Marijuana For Medical Purposes Research Articles

Legalization of Medical Marijuana in Indonesia from the Human Rights Perspectives: Lessons Learned from Three ASEAN Countries

Marijuana (cannabis) as a therapeutic medication has been used and recognized as part of the health system in several countries. In contrast, marijuana in Indonesia is classified as a class I narcotic under Law Number 35 of 2009 on Narcotics, which is prohibited and cannot be used as medication. However, a detailed examination of the Narcotics Act reveals some loopholes and ambiguities that could be exploited to legalize marijuana as a medication to cure certain illnesses. The present study employs normative legal research, specifically a statutory approach, to justify using marijuana for medical purposes. In addition, a legal comparative method is also used in this study to analyze the use of medical marijuana in three ASEAN countries: Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore. Despite having a reputation for having highly stringent regulations on narcotics, Indonesia can benefit from the experiences of other ASEAN nations, such as Singapore and Malaysia, who have legalized medical marijuana. This consideration is prompted by the fact that certain individuals have shared positive outcomes from using ‘illegal’ medical marijuana as a form of health treatment. However, it is disheartening to note that these individuals have also had to witness the unfortunate loss of their loved ones and, in some cases, face legal consequences such as imprisonment. Conducting comprehensive research on the use of medicinal marijuana in Indonesia is crucial to upholding the citizens' right to health, as the right to health is a significant component of human rights.

The Effect of Thailand’s Subcultures on Other Southeast Asia States’ Countercultures

Southeast Asia (SEA) is geographically divided into two sub-regions, mainland and insular. This region consists of 11 states that consistently oppose social liberal changes and uphold traditional values. Conservatism in politics, economy and society, including the legal realm, is always favoured in this region. However, recent developments in Thailand could test the conservative beliefs and practices in this region. In June 2022, Thailand decriminalised the cultivation and consumption of cannabis. This new law allows people in Thailand to consume marijuana edibles, marijuana-infused drinks and use marijuana for medical purposes. This is not the first time Thailand has liberalised its laws. For example, unlike other SEA countries, Thailand does not regulate the use clothing in private spaces; therefore, there has been a significant increase in the number of clothing-optional resorts in Thailand over recent years. Meanwhile, in 2015, Thailand became the first SEA country to recognise and protect the rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) individuals. Such laws and tolerance have now become part of Thailand's practices and subculture but remain taboo in other SEA states. Hence, this research has investigated the impact of developments in Thailand’s subculture on the SEA sub-regions, with a particular focus on cannabis law reform. Therefore, this research addresses the primary research question: in the context of ‘weed tourism’, could Thailand's recent cannabis culture impact other Southeast Asian countries? Due to the infancy of this research, a qualitative and digital ethnographical research method was chosen. The thematic analysis was adopted from the secondary government-published data by eliciting key themes. The findings revealed that weed tourism activities would encourage the people in this region to understand, respect, or even practice Thailand's subculture themselves. The mainland states may tend to accept and observe Thailand's cannabis subculture in their states. However, the insular states will not accept such subcultures and will always consider such activities as countercultural.

Use of medical marijuana in cystic fibrosis patients

BackgroundThe usage and attitudes towards medical marijuana in Cystic Fibrosis (CF) patients is unknown. Through the use of a survey we aim to clarify rates and reasons for use.MethodsAn anonymous survey was sent out to six centers in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Use of and reason for medical marijuana was assessed, along with attitudes of the perceived utility of medical marijuana.ResultsA total of 637 surveys were sent out, and 193 surveys were returned (30.3% return rate). Three did not give consent, and one was empty, for a total of 189 completed surveys. 31 subjects (16.5%) reported having used marijuana for medical purposes in their lifetime, with 29 (15.4%) of these in the past year. The most used forms were edible and vaporized. The most common indications for usage were pain and stress. 28 out of 31 found marijuana to be a great deal effective for their symptoms. 21 of the 31 rated marijuana very important or important to their health. There were two reported side effects, both mild. Of 156 subjects who responded to the question if they would be interested in medical marijuana if available, 72 (46.2%) replied yes.ConclusionThe use of marijuana for medical reasons was 15.4% in the past year in this sample CF population, although more expressed interest if it was available through prescription. Side effects were rare. CF physicians are going to have to familiarize themselves with advantages and disadvantages of medical marijuana as there is a great deal of interest within the community, and legalization becomes more common.

Medical Reasons for Marijuana Use, Forms of Use, and Patient Perception of Physician Attitudes Among the US Population.

