California Proposition 215: Medical Marijuana
California Proposition 215
For many years in the past, marijuana has been made to look like a dangerous drug, linked to crime and addiction. In the early 1920s and ‘30s most people still did not know what marijuana was or had even heard of it yet. Those who had heard of it were largely uninformed. The drug rarely appeared in the media, but when it did it was linked to crime and even thought to be murder-inducing. A 1929 article in the Denver Post reported a Mexican-American man who murdered his stepdaughter was a marijuana addict (Baird 2011). Articles such as this began to form a long-standing link between marijuana and crime in the public’s mind. Soon, laws against marijuana began coming into place. In 1970, Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning it had no medical utility.
However, scientific research has suggested for many years that marijuana has medical uses. As early as 1860, the Ohio State Medical Society reported medical marijuana to be effective treatment for pain, inflammation, and cough. In 1912, Victor Robinson’s book, An Essay on Hasheesh, was one of the first scientific reports on marijuana. He stated that medical benefits included the treatment of depression, hysteria, vomiting, cough, and a cure for morphine addiction. In 1934, Dr. Walter Bromberg, a senior psychiatrist, examined 2,216 felony inmates. He concluded that marijuana did not promote crime, explaining the users who caused criminal activity were already mentally pre-disposed to causing crimes. Later, in 1978, Robert Randall found that marijuana effectively combats symptoms of glaucoma (Baird 2011).
Slowly, new research began to prove the medicinal value of marijuana. The federal government opened the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program, allowing thousands of applicants to treat their illnesses with marijuana. The new program created a contradiction in the federal government’s stance on marijuana. This contradiction would continue through the passage
For many years in the past, marijuana has been made to look like a dangerous drug, linked to crime and addiction. In the early 1920s and ‘30s most people still did not know what marijuana was or had even heard of it yet. Those who had heard of it were largely uninformed. The drug rarely appeared in the media, but when it did it was linked to crime and even thought to be murder-inducing. A 1929 article in the Denver Post reported a Mexican-American man who murdered his stepdaughter was a marijuana addict (Baird 2011). Articles such as this began to form a long-standing link between marijuana and crime in the public’s mind. Soon, laws against marijuana began coming into place. In 1970, Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning it had no medical utility.
However, scientific research has suggested for many years that marijuana has medical uses. As early as 1860, the Ohio State Medical Society reported medical marijuana to be effective treatment for pain, inflammation, and cough. In 1912, Victor Robinson’s book, An Essay on Hasheesh, was one of the first scientific reports on marijuana. He stated that medical benefits included the treatment of depression, hysteria, vomiting, cough, and a cure for morphine addiction. In 1934, Dr. Walter Bromberg, a senior psychiatrist, examined 2,216 felony inmates. He concluded that marijuana did not promote crime, explaining the users who caused criminal activity were already mentally pre-disposed to causing crimes. Later, in 1978, Robert Randall found that marijuana effectively combats symptoms of glaucoma (Baird 2011).
Slowly, new research began to prove the medicinal value of marijuana. The federal government opened the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program, allowing thousands of applicants to treat their illnesses with marijuana. The new program created a contradiction in the federal government’s stance on marijuana. This contradiction would continue through the passage
Cited: Baird, Rory S., "An in Depth Look at Gonzales V. Raich: The History of Medical Marijuana and the Commerce Clause" (2011). CMC Senior Theses. Paper 125. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/125 (accessed September 11, 2013). Barkacs, Linda L., and Craig B. Barkacs. 2010. “Do I Feel Your Pain? Medical Marijuana, The Workplace, And Federalism.” Journal of Legal, Ethical & Regulatory Issues 13, no. 1: 67-74. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. C. 2012. “The Long And Winding Road To Cannabis Legalization.” Addiction 107, no. 5: 872-873. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Frezza, Claire. 2013. “Medical Marijuana: A Drug Without A Medical Model.” Georgetown Law Journal 101, 1117. LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Goldberg, C. (1996, October 30). Medical marijuana use winning backing. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/30/us/medical-marijuana-use-winning-backing.html Imler, Scott, and Stephen Gutwillig Roche Jr., Edward J. 2013. “Federal Income Taxation of Medical Marijuana Businesses.” TaxLawyer 66, no. 2: 429-482. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Vitiello, Michael. 2012. “Why the Initiative Process Is the Wrong Way to Go: Lessons We Should Have Learned from Proposition 215.” Mcgeorge Law Review 43, no. 1 (January 2012): 63-90. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Vitiello, Michael. 1998. “Proposition 215: De Facto Legalization of Pot and the Shortcomings of Direct Democracy.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 31, 707. LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Wagner, Benjamin B. Dolan, Jared C. 2012. “Medical Marijuana and Federal Narcotics Enforcement in the Eastern District of California.” Mcgeorge Law Review 43, no. 1: 109-126. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Weisberg, Robert. 2012. “Approaches to Assessing the Effects of Marijuana Criminal Law Repeal in California.” Mcgeorge Law Review 43, no. 1:1-21. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.