996, ?10). In 1992, M?rinol w?s ?pproved by the FD? ?s ?n ?ppetite stimul?nt for ?IDS p?tients with w?sting ?w?y syndrome (?kh?v?n, 1996, ?11).
Rese?rchers cl?im th?t M?rinol ?nd m?riju?n? reportedly produce the s?me results; however, the production of M?rinol is very time-consuming ?nd expensive; its process is r?ther intric?te ?nd involves m?ny «complex chemic?l processes» (?kh?v?n, 1996, ?12). «M?rinol costs between $4.31 ?nd more th?n $16 ? pill, depending on the strength» (Terrell, 2005, ? 8). M?ny would ?rgue th?t m?riju?n? is che?per bec?use it only requires «light, w?ter, ?nd some nutrients to grow» (?kh?v?n, 1996, ?12). M?rinol, like ?ny other or?l drug, cont?ins w?rnings ?bout its possible side effects including «‘feeling high’, ?bdomin?l p?in, dizziness, confusion, depression, nightm?res, speech difficulties, chills, swe?ting, ?nd even psychologic?l ?nd physiologic?l dependence» (?kh?v?n, 1996, ?14). In comp?rison, the effects of m?riju?n? which include «euphori?, l?ughter, ?nxiety, dry mouth, red eyes, sleepiness, clumsiness, incre?sed ?ppetite» (?kh?v?n, 1996, ?15) ?ll seem mild.
Studies show th?t p?tients feel the effects of m?riju?n? ?lmost inst?ntly while those using M?rinol report it usu?lly t?kes from two to four hours to feel its m?ximum effects (W?shington hemp, p.7). P?tients compl?in th?t they c?nnot seem to control the effects of feeling stoned when t?king M?rinol. «Even though synthetic THC is ?v?il?ble in three strengths, it c?n be very difficult to define ?ppropri?te doses ?nd determine wh?t time of d?y the p?tient needs to t?ke it» (W?shington hemp, 1998, p. 9). In comp?rison, m?riju?n? c?n be controlled bec?use it is only smoked when needed, which m?y only be once ? week comp?red to ? d?ily dose of M?rinol.
Most of the medic?l community is in f?vor of the use of medic?l m?riju?n? over M?rinol, ?greeing th?t «m?riju?n? cont?ins more th?n one ?ctive ingredient; thereby implying M?rinol c?nnot possibly replic?te ?ll of m?riju?n?’s medic?l effects» (?kh?v?n, 1996, ? 28). There ?lso ?re other doctors, mostly oncologists, who ?re ?g?inst the use of m?riju?n? bec?use they ?re concerned ?bout the effects of smoking m?riju?n? ?nd its ?ssoci?tion with lung c?ncer, ?nd cl?im th?t smoking m?riju?n? is no different from smoking tob?cco. ?spergillus is ? fungus th?t is sometimes found in m?riju?n? th?t is thought to be the c?use of some lung infections, ?nd h?s «been seen in people with ?dv?nced HIV dise?se» (Project inform, 2005, ? 9). Critics ?lso s?y th?t if ?IDS p?tients smoke m?riju?n?, they risk the d?ngers of getting respir?tory infections (Gieringer, 1996, p. 4) which is why v?poriz?tion of m?riju?n? would be considered ? s?fer ?ltern?tive to smoking.
M?ny educ?ted people h?ve cre?ted volumes of inform?tion to support leg?lizing the use of m?riju?n?, but even with this knowledge the government sees if differently. «Since the prohibition of m?riju?n? in 1937 feder?l l?w m?de possession or tr?nsfer of C?nn?bis illeg?l throughout the United St?tes. This w?s contr?ry to the ?dvice of the ?meric?n Medic?l ?ssoci?tion ?t the time» (Wikipedi?, 2006). Some believe th?t initi?lly m?riju?n? prohibition w?s not rel?ted to the public using it for recre?tion?l of medic?l purposes but inste?d prohibition w?s st?rted «in response to lobbying by m?kers of synthetic fibers th?t competed with hemp» (Wikipedi?, 2006). Reg?rdless of wh?t c?used the prohibition of m?riju?n?, the f?cts ?re th?t over 7 million people h?ve been ?rrested for m?riju?n? rel?ted ch?rges since 1993, which equ?tes to «one person being ?rrested for m?riju?n? every 42 seconds» (Wikipedi?, 2006). Looking ?t this type of inform?tion it seems th?t «m?riju?n? prohibition c?uses more problems th?n it solves, ?nd ruins thous?nds more lives th?n it supposedly tries to s?ve» (Leg?l Issues, 2005). This st?tement is supported by the f?ct th?t m?ny l?w norm?lly l?w ?biding citizens ?re in j?il tod?y bec?use of ch?rges rel?ted to m?riju?n? use ?nd/or possession.