The use of marijuana for medical purposes is increasing in parallel with expanding legalization and decreased public perception of harm. Despite this increase in use, it is unclear which medical conditions patients are attempting to treat with marijuana and whether they are communicating with medical providers about their use. To understand the medical reasons for marijuana use, forms of marijuana used for medical purposes, and disclosure of use to physicians. National, probability-based online survey. The USA, 2017. 16,280 US adults. Proportion of US adults who agreed with a statement. A total of 9003 participants completed the survey (55% response rate). Five hundred ninety-one (7% of US adults) reported using marijuana for medical purposes. The most common medical reasons for marijuana use were anxiety (49%), insomnia (47%), chronic pain (42%), and depression (39%). The most common forms of use for all medical conditions were smoking and edibles, followed by vaping, concentrate, and topical. We found women were more likely to use marijuana for posttraumatic stress disorder, sleep, anxiety, and migraines. We did not find substantial variation in medical reasons for marijuana use by race. Among those using marijuana for medical purposes, 21% did not have a doctor. Among those with doctors, 33% did not inform them, 28% reported their doctor was neutral on their use, 32% reported their doctor was supportive, and 8% reported their doctor was not supportive. Those who lived in states where medical marijuana was illegal were less likely to disclose use to their doctor. The online format of the survey may have caused selection bias. Wording of the questions may have affected interpretation. Doctors were not queried directly, rather participants were asked about their perception of doctor attitudes. Americans are using marijuana to treat medical conditions despite lack of evidence of efficacy.

Attitudes toward medical marijuana among substance use clinicians

ABSTRACTBackground: Research on health professional’s attitudes toward medical marijuana have failed to include addictions treatment professionals. The current study attempted to address this gap in the literature.Methods: Study participants were recruited by e-mail using mailing lists supplied by multiple state licensing/certification boards and through snowball sampling. Participants completed a 22-item survey addressing attitudes toward medical and recreational marijuana. The 13 items relating to medical marijuana were analyzed.Results: Our sample (N = 966) was largely female (69.1%) with a Masters’ or Doctoral degree (80%) and a mean age of 46.5 (SD = 12.8). Participants were mostly split between the mid-west and east coast. Overall, participants held mixed views toward medical marijuana. For example, 71.3% of the sample supported legalization of marijuana for medical purposes and yet 63.6% believed that medical marijuana is often abused.Conclusions: More research is needed to develop a more nuanced understanding of substance use treatment provider’s mixed attitudes toward medical marijuana legalization.

Marijuana as a Substitute for Prescription Medications: A Qualitative Study

Background: Over the past few decades in the United States, marijuana for medical purposes has become increasingly prevalent. Initial qualitative and epidemiological research suggests that marijuana may be a promising substitute for traditional pharmacotherapies. Objectives: This qualitative study examined perceptions relating to (1) using medical marijuana in comparison to other prescription medications and (2) user perception of policy issues that limit adoption of medical marijuana use. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with Rhode Island medical marijuana card holders (N = 25). The interviews followed a semi-structured agenda designed to collect information from participants about their reasons for, and perceptions of, medical marijuana use. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and de-identified. Qualitative codes were developed from the agenda and emergent topics raised by the participants. Results: Three themes emerged related to medical marijuana use, including (1) comparison of medical marijuana to other medications (i.e., better and/or fewer side effects than prescription medications, improves quality of life), (2) substitution of marijuana for other medications (i.e., in addition to or instead of), and (3) how perception of medical marijuana policy impacts use (i.e., stigma, travel, cost, and lack of instruction regarding use). Conclusions: Several factors prevent pervasive medical marijuana use, including stigma, cost, and the inability for healthcare providers to relay instructions regarding dosing, strain, and method of use. Findings suggest that medical patients consider marijuana to be a viable alternative for opioids and other prescription medications, though certain policy barriers inhibit widespread implementation of marijuana as a treatment option.

A comparison of the attitudes about the legalization of marijuana use for medical purposes by cancer patients in two cancer centers located in a legalized and a non-legalized state.

191 Background: There is limited evidence on the perception of medical marijuana (MM) among cancer patients in a legalized vs. a non-legalized state. In this study, we compared the attitudes of cancer patients in a legalized (Arizona) vs. a non-legalized state (Texas) on legalizing marijuana for medical use and their perception of its medical usefulness. We also examined their preference of MM for pain, anxiety and depression against current treatments and examined any demographic, physical or psychosocial association with its perception. Methods: Two hundred adult cancer patients were enrolled from the outpatient palliative care centers at Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center in Gilbert, AZ and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX. All patients were residents of the state where they were enrolled. Various physical and psychosocial instruments were collected including a survey designed to determine attitudes and beliefs of patient towards MM. Due to the sensitivity of information, no identifiers were associated with data recorded. Results: No significant difference was found between both locations in attitude towards legalizing MM [Arizona 92% (85 - 97%) vs. Texas 90% (82 - 95%); p = 0.81] and belief of its usefulness [Arizona 97% (92 - 99%) vs. Texas 93% (86 - 97%); p = 0.33]. Patients preferred MM over current treatments for anxiety [60% (51 – 68%); p = 0.003] but not for pain and depression. Patients who favored legalizing MM were younger (median age 59 vs. 67 y; p = 0.027) and had worse Edmonton Symptom Assessment System fatigue (median 5 vs 3; p = 0.015) and appetite (median 3 vs 0.5; p = 0.004) scores. There was a significant difference among those who have used MM (95%) and have not used MM (88%) in support of legalization of MM (p = 0.024). Conclusions: Cancer patients from both legalized and non-legalized states showed strong support for legalization of marijuana for medical purposes and strong belief in its medical use. Patient who are younger, and had worse fatigue and appetite showed higher support for medical marijuana.

