Source: allvoices.com
Hemp seeds, pictured here, are nutritional and have no psychoactive properties, yet poorly designed drug laws restrict their growth in the United States. (Image: D-Kuru via Wikimedia Commons)
Author’s note: This is Part 3 of a three-part series. Part 1 can beaccessed here, and Part 2 can be found here.
Opinion
Since 1996, when Californians voted 56 to 44 percent in favor of legalizing medical marijuana, the federal government has been fighting a losing battle in its ongoing attempts to demonize a plant that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers considered one of the most useful crops known to humanity.
“Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!” Washington wrote to his gardener in 1794. The presidential gardener obliged.
Washington and Jefferson were not colonial versions of Cheech and Chong. They were, however, capable farmers who recognized the value of hemp, another name for cannabis and marijuana. Just as cannabis sativa can be grown and harvested for the intoxicating buds on female plants, the plant can be grown for fuel, fiber and food. Hemp seeds, which are not intoxicating, contain crucial omega-3 fatty acid and high levels of vitamins A, C and E, among other nutrients.
From the outset, any honest assessment of the plant that produces what is commonly referred to as “marijuana” must include the versatility and usefulness of the hemp plant, which is finally getting a fair shot at becoming a cash crop once again. The farm bill President Barack Obama signed in February included a clause authorizing colleges and universities in the 11 states where industrial hemp is legal to grow it for research purposes.
That’s a good start, but the government should go further and make a distinction between farming cannabis sativa for fiber, fuel and food and growing it for buds to be used medicinally or recreationally. Until that happens, all discussion of whether marijuana should be legalized for medical or recreational purposes will be tilted in favor of the legalization crowd, simply because there is no good reason cannabis sativa should not be grown for hemp. The current law is akin to outlawing corn because some enterprising farmer might decide to make white lightning with a portion of his harvest.
While the government is adjusting its official relationship with hemp, it should pay a visit to the drug schedules established under the Controlled Substances Act. Sooner rather than later, it needs to move “marihuana” from the roster of Schedule I hallucinogenic drugs, where it is listed between LSD and mescaline among drugs that have no known medical value and a high abuse potential, to a Schedule III drug, one with currently accepted medical uses and less potential for abuse than Schedule I and II drugs.
That move would solve a plethora of problems in the 20-plus states where medical marijuana is legal, and it would actually allow physicians to prescribe rather than “recommend” marijuana as medicine. And while the feds are at it, it would show an enormous amount of good faith to replace the current term “marihuana” with “cannabis,” the botanical name for the plant.
In February, 18 congressional representatives called on Obama to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug, which would be an improvement from its current status but not in the category where it ultimately belongs. Earlier this month, Attorney General Eric Holder told a House Appropriations subcommittee he was willing to work with Congress to reclassify marijuana under the CSA. But as Reason points out, the executive branch has the authority to move marijuana to a different category but probably not the authority to remove it altogether.
It seems as though Holder is trying to get more support from Congress before making the move. This is something that should have bipartisan support with national polls consistently showing around 70 percent support for medical marijuana. Cannabis, of course, was an accepted medicine in the American pharmacopeia from the 1850s until the 1930s. It was then that Federal Narcotics Commissioner Harry Anslinger came onto the scene. His abuse of power, well-documented racism and willful ignorance toward marijuana is recounted in the 2012 book “Smoke Signals” by Martin A. Lee. Anslinger, according to a recent ad by Common Sense Drug Policy, “is almost single-handedly responsible for outlawing marijuana.”
It’s time that all sides in the marijuana debate learn about the role Anslinger played in developing polices that led to marijuana being outlawed in 1937.
Finally, especially in light of the much-hyped, recent marijuana-brain study by Northwestern and Harvard researchers, it is time for the United States to take an even-handed and fair-minded approach to research on cannabis, pro and con. When NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell recently talked about the possibility of allowing players to use medical marijuana to treat head injuries, it was at least partly because research from Israel indicates it might be helpful.
Why are American scientists so often blocked in doing legitimate research on marijuana?
Thankfully, a study on treating veterans’ post-traumatic stress disorder with medical cannabis was approved in March for Arizona – but a misguided Republican state senator blocked the funding because she wanted to use money for the study to educate children about the dangers of recreational marijuana.
It should go without saying that no one wants to see kids get hooked on marijuana. But we should also be willing to study ways to bring relief to veterans suffering from PTSD. In Arizona, the politics of pandering won out over science.
Until we as a nation can tell the truth about marijuana, there’s little hope for rational policy. Truth-telling means including uses for hemp and the medical properties of cannabis -- not just hand-picked, government-sponsored research -- in the legalization debate. It also means conducting studies in the spirit of free and open inquiry to determine both the benefits and risks associated with cannabis use.
Then, and only then, will we be able to make truly informed decisions and legislate accordingly.
Additional sources and resources:
“Obama says marijuana ‘no more dangerous than alcohol,’” CNN, Jan. 19, 2014
Punditty is based in Santa Cruz, California, United States of America, and is an Anchor for Allvoices.
No comments:
Post a Comment