Last updated : December 23, 2024
Buried within the spending bill passed by Congress and signed by President Obama this past December, is a section short on words but long on impact.
(Sec. 246) Prohibits funds provided by this bill from being used to: interfere with the ability of veterans to participate in a state-approved medicinal marijuana program, deny services to veterans participating in a program, or interfere with the ability of a VA health care provider care to comply with a program.
In other words, medical marijuana has been quietly legalized in all but name for states that so choose to legislate it, despite the fact that the government still classifies weed as Schedule 1 drug—i.e., dangerous, with a high potential for abuse and no proven medical value. The Obama Administration started to shift its pot policy more than a year ago, when it signaled a hands-off to federal prosecutors set to enforce federal drug laws that run contrary to state marijuana laws. That stance has now become the law of the land.
The pro-legalization camp considers this a major victory with good reason. In the words of campaigner Bill Piper, “The war on medical marijuana is over. Now the fight moves on to the legalization of all marijuana.” Many experts consider that news far from good.
Politics and mixed messages
The law passed this past December was voted down a half-dozen times before. The question is, why did it pass this time around? It’s not as if researchers have conducted the carefully controlled, large-scale clinical studies required for FDA approval. Nor, as stated above, has the federal government changed marijuana’s classification as a Schedule 1 substance. To the contrary, weeks after the bill was passed, the Obama administration went to court in California to defend the drug’s current classification, citing abundant evidence pot is a “psychoactive, addictive drug not safe for medical use at this time.”
How did Congress determine medical pot should remain illegal, while prohibiting federal action against the distribution of same? The obvious contradiction can no doubt be explained by the fact that this is an election year. Anti-legalization Republicans felt they could safely shift their stance to suit voter preferences in states where the drug has been legalized for medical use. Meanwhile, legislators left the letter of drug law untouched—and actually defended existing drug law—in an attempt to have their cake while they eat it.
What you don’t know, can hurt you
Unfortunately, concerns about the legalization of marijuana for any purpose are bigger than politics. Legalization proponents trumpet the hoped-for benefits of marijuana in treating ailments ranging from epilepsy to cancer to PTSD, overlooking the lack of scientific evidence supporting their claims in favor of anecdotes. They neglect to mention the absence of a standard for medical marijuana, meaning neither doctor nor patient knows exactly what drug is being prescribed/taken. It is much different than carefully controlled Rx in that regard.
Evidence of the drug’s dangers, on the other hand, continues to mount, so much so that groups as prestigious as the American Psychiatric Association have vocally opposed legalization for any reason.
The well-documented dangers of marijuana use include a factual, unavoidable risk of dependence and:
- an increased risk of psychiatric problems, including depression, anxiety, and psychosis, potentially leading to suicide
- an increased number of fatal DUI accidents involving marijuana use
- an increase in the number of youth using marijuana
The last is of particular concern, because studies have shown marijuana has catastrophic effects on developing brains. While pot can cause structural changes in adult brains as well, the fact that youthful brains are in the process of building and refining new connections makes them especially vulnerable to permanent damage.
A legal “domino effect”
Legislators concerned with copping votes have now placed the courts in a nearly untenable position. How will they try Schedule 1 drug cases when federal law essentially contradicts itself? How will they handle future legal challenges to medical pot prohibitions—for teachers, truck drivers, or nurses, for example? Will the mixed messages about pot’s legality/illegality, about its benefits/potential harm lead young people to misuse increasingly available medical pot more heavily?
The business and politics of marijuana appear to be leading the way toward legalization and a course to create conflicts of interest between the public welfare and government (state or federal). It unfortunately seems tied to possible financial stakes in regulating cultivation and sales, which means it’s really money, not medicine, driving the law.
