Medical marijuana prescriptions for minors?

In 1913, California became the first state to outlaw marijuana. However, in 1996, under the Compassionate Use Act (also known as California’s Proposition 215), California became the first state to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes only. Since then, 13 other states have followed California in legalizing medical marijuana. Recently, the Justice Department stated that people who use medical marijuana or distribute it would not face federal prosecution, as long as they follow state law. This is a big step forward because prior to this, the federal government could press charges because marijuana isn’t legal on a federal level, but just in certain states. Also, this is a big step because it shows that the Obama administration is focusing on more important issues such as the war in Iraq or Healthcare.

Another thing currently happing with marijuana is its drug classification. In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act which classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it had no medicinal value and a high potential for abuse. However as we see with the passing of the Compassionate Use Act, this might not be the case anymore, in terms of its medicinal value. The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest physicians organization, recommended that marijuana’s schedule classification be reviewed “for the purpose of facilitating research and the development of cannabinoid-based medicines.”

While the above policies are good news for the medical marijuana world, a new development is emerging in California that is becoming the center for debate for doctors. Doctors have now been prescribing minors who suffer from ADHD medical marijuana. Stephen Hinshaw, the chairman of the psychology department at Berkeley stated in response to this: “How many ways can one say one of the worst ideas of all time?”

While some doctors say medical marijuana is safer than aspirin and Ritalin and helps alleviate symptoms of anxiety and anger, others say the THS in marijuana will just further intensify those with ADHD because it disrupts attention, memory and concentration. A second concern of doctors with prescribing minors medical marijuana is the issue of dependency. One doctor states: “It’s detrimental to adolescents who chronically use it, and if it’s being used medically, that implies chronic use.” A second doctor, Dr. Nora D. Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, describes that risk of dependency is a big issue because dependency is already high among adolescents and people with attention-deficit disorder.” Another possible risk with the use of medical marijuana by minors is the increase risk of psychosis and schizophrenia for those genetically predisposed to those illnesses.

While I support the use of medical marijuana and the legalization of marijuana in general, I have to admit that I am a little uneasy with giving a 14 year old a prescription for medical marijuana. While some research supports use of marijuana in helping those suffering from ADHD, I feel more research needs to be done with minors specifically. Also, while many do not consider marijuana to be an addictive drug, I do agree that minors would be more susceptible to developing a dependency on it.

Reconciling Faith and Politics? No thank you Obama

As the first African-American president of the United States, Barack Obama is naturally one of the most well known public figures in America. Obama, to some, may also be considered one of the most popular public intellectuals of our time. While some of this can be attributed to his respected views and speeches on current issues, a big chunk of his popularity as a public intellectual is due to the successful marketing and branding of his 2008 presidential campaign. Voting for Obama quickly became the “it” thing to do among new voters and wearing a shirt with his face on it became the new Hollywood trend. Regardless of the fabricated Obama hype, Barak Obama does remain a public intellectual worth listening to, even if you do not agree with everything he may say.

In June 2006, Obama, then senator of Illinois, delivered his “Call to Renewal” speech to an evangelical audience about his own personal religious beliefs and doubts, and about the role of faith in a pluralistic country. In the beginning of his speech, he discussed the problem America has with the finding the right balance of faith in politics:

For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today … is between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.

This excerpt from Obama’s speech touches on one of the longest on-going issues in the history of the United States - the separation of Church and State, or in my eyes, the lack thereof. As Peter Beinart of The New Republic argues:

What these (and most other) liberals are saying is that the Christina Right sees politics through the prism of theology, and there’s something dangerous in that. And they’re right. It’s fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them – as much as possible – in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. …In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can’t be theological.

I myself am a strong supporter of keeping religion and politics separate from each other; partly because I am not religious, but also because I believe politics should not be based on the Bible or the word of God, and rather on facts and concrete evidence. In examining past and recent history, the line separating church and state has become blurred. One reason for this is pretty simple; the majority of people in the United States are religious, thus probably don’t oppose blurring the line of separation as much as I do. Another reason for the blurring of church and state is that most of our public leaders and public intellectuals have come from a religious background. This point is discussed by Stephen Mack in his article “The Wicked Paradox Redux Again.”

American democracy has always depended on public figures—and public intellectuals—whose work has been animated by strong faith. Billy Graham’s efforts to promote racial harmony during the 1950s, and Reinhold Neibuhr’s work for economic justice throughout his career come quickly to mind.

One of these public intellectuals that Stephen Mack describes is our current president. As a person of faith, it is not Obama’s mission to keep the Church and State completely separated. Instead he hopes to achieve a balance between faith and politics in our pluralistic and largely religious country. He explains:

And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.

However, as a politician and public intellectual advocating for a peaceful union of faith and politics, Obama is careful in choosing his words; he does not want to turn away supporters by being too radical with his message. He balances out his message by acknowledging the religious diversity in the United States:

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

In the end, while I do consider Barack Obama to be a public intellectual and I respect the majority of his views, he does not have my support on reconciling faith and politics. I understand that a majority of Americans are religious and thus do support bringing faith into politics, however many current issues we face today are the result of religion mixing with politics.