Annotated Bibliography

Armentano, Paul. "In Ten Years, Medical Marijuana Has Gone From Fringe to Mainstream -- So Why is it Still Against The Law?" Weblog post. The Hill's Congress Blog. 16 Mar. 2009. 17 Mar. 2009 .

 

This short article written by Paul Armentano, the Deputy Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, points out the author’s disappointment that, ten years after the Institute of Medicine’s groundbreaking findings of medicinal uses for marijuana, marijuana is still illegal.  Armentano commences a list of things that we have learned to be true of the drug through medical examination.  The author’s bias is found in his desire to combat certain medical discomforts with a now safe and effective use of marijuana.  This article represents the interests of those who are in favor of controlled marijuana use by prescription.  The author concludes that the only things in the way of reasonable marijuana policy are the politicians involved in the decision-making.  He believes that medical marijuana use is now medically justified.  This article represents and important argument for the medical use of marijuana and is therefore relevant to my essay.

B

 

Buchanan, Wyatt. "Ammiano wants to make marijuana legal in state." SFGATE. 24 Feb. 2009. San Francisco Chronicle. 10 Mar. 2009 .

This short article submitted to SFGATE.com, the website for the San Francisco Chronicle, discusses a new proposal by San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano.  Ammiano suggests making marijuana legal for recreational use by those of twenty-one years or older.  Statistical reasoning for this incredibly progressive proposal states that California will make an average of 1.3 Billion dollars a year through taxation of legal marijuana.  The author’s bias extends to his desire to strengthen California’s economy and limit the operations of drug dealers through the legalization of recreational marijuana.  The article targets marijuana users as well as residents of California because it directly affects both demographics.  I was personally amazed to see such legislation even considered.  I am pleased with the progression California is making in sensible drug laws.  This will be a useful document as it provides support for those in favor of legal recreational marijuana.  It is also the first legislation to be considered on this topic.

 

 

Clark, Peter A. "The Ethics of Medical Marijuana: Government Restrictions vs. Medical Necessity." Journal of Public Health Policy 21 (2000): 40-60.

 

This article is written in favor of marijuana use for medical purposes, and about how the ability to use it for these purposes is restricted by the federal government.  The article focuses on the rescheduling of marijuana from schedule I to schedule II.  This rescheduling would allow marijuana to be prescribed by a medical practitioner for certain medical purposes such as relief from chemotherapy.  The article cites 1999 research done by the Institute of Medicine, which concluded that marijuana is effective in reducing pain associated with other ailments, and that it is not a gateway drug.  I personally agree with a rescheduling, however I don’t fully understand the scheduling system therefore cannot comment on what way it should be done.  This is an important source for my paper because it gives the positive argument for legalization on a medical basis.

 

 

Elders, Joycelyn. "Canada Has Its Right on Marijuana." Online Posting. 14 Dec. 2002. Globe and Mail (Canada). 5 Mar. 2009 .

 

Joycelyn Elders, former U.S. Surgeon General, writes a comforting message to the government and people of Canada regarding their progressive views on marijuana policy.  Elders criticizes the U.S. government for its ‘Bullying’ of Canada and stresses Canadians to make their own educated and sensible decisions.  She points out the lack of justification for the U.S. legal stance on the drug and curses tobacco and alcohol as the real culprits.  Elders has a pro-marijuana bias, but for what reason is unsubstantiated.  This article represents the interests of the Canadian people and government in their push for more marijuana freedom.  From this article I learned that nearly fifty percent of drug related arrests in the United States come from marijuana, and that eighty-nine percent of those arrests are from simple possession charges.  I agree with the author’s viewpoints and respect the fact that as a former Surgeon General she can make such a statement.  This article is relevant to my essay as it provides support for a generally liberal marijuana stance as supported by those who favor recreation use as well as medical use. 

 

 

Gagnon, Louise. "Marijuana Less Harmful to Lungs than Cigarettes." Erowid. 25 June 1995. 10 Mar. 2009 .

