The legalization of medical marijuana is a very controversial topic. The purpose of this paper is to discuss both sides of the medical use of marijuana, and to determine whether or not the drug should be legalized for this use. We have two factions fighting each other, those who are pro-marijuana and those who are anti-marijuana. These two factions have been fighting on this issue in the halls of justice for years. Pro-marijuana legalization groups such as the Physician's Association for AIDS Care and the National Lymphoma Foundation argue that Marijuana should be legalized in order to treat terminally ill patients. Anti-marijuana legalization groups such as the Drug Enforcement Agency and city police departments argue that the legalization of medical marijuana can lead to the use of other drugs and increased drug trafficking. Considering both sides, I believe that we should ask ourselves a question: Should marijuana be legalized for its use as a medicine?.
Many advocates who are pro-marijuana complain that morphine and cocaine are legal and very dangerous drugs, which makes them ask, "Why not legalize marijuana as a medical drug, when it is proven safer than cocaine and morphine?" Lobbying groups in San Diego, California unanimously voted to urge President Bill Clinton and Congress to .
Thompson 2.
end federal restrictions against the use of marijuana for " legitimate medical use". City .
Councilwoman Christine Kehoe said she wanted the city of San Diego "to go on the record for supporting the medical use of marijuana. Marijuana can be a drug of necessity in the treatment of AIDS, glaucoma, cancer and multiple sclerosis". .
Among some of the terminally ill patients in need of marijuana are AIDS victims, glaucoma sufferers, and cancer patients. AIDS patients find that marijuana stimulates their appetites so they can fight off dangerous emaciation. Glaucoma sufferers believe that marijuana has prevented them from going blind.