Point/Counterpoint: Opioid Abuse in the United States

Point/Counterpoint: Opioid Abuse in the United States

Marijuana: Views on Its Medical Use Recorded at the Slovak Social Network.

We describe opinions on medical use of Cannabis sativa L under conditions of Slovakia (n = 717). Personal experience with marijuana was detected in 77.42% (n = 553) in age categories younger than 20 years (n = 96) and in 77.06% (n = 457) of adults. Almost 86% of respondents (n = 618) agreed with legal use of marijuana for medical purposes. Furthermore, respondents' views on legal usage of marijuana for medical purposes could be affected by availability of information (r = .12) and personal experience (r = .23). Negative impact of substance abuse in younger age-groups was recognized as threat (r = .47), but knowledge about harmful effect of marijuana use did not affect personal opinion for decriminalization (r = .38).

Differences in Medical Marijuana Card Registration by Geographic Regions in California

California was the first state to legalize marijuana for medical purposes. Individuals are issued identification card for medical marijuana use for patients with chronic medical conditions if directed by a physician. Surveys have suggested there are regional differences between northern California residents, particularly the Bay Area, and southern California residents with respect to medical marijuana use and legalization. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the California Department of Public Health statistics regarding medical marijuana card registrations over various geographic areas of California. The California Department of Public Health Medical Marijuana Card Registration database reflects this with more individuals in the Bay Area registered compared to those in the ten southernmost counties of California. The reasons for this are unclear but could fall along political party lines as more registered Democrats support medical marijuana legalization compared to registered Republicans. The benefits of medical marijuana and potential adverse medical and socioeconomic effects have not been fully elucidated. Conclusion: There is a need for further study of the potential benefits for medical marijuana use and the reasons for apparent regional different beliefs of medical marijuana use and medical marijuana card registration.

Opinions of Hospital Pharmacists in Canada Regarding Marijuana for Medical Purposes.

Canada's most recent Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations have changed the way in which patients access marijuana. Furthermore, if authorized by the person in charge of the hospital, a pharmacist practising in a hospital may now place orders with licensed producers for dried marijuana for in-hospital use by patients. As use of this product increases, hospital pharmacists may have an increased role in the care of patients who are using marijuana for medical purposes. The primary objective of this study was to determine the opinions of hospital pharmacists in Canada regarding marijuana for medical purposes. The secondary objective was to assess the factors influencing these opinions. An online survey was made available in early 2015 to licensed hospital pharmacists in Canada through individual provincial and territorial pharmacy regulatory bodies, pharmacist associations, hospital pharmacy directors, the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists, and the Association des pharmaciens des établissements de santé du Québec. Responses were based on a 5-point Likert style scale, ranging from "completely agree" to "completely disagree". A total of 769 valid survey responses were received. Among the respondents, 44.6% (333/747) agreed that marijuana is safe, whereas 55.2% (411/745) agreed that it is effective. Only 17.2% (129/748) agreed that they were knowledgeable about marijuana for medical purposes, and about 65% of respondents reported no formal training in this area. Factors that influenced respondents' opinions were age, education, area of clinical practice, province of work, and personal experience. Many Canadian hospital pharmacists agreed that marijuana for medical purposes is safe and effective, yet few considered themselves knowledgeable about this substance, with more than half reporting no formal training on the topic.

Medical marijuana: hints of headway? Despite a conflicted regulatory landscape, support for medical marijuana is growing amid increasing evidence of potential benefits.

Medical marijuana: hints of headway? Despite a conflicted regulatory landscape, support for medical marijuana is growing amid increasing evidence of potential benefits.

