Article Analysis on Marijuana

aesculapian ganja? A young woman has HIV. In note, she has had HIV for 7 years. She promise it from her boyfriend after her first sexual experience. Unfortunately, she has interpreted a deviate for the worse. Her body is now deteriorating. She is going through cachexia, what star would refer to as HIV wasting syndrome. Cachexia defined, is the physical wasting and malnutrition of the body that is associated with chronic dis simmpleness. HIV wasting syndrome causes infected people to lose weight and to place upright from damaging diarrhea, among se comp arate things. She is al agencys in an extensive amount of pain, bear upon numerous parts of her body.The physicians that she visits have tried countless treatments to slake her deplorable however, nothing seems to work. thither is an experimental medicate, on the other hand, whose efficacy to alleviate HIV wasting symptoms is cosmos tested now. The do doses that could help ease this young womans pain and suffering is g roundworknabis or, in other words, ganja. Marijuana, in roughly states, is said to have no health check examination benefits. Therefore, it is considered a schedule 1 controlled drug by the matter government. This promoter that ganja cannot be used as treatment for any medical examination checkup settings or ailments.The young girl now faces the grim reality that erect aboutthing extinct there may be able to lessen her suffering, but because of governmentally mandated laws, she get out not be able to obtain it lawfully. galore(postnominal) American citizens face this scenario each year. Whether marihuana is illegal or not is not up for debate in this experiment. What is up for discussion is if marijuana can be used as an effective drug to provide medically defined sick individuals with relief from what ails them. As afore mentioned, this essay is to discuss the legitimation or continued illegalization of medical marijuana for the sake of the some(prenominal) citiz ens in poor health. David G.Evans wrote a letter to the succession magazine editor en coroneted, medical examination Marijuana an oxymoron. David G. Evans argues that the national government should continue the prohibition of medical exam Marijuana. His most justified argument is the fact that the Food and Drug governing has nevertheless to approve medical marijuana for medical use (Evans par. 2). On the other hand, Kevin OBrien and Peter A. Clark argue for the legalization of medical marijuana in needinessed typesetters slipperinesss. They claim that in some instances medical marijuana is the merely form of euphony that is effective. They both collaborated to write the event study Mothers and discussion the case of aesculapian Marijuana. A third oblige leave alone be used to discredit or reinforce each clauses claims in a judicious indiscriminate manner. The third condition is a research writing written by Tia Taylor from the American College of Physicians. The den omination is regarding medical marijuana. This in-depth researched paper has highly researched and keep backed arguments. The research papers goal is to clarify the Physicians intentions for medical marijuana and to argue reasons how medical marijuana could be an asset to the medical field. The two phrases atomic number 18 soundly written as well(p) as principally factual.Notwithstanding, one article is more than(prenominal) persuasive and more factually establish then the other. The case study Mother and son the case of medical marijuana has meagerly more reasonable claims, therefore it would seem to have the better argument. In an attempt to be unbiased, a comprehensive analysis of both articles is needed. This leave be done in a way that discusses each creators claims and some of their intrinsic worth. The title of the first article is Medical Marijuana an oxymoron. This article is a letter to the editor printed in Time Magazine and written by David G. Evans. David G.E vans is the executive director of the Drug-Free Schools Coalition, a program that teaches children about the dangers of using drugs. His job qualifications entail knowing info about marijuana and other ruinous drugs. As a result, he is well informed about secretes of drugs as well as universe a stern opponent of anything pro-drug. He fools a great grass of relevant claims. One such claim is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to approve smoke marijuana as medicine (Evans par. 2). This is because smoked marijuana has yet to meet the clinical trial hackneyeds for public use.Many organizations reject marijuana because smoked marijuana is crude or useless (Evans par. 4). Marijuana is not a real proper choice of medicine when compared to other safer and effective drugs. Evans claims that smoking is not the most effective way to deliver the drug to the body (Evans par. 5). In addition to not being able to calculate the venereal disease of marijuana effectively, there are harmful side effects that the use of marijuana can create. He claims that marijuana use increases the chances of addiction and drug use among children (Evans par. 7).He in any case claims that marijuanas continued mainstreaming is obstructing childrens view of it as a heavy drug. He goes on to say that, the states with pro-medical marijuana initiatives have the highest amount of drug addictions (Evans par. 7). He goes on to end by give tongue to that he is a pubic louse survivor and he knows how it feels to have feelings of hopelessness (Evans par. 9). He says that he is not against people who actually need medical marijuana. He is in opposition to the people who testament manipulate the system to support their drug habits (Evans par. 8).The following article is entitled Mother and son the case of medical marijuana from The Hastings Center Report. This second article is a case study done by Kevin 0Brien and Peter A. Clark. The subject of the case study is a family, a mother and her seven-year-old son JJ. JJ is hyperactive and competitive in fact, he has been like this for most of his life (Clark, OBrien par 1). He has seen numerous physicians as well as had numerous medicines convinced(p) to help treat his condition (Clark, OBrien 2). Nonetheless, nothing seems to work in truth effectively.JJs mother began trying to find alternatives that could possibly help her son. In 2001, she discovered that marijuana could possibly help her son (Clark, OBrian par. 3). With counseling from her sons physician, she began JJ on a daily regimen of marijuana. and so far, JJs mother has seen improvement in her sons condition after treating him with medical marijuana. Medical marijuana has helped this young child function. Kevin OBrien and Peter A. Clark have written their sound judgements in this case study however, this essay will only focus on Peter A. Clarks touch for the sake of time.Peter A. Clark is an associate professor of health administration and god at Saint Josephs University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is also the bioethicist for Mercer Health formation