Thrive II Preview

Prestigious Doctors Are Pushing to Legalize Recreational Cannabis

Recreational Cannabis-compressed

By Elizabeth Montag | Humans Are Free

The nonprofit organization, Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (DFCR), is the first national medical organization to advocate total legalization, backing up their goal with sound arguments about the failures of prohibition and the myriad potential benefits of cannabis.


According to the Washington Post, DFCR will announce its formation on Monday.

The nonprofit organization, Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (DFCR), is the first national medical organization to advocate total legalization, backing up their goal with sound arguments about the failures of prohibition and the myriad potential benefits of cannabis.

According to the Washington Post, DFCR will announce its formation on Monday.

The group includes physicians from Harvard University, Rutgers University, Brown University, Columbia University, the John Hopkins General Preventive Medicine program, and even former surgeon general Joycelyn Elders. DFCR’s goals are simple.

According to their website:

“Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (DFCR) serves as a voice for physicians who believe that cannabis prohibition has failed and that the misuse of cannabis should be treated as a health issue rather than a criminal one.

“DFCR’s physician members strive neither to minimize nor to exaggerate scientific literature about the risks and benefits of cannabis use.”

The group still discourages recreational use but acknowledges the many pitfalls of prohibition. DFCR’s website also offers a brief history of how marijuana became illegal:

“Marijuana prohibition began in the 1930s based on bad science and scare tactics that claimed it was highly addictive, made users violent, and was fatal in overdose. The medical community now agrees that none of those assertions are true,” DFCR states.

“Though they don’t deny safety concerns about youth cannabis use and other specific situations, they maintain “there is also convincing evidence that occasional use of cannabis causes no problems for the great majority of adults. And alcohol and tobacco pose a far greater threat to public health than marijuana.”

“You don’t have to be pro-marijuana to be opposed to its prohibition,” says David L. Nathan, DFCR founder and board president.

He is a distinguished fellow at the American Psychiatric Association and an associate professor at Rutgers’ Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.

“Doctors should affirmatively support this,” he said.

“If you’re going to make something against the law, the health consequences of that use have to be so bad to make it worth creating criminal consequences. That was never true of marijuana. It was banned in 1937 over the objections of the American Medical Association (AMA).”

As the Washington Post’s Christopher Ingraham explains, the AMA now believes marijuana is a “dangerous drug” and “a public health concern.”

The group acknowledges a need for “the modification of state and federal laws to emphasize public health based strategies,” but remains opposed to legalization.

In contrast, DFCR advocates full legalization, in large part so the government can regulate it. This view is arguably controversial, especially considering the federal government’s dubious track record on regulating cannabis.

Nevertheless, DFCR argues that “if cannabis is decriminalized rather than legalized, the government cannot regulate its production and sale, leaving it vulnerable to contamination and adulteration.”

“The only rational approach to the cannabis trade is for the Government to regulate and tax it, directing significant revenues to evidence-based drug education and treatment,” the group argues.

Legalization of marijuana generally comes with regulations, taxation, and restrictions.

Decriminalization removes penalties for individuals users but prohibits commercial operations.

Though there is disagreement among anti-prohibitionists about the future of marijuana freedom, anincreasing number of Americans are starting to agree that current government policy is archaic.

One such example, as reported by Christopher Ingraham this week, is the federal government’s expenditure of $18 million last year to destroy marijuana confiscated by local and state authorities around the country.

They did so even as researchers have struggled to obtain the plant for scientific study.

Resistance to legalization also continues to permeate the medical community. Robert DuPont, the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the second White House drug czar, said the “notion of doctors advocating for marijuana legalization is ‘totally idiotic.’”

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE…

Tags: , , ,

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

New Title

NOTE: Email is optional. Do NOT enter it if you do NOT want it displayed.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the articles on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Top
Send this to a friend