 

In her article Louise Gagnon provides the testimony of pulmonologist Dr. Donald Tashkin that heavy marijuana smoking is less damaging to the lungs than heavy tobacco smoking.  This conclusion is found for a number of reasons.  The first reason being that heavy marijuana users will smoke about four marijuana cigarettes a day, whereas heavy tobacco users will smoke about twenty five tobacco cigarettes a day.  The reasons that follow in the article are based on medical reasoning through a study done by Dr. Tashkin.  The author seems to show little if no bias, as the article’s purpose is to explore the research done by Dr. Tashkin.  This article is of interest to those looking for health related support of the use of marijuana recreationally and medically.  The article targets debaters as well as users of marijuana in Canada, where it seems the article was first released.  I learned there is medical basis for the common idea that marijuana is less damaging to you than tobacco.  This article is relevant to my essay because it undermines the health arguments of anti-marijuana rhetoric, which in turn supports those in favor of medical or recreational marijuana use. 

 

 

Gostin, Lawrence O. "Medical Marijuana, American Federalism, and the Supreme Court." The Journal of the American Medical Association 294 (2005): 842-44.

 

 

This article is an objective description of the relationship among medical marijuana, federalism, and the Supreme Court.  The author does however seem to show a small bias on the side of legalizing marijuana for medical purposes.  This article represents the interests of anyone in the medical field as it provides information on current events that will affect that field.  The article is directed at medical professionals through its inclusion in the JAMA.  The article focuses on the 2005 Supreme Court case Gonzales vs. Raich in which the defendant, Raich, who was prescribed marijuana, has all six of her marijuana plants destroyed by DEA agents.  The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government was justified due to the Schedule I classification of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.  The author analyzes the case through “examination of two issues”, American Federalism, and Marijuana in the context of medical application. I learned many of the details about the famous court case, as well as a few differing opinions of how the government makes decisions about issues such as marijuana policy.  Gonzales vs. Raich is a very important case in marijuana history and therefore this article has equal importance to my research.

 

 

Pickerill, J. M., and Paul Chen. "Medical Marijuana Policy and the Virtues of Federalism." Publius: The Journal of Federalism 38 (2007): 22-55.

 

The authors of this article are biased in that they are attempting to prove that marijuana policy should be left to states’ decision.  The article is written to apply to those interested in complicated new federal issues, as it was published in The Journal of Federalism.  The authors use what they call three of the “Classic Virtues of Federalism” as a test for whether or not marijuana policy is in the states’ domain of decision-making.  The authors come to the conclusion that it should indeed be left to the states.  The article makes use of a “Policy neutral Federalism approach” and uses an important marijuana policy case, Gonzales vs. Raich, 2005.  I agreed with the approach the authors took to prove their point, and believe they justified their conclusion.  This source will be very useful because it is a nearly unbiased approach of showing that marijuana policies should be left to the states, written from a federalist point of view.  This uncommon viewpoint shows a very different side of the argument as a whole.

 

 

Twombly, Renee. "Despite Research, FDA Says Marijuana Has No Benefit." Journal of the National Cancer Institute 38 (2006): 888-89.

 

The author of this article is in favor of having more research done on the benefits of medical marijuana.  This article represents the interests of researchers of medical marijuana who are finding it more and more difficult to study the drug.  The author brings together the complaints of doctors and researchers about the difficulty in studying marijuana due to federal efforts to delay.  Their point is that in order to make an educated decision about marijuana legalization, more research must be done.  I learned that there are quite a number of people researching marijuana as a medicine and that despite their efforts to research, the FDA and federal government is not convinced there are any benefits.  I agree with the author that it is essential to study a drug before making it available, and that restrictions on those studies is just a denial of whatever the outcomes may be.  This article is important to my paper because it brings to light the opinions of many experts in the field, as well as discusses the efforts of the federal government to quell marijuana research.