This legal quagmire between state and federal rights regarding the legalization of medical marijuana is further complicated by the fact that Attorney General Eric Holder issued a memorandum in October 2009 that the Department of Justice would stop enforcing the federal marijuana ban under the CSA against people acting in accordance with state medical marijuana laws. While this may at first glance seem like a victory for states` rights, it should be carefully noted that a government memorandum has absolutely no legal precedent and would certainly not override the Supreme Court`s decision in the Raich case. The practical effect of the memorandum is only to delay the unresolved tension between state and federal law in this area, since the Supreme Court will no longer attempt to extend its participation to Raich without enforcement. In other words, it is just one more obstacle to paving the way for a decisive legal position on the matter. Americans overwhelmingly support the legalization of marijuana. According to the Pew Research Center, 91% of Americans support marijuana legalization. Of these, 60% should be legal for medical and recreational purposes and 31% should only be legal for medical reasons. After certification by a doctor, patients usually go to a pharmacy to pick up their medical cannabis. Unfortunately, it is usually not (yet) covered by health insurance. Overall, everyone, especially in the federal government and in the medical field, should be concerned about the quality of life of people with neurological and movement disorders, cancer, AIDS wasting syndrome, etc. A 2010 Gallup poll of Americans showed that marijuana is legally available for doctors to prescribe to patients. The survey found that seventy percent of Americans are in favor while negative feelings continue to decline [89].
Medical marijuana has proven invaluable in the fight against incurable diseases; However, if the federal government does not publicly acknowledge this fact, many terminally ill patients will continue to suffer needlessly. The first condition allows the medical use of marijuana because the object of the action is good in itself. The moral object is precisely the good that is freely willed in this action. The moral advantage of this action is to treat the pain, nausea, severe weight loss associated with AIDS and to fight against muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis that cannot be adequately treated with traditional drugs. The immediate objective is not to support, encourage or encourage illicit drug use. Rather, the direct goal is to free patients from unnecessary pain and suffering [77]. The second condition allows the medical use of marijuana because the good effect of relieving pain and suffering is not produced by the evil effect. Both effects occur simultaneously and independently of each other. The third condition is met because the direct intent of medical marijuana is to provide patients with life-threatening illnesses with relief from the effects of accepted treatments that could cure their condition. Recent studies have shown that medical marijuana is more effective at controlling pain and nausea through chemotherapy treatments and increases the appetite of AIDS patients to combat waste than any of the traditional FDA-approved drugs.
Denying a physician the right to discuss, recommend and prescribe marijuana to patients is a direct violation of the doctor-patient relationship. In order to make an informed decision about their treatment, patients have the right to expect their doctors to fully disclose and discuss all available treatment options. Otherwise, the patient`s right to informed consent is violated [78]. Another federal constraint is the requirement that clinical trials be funded by limited funding controlled by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [28]. These limitations have discouraged researchers from studying the medical benefits of marijuana. For example, the 2012 estimate for clinical cancer research represents about six billion dollars of the NIH budget, or $31.2 billion [29]. The 2011 NIH budget allocated the following funds for marijuana research to qualified organizations: $2 million in 4-5 fellowships. Under NIH marijuana grant guidelines, applicants can apply for budgets with direct costs of up to $500,000 per year for up to 5 years.
Therefore, the total 5-year budget would be $10 million [30]. Of the NIH`s annual budget of about $31.2 billion, the $2 million spent on marijuana research can be estimated at 0.006% of the annual budget, which shows how severely underfunded marijuana research is. My advice to doctors is that whether you`re pro, neutral, or against medical marijuana, patients embrace it, and while we don`t have rigorous studies and „benchmark“ evidence on the benefits and risks of medical marijuana, we need to learn about it, be open-minded, and most importantly, not judge. Otherwise, our patients will seek other, less reliable sources of information; They will continue to use it, they simply won`t tell us, and there will be much less trust and strength in our doctor-patient relationship. I often hear other doctors complain that there isn`t enough evidence to recommend medical marijuana, but there is even less scientific evidence to bury its head in the sand. In the long run, public support for marijuana legalization has risen sharply, according to a separate Gallup poll question asking whether marijuana use should be legalized — without specifying whether it would be legalized for recreational or medical use. This year, 68% of adults say marijuana should be legal, matching Gallup`s record legalization support in 2021. Deshpande A, Mailis-Gagnon A, Zoheiry N, Lakha SF.
Efficacy and Side Effects of Medical Marijuana for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Can fam doctor. 2015;61(8):e372-81. A survey of 400 doctors, general practitioners and specialists in the Netherlands in 2003 was conducted shortly before the legal introduction of medical cannabis. Only 6% said they were unwilling to prescribe medical marijuana under any circumstances, while 60% to 70% considered medical cannabis socially accepted enough and would prescribe it if requested by a patient [46]. In October 2009, the U.S. Assistant Attorney General`s Office issued a memorandum entitled „Investigation and Enforcement in States That Authorize the Medical Use of Marijuana.“ The memorandum stated that the federal government would refrain from prosecuting individuals who comply with state laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana, but made clear that the government „does not legalize marijuana or provide legal defense against a violation of federal law.“[57] .