Marijuana Legalization Research Paper

Ethical Considerations and Limitations

The marijuana legalization debate is inseparably steeped in the legal, socio-political and cultural factors, which make it difficult for even medical practitioners to be unbiased. Marijuana legalization is a political, social and political issue, and medical practitioners hold opinions that inevitably affect their professional judgment. People tend to seek information that confirms their biases, which means that medical practitioners are just as susceptible to biases despite the extensive scientific knowledge and experience. Since it is impossible to separate the influence of sociocultural, legal and political factors on the respondents, the proposed study will try to have the respondents to try and identify such influences in order to try and disentangle them from the professional opinions (Ponto, 2006; Creswell, 1998).

Unresolved Ethical & Methodological Issues

According to Ponto (2006), scientists are agreed on the widespread use and low level of addiction resulting from marijuana use, but research evidence remains inconclusive on the benefits and costs of legalizing the drug. For instance, the variability of potency inherent to any natural product means that research on its effects and medical usefulness (including body tolerance among occasional illegal users) is bound to be affected. Similar methodological difficulties that may lead to differing scientific results occur leading to in varying outcomes on lifetime and immediate exposure among other factors. Effectively, the causal link between marijuana and cancer as well as mental illnesses such as anxiety and depression will remain largely inconclusive and speculative even among the most experienced medical practitioners and researchers. This means that medical professionals are more likely to rely on lay opinions and socio-political persuasions compared to the concrete scientific evidence that is largely unreliable and inconclusive.
While the necessity of scientific research is critical to determine the costs and benefits of marijuana, such unadulterated research is impossible for several reasons. To begin with, there are technical difficulties in studying a substance that is essentially illegal in many parts of the United States and the rest of the world. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I Controlled Substance under Tittle II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (1970), which means that it is open to abuse and lacks any currently accepted medical use and thus may only be used under limited circumstances (including scientific research). This classification renders it illegal to produce, possess and sell it (Library of Congress, 2014; US Drug Enforcement Administration, 2011). The legal restrictions in accessing Schedule I drugs, which are coupled with the difficulty with subject honesty as well as the reliability of their memory dealing with the substances. Since the medical practitioners may feel that views volunteered in this study may reflect negatively on their professionalism and patient confidentiality, there is a heightened need for non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements.
The proposed study will include a several measures to mitigate against the limitations. Firstly, the sample will comprise of medical professionals drawn from varied fields (including psychiatry, respiratory, radiologists, paediatric doctors, etc.) to vitiate against potential bias resulting from professional specialization. For instance, a physician, surgeon or nurse may be overly concerned about pain management, psychiatrists want to know the neurological and psychological effects that marijuana may cause. In addition, informed consent will be sought from all participants in order to ensure that only those professionals that are willing to take part in the proposed study do so, and have accurate expectations of what the intended study will seek to accomplish. The researchers equally realize the importance of protecting the confidentiality of the respondents. To this end, the subjects will only be identified by randomly assigned codes kept separate from their actual identity. Further, the data volunteered may only be used for the purposes of the proposed study and will not be passed on to unauthorised persons. All data would be kept in password protected databases (or safe) and all data would be irretrievably destroyed six months after the study is completed.
Despite these limitations, the proposed, study will be valuable to the respondents in several ways. To begin with, it will give them an opportunity to articulate their opinions about the costs and benefits of legalizing marijuana (US Drug Enforcement Administration, 2011; Library of Congress, 2014; Ponto, 2006). It allow other professionals in the field to learn from one another, and find a proper context for their own views on the same. The researchers stand to benefit. This is not only because the proposed study will yield new and informed insight on the potential costs and benefits of marijuana. This is especially important in making the case for, or against medical marijuana, because the study will speak to the putative benefits of the drug in pain management and other uses. It is expected that the respondents will give a better insight than the lay opinions on the benefits and costs of marijuana due to their professional training and experience (Creswell, 1998; Ponto, 2006).

References

Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Library of Congress. (2014, March 24). Congressional Research Service Report Marijuana: Medical and Retail - An Abbreviated View of legal Issues. Retrieved Mar 14, 2015
Ponto, L. L. (2006). Challenges of marijuana research. Oxford Journals, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/awl092 1081-1083.
US Drug Enforcement Administration. (2011). Drugs of Abuse. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.