in Philadelphia. He supports the use of medical marijuana. He reinforces his opinion by using information from eleven scientists commissioned by the president of the unify States and appointed by the Institute of Medicine to study marijuana in 1999 (Clark, OBrian par. 14). The reports say that the benefits of the medical use of marijuana are restrain because of the adverse affect of the smoke.They still recommended the use of it if no other options were effective. They also found that administering the drug to sick people does not influence the drug use of the general public. According to the study, marijuana is not a inlet drug and the fact that the government still has not reclassified marijuana as a schedule 2 drug is jeopardizing the health and well-being of many Americans (Clark, OBrian par. 14). He says that we are now faced with two good and bad consequen ces marijuana can sometimes work better than some conventional methods and marijuana has adverse long-term effects that can conk out to addiction (Clark, O Brian par. 5). He also negotiation about the fact that Marinol is an alternative to marijuana however, it has its shortcomings (Clark, OBrien par. 17). Marinol is a synthetic form of marijuana. Although it negates the nix effects of marijuana, Marinol is very expensive $500 dollars for 100 ten-milligram capsules. It is reported by patients that Marinol is very strong but weakens severely after continued use. He also says that studies show that marijuana works more effectively than Marinol. That is wherefore marijuana is a better choice of drug than Marinol both preciousness and effectiveness (Clark, OBrian par. 17).He opines that the only main concerns about medical marijuana are the chances of long-term complications and the fact that the sexually transmitted disease, sometime in the future, will have to be increased (Clar k, OBrien par. 18). He ends by saying that it is unacceptable for physicians to refuse to offer medicinal marijuana to patients. Some patients are suffering badly and traditional treatments are not working for them (Clark, OBrien par. 18). The doctor is obligated to help the patient by any authority necessary. Both of the articles talk about whether or not smoked marijuana is an effective way to administer cannabis to a patient.I believe that this argument is a very important argument in prescribe to show which author supports their argument with strong, factual evidence. However, to do this effectively another(prenominal) more proven source must be introduced. The third article is a paper written by Tia Taylor from the American College of Physicians titled Supporting interrogation into the Therapeutic Role of Marijuana. This article is more scientifically based then the other two. The article is a position paper showing the American College of Physicians reasons why they believe the government should support the scientific study of medical marijuana.The position paper has very well written arguments however, to reach a well thought out cobblers ultimately for this essay I will only use one controlling argument. In Supporting Research into the Therapeutic Role of Marijuana, one of the arguments that Tia Taylor writes about is the difference between smoke marijuana and an orally administered form of marijuana (American College Par. 22). She says that when first administered, oral tetrahydrocannabinol is much bumper-to-bumper reacting than its counterpart is. According to the article, oral THC also produces adverse symptoms that last more extensively han those created from smoking marijuana do (American College Par. 22). The article says that smoked THC imbibes quickly through the bloodstream therefore, the effects are matte quicker than orally administered THC. She ends by saying that in some view smoked marijuana can be a more suppress approach than the oral form of THC. At this moment, enough is known on the subject of oral THC opposed to smoke THC to make an informed decision on which author comprehensively argued his position. In his article, Medical marijuana an oxymoron, David G. Evans says that smoked marijuana is an ineffective way to issue THC (Evans par. ). He also says that it is impossible to calculate the medical marijuana dosage this way. He finishes by discussing the adverse effect on health of marijuana. Although Kevin OBrien does not talk about the efficacy of smoked marijuana, he does discuss the dosage problem of marijuana. He says that marijuana is a drug and since it is self-medicated, it is supposed to be cautiously used and not abused (OBrien Par. 10). He also talks about the fact that marijuana is, in the long-term, harmful. However, sometimes there are no other options. Although both authors did not complete a very effective argument, David G.Evans argument is more plausible. His argument, in some ways, follows the analytical standard set. He talks more about facts than Kevin OBrien, who uses more of an emotionally backed argument. The articles from Kevin OBrien and David G. Evans have valid arguments. This part of the essay will examine the approach that each author took to discuss his respective opinion. Kevin OBriens argument is less based on facts and more based upon emotion. He argues more about the fact that we should be sympathetic for those who need medical marijuana (OBrien Par. 6).He loses a great deal of credibleness relaying so heavily on emotion. David G. Evans bases his arguments on facts. He makes a healthy effort to leave emotion out of his article. He is a cancer survivor and he could have written regarding his own personal affair with a debilitating disease. However, he decided to make a more factual based argument. So therefore, in my opinion, David G. Evans article is more effective at getting his point across. Although this essay is about other authors opin ion on a certain subject, this subject is very significant today.The national government is in dispute over the issue of medical marijuana, and not just medical marijuana the government is debating whether to legalize marijuana completely. There are issues with medical marijuana that must be resolved in the first place the government downgrades it to a schedule 2 drug. In addition, both authors know these issues and discussed them eloquently even though they had their own individual biases. The intent of this article is not to show that one of the authors was right and one was wrong, but just to show which author constructed a better argument.What needs to be taken away from this essay is the fact that the government needs to address the issue of medical marijuana straight out. Works citied American College of Physicians. Supporting Research into the Therapeutic Role of Marijuana. Philadelphia American College of Physicians 2008 Position Paper. Evans, David G. Medical marijuana a n oxymoron? scrape & Allergy News 36. 9 (2005) 14+. faculty member OneFile. Web. 16 Nov. 2009. . Evans, David G. Medical marijuana an oxymoron? Skin & Allergy News 36. 9 (2005) 14+. Academic OneFile. Web. 16 Nov. 2009. .