Medical Marijuana: The Pitfalls and the Pendulum

Marijuana (both Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa) was criminalized in the U.S. in 1937, and has been classified as a Schedule I medical plant, meaning it has no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, since 1970 [1]. Various medical organizations including the AMA, American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Society of Addiction Medicine, have taken positions opposing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. However, the pendulum of public opinion has clearly begun to swing the other direction. At the present time, 23 states and the district of Columbia have approved the use of marijuana to treat various medical conditions, notwithstanding the continuing Federal ban [2]. The conditions for which medical marijuana use has been approved vary from state to state, and in most cases do not meet the standards that would be required for FDA approval for a new medication [3]. In part, this reflects the current paradoxical position of marijuana in the field of medicine where use for specific conditions is being approved on an ad hoc basis by state legislatures, while Federal law prevents the type of large-scale randomized placebo controlled trials that would normally be required for FDA approval.

The effects of medical marijuana laws on illegal marijuana use

More and more states have passed laws that allow individuals to use marijuana for medical purposes. There is an ongoing, heated policy debate over whether these laws have increased marijuana use among non-patients. In this paper, I address that question empirically by studying marijuana possession arrests in cities from 1988 to 2008. I estimate fixed effects models with city-specific time trends that can condition on unobserved heterogeneities across cities in both their levels and trends. I find that these laws increase marijuana arrests among adult males by about 15–20%. These results are further validated by findings from data on treatment admissions to rehabilitation facilities: marijuana treatments among adult males increased by 10–20% after the passage of medical marijuana laws.

Irrational Basis: The Legal Status of Medical Marijuana

In a growing number of states, medical marijuana occupies a dual legal status. The federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, signifying that it has both a high potential for abuse and no acceptable medical use. Patients and physicians are thus subject to the same federal criminal penalties as any other individuals who produce, distribute, or possess marijuana. By mid-2009, however, fourteen states had decided to permit medical marijuana under certain circumstances. Through voter initiatives or legislation, these states have exempted patients and physicians from prosecution for violating state laws governing the use, possession, or cultivation of marijuana. The disparate legal regimes have generated much litigation, including two cases that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Both cases rejected challenges to federal enforcement of the CSA in California, the state with the most liberal provisions on medical marijuana. Under the Court decisions, federal authorities could continue to take action against patients, physicians, and others who were protected under state medical marijuana laws. Two recent legal developments are more favorable to states seeking to permit medical marijuana, however. First, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal Drug Enforcement Agency would limit future raids and other enforcement activity to individuals violating both federal and state criminal law. This means that people complying with state medical marijuana laws will no longer be targeted by federal law enforcement officials. Holder said that under his leadership, the agency would focus its efforts on large-scale commercial marijuana operations. (1) In a second development with implications for state marijuana laws, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a court decision upholding legislation implementing California's medical marijuana law. In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, designed to ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician. (2) Seven years later, the California legislature enacted the Medical Marijuana Program Act to supplement the earlier law. (3) The 2003 law requires counties to participate in a system that enables patients and caregivers to register and obtain identification cards protecting them from arrest for violating state marijuana prohibitions. County versus State versus Federal Authority California officials unhappy with the state's permissive stance on medical marijuana balked at the mandate to create the identification system. San Diego and San Bernardino counties brought a lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration that they were not required to comply with the state's mandate. According to the plaintiffs, the California law was preempted by the CSA, which fails to exempt medical marijuana from the usual criminal penalties. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to supersede state law. Over the years, courts have developed principles for determining when federal law preempts state law. Congressional purpose is the central consideration in resolving preemption claims. The easiest case arises when Congress includes in the legislative text an explicit provision on whether the law is intended to preempt state rules. In other cases, courts consider factors such as whether the state law under challenge presents an obstacle to achieving Congress's objectives in enacting the pertinent federal law. In 2008, a California appellate court ruled against the counties, holding that preemption failed to bar implementation of the California identification card program. (4) As the court noted, the CSA itself states that it is not intended to preempt state laws unless there is a positive conflict between [the CSA and state law] so that the two cannot consistently stand together. …

Good Cop, Bad Cop: Federal Prosecution of State-Legalized Medical Marijuana Use after United States v. Lopez

The Supreme Court's recent decisions in United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison articulate a vision of federalism under which Congress's regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause is severely limited in favor of returning traditional areas of state concern, particularly criminal law enforcement, to local or state control. The Court's decisions in these cases coincide with ballot initiatives legalizing the medical use of marijuana garnering a majority of the vote in California, Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Maine, and Washington D.C. Those who use marijuana for medical purposes under sanction of state law, however, still face the threat of federal prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act. Medical marijuana proponents have traditionally, and unsuccessfully, contested federal prosecution using individual rights arguments under theories of equal protection or substantive due process. This Comment argues that after Lopez and Morrison, the federal government's authority to regulate intrastate use of marijuana for medicinal purposes is not the foregone conclusion it once was. The author suggests that proponents of medical marijuana use should invoke the federalism arguments of Lopez and Morrison and argue for state legislative independence from the federal government on this issue.