UC Merced Undergraduate Research Journal

Medical marijuana legalization has become both a medical and legal issue. Papers range from casual discussion, passionate and involved such as those by Annas¹ and Okie², to serious logical argument exemplified beautifully in Cohen’s³ work.  Annas¹ and Okie² focused on California’s 1996 medical marijuana law and the 2005 Supreme Court trial Gonzales v. Raich respectively.  Cohen³ had a larger scope, reviewing marijuana’s history in the United States from the colonial era to present-day. While the former sources made mention of some valuable scientific evidence, they did so amidst a great deal of personal appeal and anecdotes about those affected. Quotes from doctors, talking about their personal recommendations for patients to use marijuana, and, admittedly, evocative statements from politicians or newspapers frame the discussions. For instance, Annas quotes a Boston Globe writer’s question asking that if legalizing medical marijuana would send the terrible message to children that “If you hurry up and get cancer, you, too, can get high?”¹.  Cohen’s argument did not lack pathos, but he presented his opinion in a strong logical argument, clearly referencing medical findings. All three papers argued, presuming that sufficient medical evidence exists to prescribe marijuana. They, instead, focused on the issue marijuana’s legality, rather than on analyzing the validity of the cited data.