The debate on the legalization of marijuana or cannabis sativa for both medical and recreational use changes as time moves forward. This issue is becoming increasingly important in the country and is in line with global transformations because of the clear advantages this could bring to our country. This argument spans health, economic development, social justice, and national identity. The time has come to consider the possibilities of this vital pitch, particularly given that we are at the cusp of a future-driven national transformation.
Filipinos are not naive to the medical advantages of marijuana, which have been well-documented globally. Consider the tale of Charlotte Figi, an American child whose severe epilepsy was reduced intensively with the use of medical marijuana. Her case–along with that of Filipino vlogger Wil Dasowicz–who discovered relief from the side effects of cancer treatment by cannabis, emphasizes the potential of cannabis as a vital tool in the treatment of different diseases. Despite the stigma that has long surrounded cannabis, these are not one-off events; rather, they are part of an increasing corpus of data indicating marijuana might be a necessary tool for treating chronic pain, epilepsy, cancer, anxiety, depression, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, glaucoma, Crohn’s disease, HIV/AIDS, PTSD, fibromyalgia, and other severe disorders.
Legalizing medical marijuana could offer a substitute for those with ailments that traditional medicine cannot completely treat in the Philippines, where access to advanced healthcare can be limited. Currently under debate in Congress, the Compassionate Medical Cannabis Act marks a positive direction. This measure aims to create a controlled system for the medical use of cannabis, so providing relief for thousands of daily suffering Filipino patients with chronic pain and other conditions.
It is noteworthy that, following three UN treaties, 50 countries such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Denmark, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Panama, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States (in 38 states), Canada, Georgia, Germany, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, and Uruguay have all legalized the medical use of cannabis. Moreover, the last nine countries have taken further steps by legalizing its recreational use.
Apart from the indisputable medical advantages, legalizing marijuana has equally interesting financial consequences. The cannabis-friendly law in states like Colorado and Washington in the United States has resulted in billions in sales, thousands of employment, and significantly increased state taxes, so augmenting state revenue. In our context, these financial advantages could be transformational. The tax income collected from a controlled marijuana industry could help vital sectors, including infrastructure, healthcare, and education—areas most in need of extra money. Consider the effects on our economy if we could copy the success observed in several countries, states, and cities all over the globe.
Furthermore, the legalization of marijuana could be quite important in helping to solve the opioid crisis afflicting several nations. Studies in legal states for medical marijuana have shown declining opioid prescriptions and overdose rates. This implies that cannabis might be a safer substitute for painkillers, hence maybe saving many lives. In a nation like ours, where pain management choices are sometimes few and costly, offering a safer, more reasonably priced substitute for medical narcotics, painkillers, or analgesics could have a significant effect on public health.
Still, the debate over legalizing marijuana presents specific difficulties. Conservative and rightist groups strongly oppose the legalization of marijuana, claiming it would result in moral degradation, more drug abuse, and a host of other social problems. These issues are real and need careful thought and respect to be answered. One often used justification against legalization is the worry that this hemp might open doors to more harmful narcotics. Research has repeatedly shown, though, that most marijuana users never advance to harder drugs. Furthermore, much as with alcohol and tobacco, the government can control the distribution of marijuana by managing the market and restricting access to minors.
On a recent trip to Bangkok, Thailand, I saw personally how a country with a cultural resemblance to ours has embraced a controlled attitude to marijuana. Operating under tight rules, dispensaries provide goods in safe and regulated surroundings. Along with lessening law enforcement’s burden, this change has created a new economic sector that helps the government and the people. If Thailand, a nation with its own set of traditional values, can effectively implement a controlled marijuana market, then surely ours can do the same while ensuring that any possible risks are minimized by careful regulation.
From a governmental standpoint, legalizing marijuana could result in relatively significant savings. The way marijuana is currently handled—heavy policing, court cases, and incarceration—drains funds better used elsewhere. The government could lower law enforcement’s financial and logistical load by moving from prohibition to control and concentrating on more urgent problems. This is about reallocating resources to where they can have the most major positive influence on society, not only about saving funds.
The way marijuana is seen and controlled is changing worldwide. Legalization has been embraced by nations of different spiritual orientations, ideological persuasions, economic statuses, and cultural practices, all agreeing to minimize its related risks using a controlled market. By learning from these precedents, our country can build a framework that maximizes the advantages of marijuana while addressing the stigma and handling possible issues. We may consider rethinking our classification of cannabis—not as a dangerous drug like cocaine or heroin, but rather as a substance that, under appropriate control, can be quite beneficial to society.
Additionally, punishing adults for using a substance empirically safer than alcohol, tobacco, and high-risk gambling seems not only unfair but also ineffective. The ban on marijuana squanders public funds better used elsewhere. For example, the taxes on cannabis sales in Washington State brought in $600 million just in 2020. For the Philippines, such income could transform, supporting vital services and lightening the load on taxpayers.
Moreover, the legalization of marijuana could assist in solving ingrained problems with social inequality. With underprivileged communities usually bearing the most of the criminal justice system, current laws are unfairly applied. Legalizing and controlling cannabis will help start to undo these injustices and guarantee that every person is treated equally under the law.
One more issue deserving of thought is the effect of the medicinal herb’s prohibition on the surroundings. Illegal farming diverts water sources and employs forbidden pesticides, degrading the environment. Legalizing and controlling the sector will help the government enforce environmental criteria, guaranteeing that marijuana farming is sustainable and does not damage national resources. Regulation of purity and potency would help lower the risk of contamination and guarantee that consumers could get safe goods.
In essence, even if conservative and rightist groups have reasonable worries, the advantages of allowing and controlling cannabis use are too sensible to overlook. This action would help the nation match world trends and solve some of our society’s most important problems. The argument over the legalization of marijuana should be presented as a pragmatic choice that might enhance the quality of life for innumerable lives. Change is right here, promising a freer, healthier, and sounder future.
***
Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.
