Drugs are a major influential force in countries all over the world today. Legalization is an option that has not had a chance, but really should be given one. Although many people feel that legalizing marijuana would increase the amount of drug use, marijuana should be legalized because it will reduce the great amount of money spent on enforcement, and will therefore increase our countries revenue and lessen crime, and will also be useful in treating certain medical conditions.
Marijuana is a Gateway Still Speculative I'll make this very clear and concise for the readers of this argument.
Correlation does not make causation. The correlation made with con's Yale study is casual at best. What this means is that while marijuana was a common factor found in a portion of individuals who later abused prescription drugs, it can not be attributed as the major factor to harder drug use without further consideration.
For this point to be definitively correct, con must have substantial evidence that other factors such as environment, lifestyle, health, or psychological discrepancies did not interfere with the studies results. The Yale study has these factors unaccounted for, so it does not establish causation.
Take this information with a grain of salt. I'd like to apologize for claiming that the drug free pamphlet did not have any sources, but I'd like to exchange that statement with another. The Pamphlet intentionally misconstrues information and uses studies with small sample sizes to support it's claims.
It assumes too much from correlation to be reliable. On the subject of tolerance; marijuana does build tolerance based on amount of use and concentration of THC, but it also tends to break down with time.
In a study of tolerance, a head researcher stated: I'd also like to remind con that the argument he is pursuing does not need to be definitively disproven. My only objective in countering this argument is to prove that it is little more than speculation, which I can confidently say I have.
Con has failed to develop anything above correlation and cannot find a direct relationship between marijuana and harder drug use. Before I move on, I'd like to quickly point out that con's graph does not support his argument. On the same webpage with this graph, a note is made below stating: Marijuana has bad health effects Oh boy, where to begin.
How about that driving statistic. Con quotes a article on fatal car crashes stating: We can be in agreement that those who use the drug and understand the effects of the drug should not use it while behind the wheel of a motor vehicle or while using heavy equipment. This example however, is the result of reckless behavior on part of the driver and is not the fault of the drug by itself.
To conclude that marijuana must be kept illegal because of this minimal increase in accidents is ridiculous. If several unsupervised children severely damage their hands while using fireworks, you don't determine that large fireworks are too dangerous for all kids; You find out why those kids did what they did and inform others to what may lead to the inappropriate use of fireworks among children.
Unless con has some sort of study that proves marijuana use causes excessively irrational behaviors among a large portion of users, he fails to make any ground with this point.
Next up, this little quote that con states saying: Several studies have shown that those who suffer migraines can find relief in marijuana for it's potent pain-reducing and anti-inflammatory actions within the body. Here's one that's spouted often. Con states is his argument: Not only is con making another assumption based on correlation, but he's absolutely incorrect in his accusations.
Marijuana has never been found to definitively cause lung cancer by any study even with more carcinogens and tar than tobacco.
In a study of 1, incident cancer cases and 1, cancer-free controls total of 2, participantsthose who were surveyed to have smoked the equivalent of one joint a day for sixty years had been found to have no consistent increase in chances of developing lung cancer or any respiratory cancer for that matter.
Con goes on to state: This claim originates from a rather unorthodox study on the effects of THC's immunosuppression on rats.
With it, the test effectively stimulated the rodents cannabinoid receptors with large quantities of THC and it soon caused a deficiency of B cell-mediated function. This however differs heavily in humans because of how humans are far less susceptible to immunomodulation by cannabinoids.
This still needs far more data to be considered a consistently appearing effect of smoking marijuana. Last one, I promise. Con states last in his argument saying:- Marijuana is the cause of much commotion and debating, as the question of legalization becomes more of an issue.
Drugs are a major influential force in countries all over the world today. Legalization is an option that has not had a chance, but really should be given one.
February 23rd, John Andrews. (1) How to regulate medical marijuana, (2) what to do about marijuana’s illicit recreational users, and (3) how much to use state power for the individual’s own good, were all topics in play during the minute discussion.
Legalization of Marijuana. Legalization of Marijuana Marijuana is the cause of much commotion and debating, as the question of legalization becomes more of an issue. Drugs are a major influential force in countries all over the world today.
Legalization is an option that has not had a . I stand in favor for marijuana legalization for three main reasons first the liberty, the cost, and the facts.
If the United States legalizes marijuana liberty would increase.
Why should the United State government control with what the American citizens does with their body. Legalizing Marijuana Will Decreased Crime Essay Words 6 Pages Marijuana is the cause of much commotion and debating, as the question of legalization becomes more of an issue.
Even with the legalization of marijuana, there is still a risk for the youth access regardless of regulation or not, and there will continue to be both postive and negative effects. A main question at hand is how much will the benefits outweight the liabilities and vice versa.