Sign by Roadhouse Relics
Reprinted with Permission from the October 2009 issue of TEXAS MONTHLY.
Earlier this week, the Justice Department sent a memo to fourteen federal prosecutors, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), instructing them not to arrest or prosecute people who sell or use marijuana in compliance with state laws, even though federal law still prohibits such activity. This is a welcome change from the policy followed by the Bush administration, during which the DEA and other law enforcement agents arrested people who produced, sold or used marijuana for medical purposes, even when the states had passed laws allowing these actions.
The scientific evidence regarding the medical use of marijuana is mixed, and more and better research should be conducted. In the meantime, there is much evidence that some people gain substantial benefit from using marijuana, either smoked, inhaled in a vapor, or prepared in food. It can ease pain, reduce the pressure from glaucoma, stimulate hunger in AIDS patients and others who need to eat, and relieve nausea caused by chemotherapy. Best of all, it is cheap.
Even without conclusive scientific evidence, surveys repeatedly indicate that approximately 70 percent of Americans ― and 75 percent of Texans — believe that people with a legitimate medical need should be able to get and use marijuana. Thirteen states have passed laws to make this possible. By announcing this change in policy, Attorney General Eric Holder is honoring the principle of federalism and allowing the states to make decisions on matters that are not clearly a threat to the nation as a whole. In this way, states can serve as valuable laboratories for different ways of dealing with various problems. If the experiments are successful, other states can adopt them with some confidence. If they fail, it’s better to find that out before the whole nation adopts a bad policy.
Critics charge that medical marijuana laws are just a way to get the camel’s nose under the tent and that supporters of these laws only pretend to be interested in helping sick people, when their real interest is in making marijuana more widely available legally, since it’s easy to describe symptoms that marijuana might help. (Full disclosure: I support legalizing marijuana as a way to reduce drug-related crime and save taxpayers money. My article, “Texas High Ways,” in the October issue of Texas Monthly explains this position more fully. You may have to subscribe to the site to read the full article.)
California legalized medical marijuana in 1996. Today, there are an estimated 800 legal marijuana dispensaries in the Los Angeles area alone. Many of them have a relationship with doctors who will happily provide marijuana prescriptions for almost any condition, real or imagined ― just as some doctors in Houston and elsewhere will write prescriptions for Vicodin, Xanax or Lunesta without a proven medical need.
It is hard to applaud this, since it goes beyond what many people thought they were voting for. On the other hand, people who get significant tangible benefit from using cannabis, as many clearly do, no longer have to break the law to obtain their low-cost medicine. In addition, California has a chance to see if wider use actually causes many serious problems. So far, instead of declaring its experiment with medical marijuana to be a dismal failure and closing down the clinics, officials in that state are talking about legalizing, regulating and taxing cannabis, after the model of alcohol and tobacco.
William Martin is the Harry and Hazel Chavanne Senior Fellow in Religion and Public Policy at the Baker Institute and the Chavanne Emeritus Professor of Sociology at Rice University. He is interested in the political implications of religion, and ways to reduce the harms associated with drug abuse and drug policy. His book, “A Prophet with Honor: The Billy Graham Story,” is regarded as the authoritative biography of Billy Graham.