Feder?l l?ws consider the cultiv?tion, possession, s?le ?nd use of m?riju?n? illeg?l, period. But ? m?jority of st?tes h?ve conflicting l?ws reg?rding possession, cultiv?tion, recre?tion?l ?nd medic?l use ?nd the required pen?lties th?t ?re levied for bre?king these l?ws. «Ultim?tely, feder?l l?w should be ch?nged to tre?t m?riju?n? like ?ny other leg?l medic?tion, ?v?il?ble through ph?rm?cies upon ? doctor’s prescription. However, the feder?l government currently refuses to budge. In the me?ntime, the only w?y to protect m?riju?n? users from ?rrest is through legisl?tion in the st?tes.» (M?riju?n? Policy Project, 2004). ?s long ?s the feder?l government ?nd the v?rious st?te governments c?nnot come to some sort of ?greement on the l?ws reg?rding the leg?liz?tion of m?riju?n? the two will be ?t odds with e?ch other.
«Decrimin?liz?tion is ? drug supply-side control str?tegy th?t discour?ges users, but l?rgely removes them from the crimin?l justice system, while imposing stiff pen?lties on those who tr?ffic ?nd sell the drug on the bl?ck m?rket» (Leg?l Issues of C?nn?bis, 2005). To see ?n ex?mple of this st?tement look to the 12 st?tes th?t no longer considers possession of ? sm?ll ?mount of m?riju?n? to be ? serious felony punish?ble by inc?rcer?tion. These st?tes h?ve m?de minor possession ? misdeme?nor offense punish?ble by ? sm?ll fine. «Citizens who live under decrimin?liz?tion l?ws consume m?riju?n? ?t r?tes less th?n or comp?r?ble to those who live in regions where the possession of m?riju?n? rem?ins ? crimin?l offense» (Leg?l Issues of C?nn?bis, 2005). The decrimin?liz?tion of m?riju?n? could s?ve this country ? huge ?mount of money by reducing the number of people inc?rcer?ted ?nd by reducing the ?mount of money spent on l?w enforcement rel?ted to the government’s w?r on drugs. The money th?t is s?ved could then be diverted to progr?ms like educ?tion ?nd he?lthc?re th?t re?lly help society.
? survey w?s conducted th?t consisted of 15 questions reg?rding the use ?nd leg?liz?tion of m?riju?n?. 10 people between the ?ges of 20 ?nd 56 were interviewed. Two out of the 10 people thought th?t m?riju?n? should be leg?lized st?ting th?t it w?s no different from ?lcohol, ?nd th?t if drug stores stocked it there would be less crime. The people st?ting these opinions felt strongly tow?rd the leg?liz?tion of m?riju?n? bec?use they feel th?t the government spends too much time ?nd money on the prohibition of m?riju?n?. One m?n st?ted th?t the government should m?ke m?riju?n? leg?l ?nd pl?ce ? multitude of t?xes on it.
The eight people who opposed the leg?liz?tion of m?riju?n? for gener?l consumption cl?imed th?t it should only be used for medicin?l purposes. One person st?ted th?t she knew ? person who w?s given m?riju?n? to help with p?in m?n?gement during her tre?tment for c?ncer. ?nother wom?n s?id th?t she h?d seen the effects th?t chemother?py h?d on the c?ncer p?tients in the hospit?l where she would go to visit her brother, who w?s ?lso dying of c?ncer. She went on to s?y th?t she wished m?riju?n? w?s prescribed for her brother ?s well ?s the other p?tients, ?nd described how she s?w the p?tients ?nd her brother suffer from the p?in.
Five people cl?imed th?t they h?d tried or used m?riju?n? r?rely, ?nd most ?ttribute smoking it to ?n experiment?l ph?se in their college ye?rs. ?ll interviewees s?id the method of us?ge w?s by smoking. Nine interviewees knew ?n ?ver?ge of six to 10 people who smoked m?riju?n? while one cl?imed not to know ?nybody who h?d smoked it.
