Bianca Peterkin
Yitong Ding
May 3, 2023

    Medical marijuana is a beneficial alternative opposed to using opioids. Over many years there has been a debate about medical marijuana and when the opioid crisis occurred, which caused rapid deaths and addiction, this is where medical marijuana came into play as a solution. Medical marijuana provides patients with a safer and more natural approach to pain relief. Medical Marijuana actually lessens the risks that are associated with opioids because their benefits are polar opposites. There are also counterclaims that are made towards why Medical Marijuana is not a better alternative but the positive outweighs the so called negative. 
          

     The articles by Clark (2000), Peters (2013), and Chu (2015), reveal evidence of the benefits of medical marijuana through analysis. Clark's article, "The Ethics of Medical Marijuana: Government Restrictions vs. Medical Necessity," explores the ethical implications of restricting access to medical marijuana. Clark argues that patients have a legitimate need for medical marijuana to alleviate symptoms and improve their health. The article emphasizes the importance of recognizing medical necessity and the rights of patients in making healthcare decisions. With this knowledge he targets the federal government and asks “ Why then, is the Federal government prohibiting this effective drug from being prescribed by physicians for patients suffering from specific treatment side effects?” (Clark 41) The federal government should be concerned about the care of their people and not restrict a substance that is actually a great alternative to another substance that causes harm. Although Peter does talk mainly about the benefits of medical marijuana he touches on the cons and claims "Many of the concerns about the potential negative effects of marijuana are based on incomplete or contradictory evidence, and some may be overstated or based on anecdotal reports rather than rigorous scientific research”. (Clark 51) Which goes to show not many people are doing their research before they are making the negative claims they have towards medical marijuana it’s more of an assumption.          

   Peters' article, "Patients and Caregivers Report Using Medical Marijuana to Decrease Prescription Narcotics Use," sheds light on the potential of medical marijuana as an alternative to prescription narcotics. “Results were consistent across several medical conditions. Whether the medical condition was trauma, cancer, Multiple Sclerosis, arthritis, or some other condition, whenever the patient had a history of prescription narcotics utilization (n=11 of 19 patients) they all made nearly the same claim they had been able to reduce or eliminate narcotic pills by using medical marijuana. Caregivers reported that medical marijuana is routinely substituted for prescription narcotics.”(Peters 32)Based on the accounts of patients and caregivers, the study highlights how medical marijuana can effectively reduce the need for prescription opioids, potentially mitigating the risks associated with opioid use and abuse. Peter’s article argues against the counterclaims since he uses the patient's personal experience and thoughts to support his claims “ "Participants reported using medical marijuana as an alternative to prescription narcotics, such as OxyContin, morphine, and hydrocodone, for pain relief". (Peters 35). If patients themselves are able to come back and say that medical marijuana has been doing justice for them who is the federal government to stop the healing process.

  Chu's article, "Do Medical Marijuana Laws Increase Hard-Drug Use?" explores the impact of medical marijuana laws on hard-drug use. The study provides quantitative analysis and concludes that the implementation of medical marijuana laws does not lead to an increase in hard-drug use, challenging the notion of a gateway effect.  The way Chu went about proving his argument was different: the data sets he used were to compare marijuana to other substances such as heroin and cocaine and go into really specific measures to make sure his point is not biased. Chu supports medical marijuana through his studies by stating “ In fact, almost all of the estimates have negative signs, which suggests that medical marijuana laws could have a negative effect on hard drug use”.( Chu 484). He also uses other people’s studies to go about supporting his evidence and his studies as well to answer back to any concerns about his findings. Chu stated “ As mentioned previously, almost no empirical evidence has been published on a relationship between medical marijuana laws and hard drug use. Drawing on the 1993-2009 Youth Risk Behavior surveys, Anderson, Hansen and Rees( 2012 ) find that these laws have a negative effect, a decrease around 15% in cocaine use among teenagers but they suggest that the magnitude is implausibly large”. (Chu 488) Which shows medical marijuana is beneficial and actually causes a decrease in these hard drugs even in teenagers.     

   The article "Consequences of Marijuana Use" by Caulkins et al. explores these potential negative consequences comprehensively. These effects can include short-term impairments such as altered perception, impaired memory and cognition, coordination difficulties, and increased heart rate. Additionally, long-term consequences might involve discussions on potential impacts on mental health, respiratory health, cognitive development in adolescents, educational and occupational outcomes, and social implications. It is essential for healthcare providers and patients to be well-informed about these potential negative effects and to make informed decisions regarding medical marijuana use, taking into account individual health factors, risks, and benefits. Consulting reliable sources like the patient information sheet from the Minnesota Department of Health can provide specific information on potential risks and precautions associated with medical marijuana use.

     Therefore for individuals seeking treatment from pain and other painful diseases, medical marijuana is a viable and effective option. Overall, these articles collectively contribute to the understanding of the benefits of medical marijuana. They underscore the ethical importance of providing access to medical marijuana for patients in need, highlight its potential as an alternative to prescription narcotics, and challenge the notion that medical marijuana laws increase hard-drug use. Together, these findings suggest that medical marijuana can serve as a valuable and beneficial option for patients seeking relief from symptoms and improved health outcomes.

Clark, Peter A. “The Ethics of Medical Marijuana: Government Restrictions vs. Medical Necessity.” Journal of Public Health Policy, vol. 21, no. 1, 2000, pp. 40–60. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3343473. Accessed 5 Apr. 2023.

David C. Peters II. “Patients and Caregivers Report Using Medical Marijuana to Decrease Prescription Narcotics Use.” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, vol. 35, 2013, pp. 24–40. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/humjsocrel.35.24. Accessed 17 Apr. 2023.

Chu, Yu-Wei Luke. “Do Medical Marijuana Laws Increase Hard-Drug Use?” The Journal of Law & Economics, vol. 58, no. 2, 2015, pp. 481–517. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1086/684043. Accessed 8 May 2023.

Caulkins, Jonathan P., et al. “Consequences of Marijuana Use.” Considering Marijuana Legalization: Insights for Vermont and Other Jurisdictions, RAND Corporation, 2015, pp. 27–48. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt15zc545.11. Accessed 8 May 2023.

Important Information and Warnings about Using Medical Cannabis.
https://www.health.state.mn.us/people/cannabis/docs/patients/patientinfosheet.pdf