Formalism and Narrative in Law and Medicine: The Debate over Medical Marijuana Use

Abstract

The debate over the medical use of marijuana, recently played out in California and of topical significance elsewhere, is often portrayed – by both sides – as a conflict between the forces of rationality against those of emotion. The fact that proponents and opponents are both able to characterize themselves as on the ‘right’ side of this equation should suggest to us that what is at stake is precisely the meaning of rationality. The author presents the debate on this subject as an ideological struggle about the nature of our society's core values. At the heart of the dispute is a disagreement about what counts as science, as evidence, and as truth. After demonstrating that in the debate over medical marijuana, there are two versions of these concepts being played out, the author goes on to argue that the conflict can be resolved by exploring deeper those philosophical elements which are common to both sides. Characterizing the philosophical disagreement as one between those who value ‘public good’ and those who, on the contrary, value ‘private freedom,’ Manderson concludes by focusing on the pain which the medical use of marijuana is said to relieve. The control of pain is both a public benefit and a private advantage and, therefore, is an aspect which, the author believes, makes a case for the use of the drug persuasive to both sides.