Other opinions ?g?inst the leg?liz?tion of m?riju?n? stem from its detriment?l effects, including imp?ired thinking, ?nd some of the interviewees felt th?t mind-?ltering drugs should not be t?ken to esc?pe from re?lity; inste?d, people need to f?ce their problems ?nd le?rn to de?l with them.
The interviewees reported th?t m?riju?n? h?d some effects on themselves ?nd on their friends including feeling h?ppy, c?lm ?nd rel?xed. Other effects were p?r?noi?, imp?ired thinking, incre?sed ?ppetite for junk food – «the munchies», ?ltered r?tion?liz?tion, illness, ?nd injury. One person reported c?using injury to their fists by punching windows while under the influence; ?nother person bec?me violently ill. Some unusu?l effects reported included ?llergies to the drug which c?used the user’s body to swell up, while ?nother person reported th?t he did not feel «high» or feel ?ny different ?fter smoking m?riju?n?.
The survey reve?led some interesting results bec?use we thought more people would be for the leg?liz?tion of m?riju?n? for gener?l consumption. However, most people we surveyed believed m?riju?n? should only be used to help people who ?re in physic?l p?in due to illness. ?nother surprising result w?s ? reported ?llergy to m?riju?n?, something th?t we h?d not found in our second?ry rese?rch.
The issue of leg?lizing m?riju?n? will be seen by some ?s something th?t needs to be done now to ?id in ?llevi?ting the suffering th?t some ?re going through bec?use of illness or injury. Others will oppose the leg?liz?tion of m?riju?n? using the ?rgument th?t there ?re other drugs th?t ?re just ?s effective being produced by the ph?rm?ceutic?l comp?nies th?t do not c?rry some of the he?lth ?nd societ?l risks of m?riju?n?. Since there will ?lw?ys be opposing viewpoints on this issue it comes down to person?l choice which becomes ?v?il?ble with the leg?liz?tion of m?riju?n?. We c?n ?ll hope in the future th?t the government will reverse the decision to crimin?lize m?riju?n? ?nd ?llow individu?ls to m?ke the decision of whether or not to use this drug.
?kh?v?n, K. (1996). M?rinol vs. m?riju?n?: Politics, science, ?nd popul?r culture, drugtext.org, Online website. Retrieved December 6, 2007 from http://www.drugtext.org/libr?ry/?rticles/m?rinol01.htm
Bonnie, R (2005). The ?ntecedents: Crimin?tion of N?rcotics, Sch?ffer Libr?ry of Drug Policy, Online website. Retrieved on December 6, 2007 from http://www.druglibr?ry.org/sch?ffer/LIBR?RY/studies/vlr/vlr1.htm
Economics Resource Center (2005). Policy Deb?te: Should m?riju?n? be decrimin?lized? South-Western College Publishing, Online website. Retrieved on December 6, 2007 from http://www.swle?rning.com/economics/policy_deb?tes/m?riju?n?.html
Gieringer,D. (1996, ?ugust). Review of hum?n studies on medic?l use of m?riju?n?, m?riju?n?.org, Online website. Retrieved on December 6, 2007 from http://www.m?riju?n?.org/D?lesReport.html
Leg?l issues of C?nn?bis (2005). Introduction, Norml.org, Online website. Retrieved on December 6, 2007 from http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5464
M?riju?n? Policy Project (2004). St?te by St?te Medic?l M?riju?n? L?ws, mpp.org, Online website. Retrieved on December 6, 2007 from http://www.mpp.org/pdf/sbs_report_2004.pdf
Project inform (2005, ?pril). Medic?l m?riju?n?, projinf.org, Online website. Retrieved December 6, 2007 from http://www.projinf.org/fs/m?riju?n?.html
Terrell, S. (2005, Febru?ry 8). C?ncer survivor b?cks bill on medic?l m?riju?n?, The New Mexic?n, Online website. Retrieved December 6, 2007 from http://www.freenewmexic?n.com/story_print.php?storyid=10234
W?shington hemp educ?tion network, (1998). C?nn?bis Indic?tions ? 9, olyw?.net, Online website. Retrieved December 6, 2007 from http://www.olyw?.net/when/indic?tions09.html
Wikipedi? (2006). C?nn?bis, Wikipedi?, The Free Encyclopedi?, Online website. Retrieved December 6, 2007 from http://en.wikipedi?.org/wiki/C?nn?bis_%28drug%29