The Supreme Court`s decision in the Raich case appears to strike down all state laws legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Nevertheless, States continue to adopt such laws. Thus, the tension between state and federal rights is always evident. What many people don`t know, and it`s unclear to what extent self-prescribing doctors know, while a state law can legalize medical marijuana in a particular state, federal regulations still apply — including criminal and civil penalties. In addition, prescribers should be aware of patients who reside, or even travel frequently, to a state other than the one where the physician practices or is licensed. Among the general public, 30% say they support legalizing marijuana use and have always felt so, while 21% have changed their minds; They say there was a time when they thought it should be illegal. On the other hand, 35% say they are against legalization and have always felt this way; Only 7% changed their minds, switching from support to opposition to legalization. This means that researchers working in this field need to pay much more attention to the specific mechanisms that may influence different types of policies and consider them in the appropriate timeframe when assessing the impact on specific populations. In Figure 2, we show some of the main mechanisms discussed in the literature by which these policy changes could affect use (i.e., perceived harm, disapproval of regular use, legal risk of use, ease of access and price), as well as the hypothetical impact of different types of policies on each.
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. Evidence that MML laws continue to evolve in an increasingly medicalized direction is demonstrated by the increasing number of elevated CBD laws since 2014. CBD is a naturally occurring non-psychoactive compound found in cannabis that has been shown in various clinical studies not only to have therapeutic effects, but also to counteract the intoxicating effects of THC (Koppel et al. 2014, Russo et al., 2007, Whiting et al., 2015). These new laws allow qualified patients to use CBD extract, primarily in oil form, with minimal THC content, and its use is generally only allowed for a limited number of conditions. Sixteen states have passed CBD laws since 2014, but these guidelines have been largely ignored by stakeholders, and no research examines their effects (NCSL 2016b). With a few exceptions, there are still limited regulations on potency (concentration of THC) and other cannabinoids, medical device testing, and methods of consumption. Other risks associated with marijuana found in the 2010 study include addiction, anxiety and mood disorders. Observational studies suggest that one in nine people who regularly smoke marijuana become addicted to it, especially if they smoke for an extended period of time. One of these factors may be the concentration of THC in the herbal form of marijuana. In the United States, as well as in Europe, the concentration of THC in marijuana sold ranged from 1% to 4%, but it appears that this figure has risen to 7%.
While many marijuana users claim that marijuana calms them down, others don`t. The most commonly reported side effects of smoking marijuana are intense anxiety and panic attacks. Studies show that 20% to 30% of marijuana users experience these side effects and that a higher dose of THC has also been shown to increase anxiety. Marijuana can also induce manic episodes and increase the rapid cycle between manic and depressive moods in patients with bipolar disorder, but it is not fully understood whether marijuana users are at increased risk of developing bipolar disorder. Several observational studies have also shown that for some users, marijuana can increase symptoms of depression and increase the risk of developing depression. In addition, the government`s claim that marijuana is a gateway drug that can lead to harder drugs has not been proven and is less conclusive than all of the medical risks mentioned above . To Alfonso and others, what about Rick Simpson Oil (R.S.O.)? I am referring to the life experience of Canadian artist Alan Park (Royal Canadian Air Farce Sketch Comedy Ensemble, a popular Canadian national comedy television show). He used RSO in suppository form and reportedly reduced his PSA blood test from about 700 to almost zero, over a period of maybe five months! He was diagnosed with stage four prostate cancer after going to the doctor for an unrelated complaint, and subsequent diagnostic tests revealed his completely unexpected advanced prostate cancer. Apparently, according to his doctor, he could not be offered conventional treatment because of the advanced stage of his prostate cancer. The doctor gave him about three months to live. He has celebrated three years of survival since his first cancer diagnosis.
Rick Simpson is a Canadian citizen who appears to have been subject to a legal constraint associated with his entire conversion of marijuana plants into some type of oil concentrate. Alan Park uses RSO in suppository form. Alan Park has an online casting called GREEN CRUSH, which is related to marijuana issues, medical marijuana, and his personal experiences. If his medical history is accurate and supports prostate cancer treatment in a truly effective and measurable evidence-based way, we should turn our attention to this area of research that is the most cheesy! This certainly seems convincing to me, at least on the face of his account of his very unconventional personal experience and testimony. 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. While a strong case can be made for the medical and ethical basis for the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, the strong anti-drug stance of the United States  makes it impossible to consider the issue without considering its legal implications. The legalization of marijuana for medical purposes refers to various areas of law. The first, and perhaps most obvious, is criminal law.
As a Schedule I drug , the most stringent classification under the current federal regime, marijuana is heavily regulated at the federal, state and local levels. Second, administrative law issues are raised by the right of states to participate in regulation-making and to enact laws that violate established precedents in federal criminal law. Finally, health law is involved. While medical marijuana is overshadowed by the criminal and administrative implications, it raises important questions regarding physician and patient rights, particularly medical autonomy, as well as medical malpractice such as overuse by patients, over-prescribing by physicians for profit, and use by non-patients. including second-hand use.