Usually when I get into this discussion, people think I'm just another college stoner who wants to legalize marijuana so I can have cheap access to pot without the potential legal consequences. That's not the case.

Evidence suggests that marijuana has medicinal benefits and is safer than some prescription drugs and even some substances available to the general public. That being the case, people should have access to prescribed medicinal marijuana. 

It wasn't until the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, which severely restricted physicians' ability to prescribe the drug, did marijuana leave American pharmacies.

The American Medical Association protested at the time because the act limited medicinal options for patients. 

 Later, in 1972, the Nixon-appointed National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse announced that there was a lack of sound evidence for the prohibition of the drug.

Despite the findings in the 70s, marijuana is still prohibited. Why are fewer restrictions placed on more harmful substances, such as tobacco and alcohol? With no conclusive evidence that the drug has reason to be banned, is a patient's access to the drug still restricted?  

Traditionally, medicinal marijuana has been suggested to help treat nausea, especially for people going through cancer treatments such as chemotherapy. It has also been suggested for people with gastrointestinal disorders who experience severe nausea. Marijuana does, in fact, relieve nausea and could be used to relieve suffering for many patients.

Some recent studies also suggest marijuana could not just be used as a pain-relieving drug, but that it also has the potential to delay the progression of some diseases such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel syndrome and perhaps even Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease.

It is now believed that marijuana is actually safer than people once thought. Some studies suggest heavy use of marijuana produces significantly less damage on the lungs of the smoker and the lungs of others than equal use of tobacco cigarettes. Interestingly enough, the government requires cigarette companies to place surgeon general warnings on packages and advertisements, and the government even restricts how tobacco companies can advertise. But with all the evidence clearly linking tobacco cigarettes to cancers, there is no restriction on how much tobacco can be consumed. If a harmful substance like tobacco is not limited, why is something with clear medicinal benefits prohibited?

Studies also suggest that marijuana cigarettes are significantly less addictive than narcotics, alcohol, tobacco and even caffeine. Marijuana use proves to be much less addicting than many substances, some of which are not controlled.

Although physicians may not legally prescribe marijuana to patients, they can recommend marijuana's use to treat symptoms. On Sept. 7, 2000, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in Conant v. McCaffery that federal authorities may not sanction doctors who recommend marijuana to patients.

I am one of those patients.

As someone who suffers from a chronic gastrointestinal disorder, I have seen doctors who have actually suggested I consider smoking pot to alleviate some of my symptoms. But upon this kind of recommendation, I face a tough situation. I can break the law and buy and smoke weed to cope with symptoms, I can try medications or I can chose not to treat my uncomfortable symptoms at all.

Yes, there are many anti-nausea medications available too, but some, such as prescription based Reglan, can have side effects worse than their intended good. Some of the mild side effects include drowsiness, fatigue, headaches and confusion. Other side effects include insomnia, tachycardia (irregular heart rhythm) and mental depression with intentions of suicide. That's a large risk to take for anti-nausea medication. I would know - I've experienced some of those side effects. I'd rather not treat my symptoms.

Medicinal marijuana is safer than many available substances including prescriptions and it has established medicinal benefits. There is no reason why patients who could benefit from the drug should not have access to it.

By Theresa Schneider