cannabisnews.com: MJ Not The Only Substance Detrimental To Health





MJ Not The Only Substance Detrimental To Health
Posted by FoM on November 29, 1999 at 20:10:19 PT
By Patrick Heyman,Independent Florida Alligator 
Source: U-WIRE
I find it disturbing that everyone who writes in talking about anti-marijuana propaganda goes on to give one-sided, fairly pro-marijuana arguments. It seems as though their ability to think critically has been damaged. 
Granted there are those who vilify marijuana to the extreme, but marijuana is not nearly as benign as Lauren Schnider and Scott Maggard have made it out to be. Here are some examples. Scott quotes Alison Smiley basically saying that marijuana users drive more carefully while high and so pose less risk than alcohol users. That's the danger. In 1994, a study was released that showed the effects of marijuana use in Boeing 747 pilots. Without drugs, every pilot landed a simulator within 27 feet of the centerline. High on marijuana, their performance plummeted to something like 150 feet from the centerline. They all knew how badly they had done, and said, I'll never do that again. But the next day, when they were tested again, their performance only improved marginally, something like 130 feet from center, but every single one applauded themselves for doing so much better. Is marijuana a danger? Yes, because the next day when you don't realize that it's still affecting you, you think you're back to 100 percent. Lauren made comments to the effect that marijuana really isn't that dangerous because it doesn't kill you while speeding does. (Actually it's the difference in speed that kills.) Likewise, you might say that people don't die of cigarettes. But they do die from the things cigarettes can do to your body. She seems to think that because something doesn't kill you directly and immediately, then it must not kill you at all. Marijuana does have more harmful substances than tobacco, but (at least in the users I know) people do not smoke it as often as cigarettes. Does that make it benign? And what about cost to society? It takes a long time for a smoker to develop emphysema or lung cancer, and when they do many of them are on Medicare. Should society pay for the result of their willful behavior? What if it takes that long for marijuana related illnesses to show up? Should we pay for the consequences of their illegal behavior? The crux of Scott's argument seems to be that marijuana doesn't cause schizophrenia. That's kind of like being concerned about getting powder burns while playing Russian roulette. Let's have some perspective on which issues are more important. Scott's statement that we should not give out false information is quite true; accurate information is needed. It's not an issue of whether marijuana is harmful to your body - it is. But so are antibiotics, digoxin, codeine, Sinutab, caffeine, a high fat diet, and being a couch potato. The question is threefold: 1) Should society allow individuals to do harmful things to their body? 2) If an individual causes harm to themselves is it society's responsibility to pay for the clean up? 3) Does that harmful activity cause harm to others in the society? It's not an easy answer, because if marijuana is illegal, perhaps tobacco and alcohol should be illegal also. What about coffee? As long as we're at it, why not make fatty foods illegal? Why not make exercise mandatory for everyone? Perhaps showers should be illegal so we don't slip in them? There has to be a balance between individual freedom and the good of society. So far our government has drawn the line at marijuana and 70 mph. The question is whether or not that is a good place to draw the line. Published: November 29, 1999(C) 1999 Independent Florida Alligator via U-WIRE Related Article:Column: Free To Get Stoned - 11/13/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3655.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #8 posted by Jennifer McMullen on March 20, 2001 at 13:38:22 PT:
side effects
   I have been trying to research the daily use of marijana and it side effects. I cannot find any facts, just from pro and anti users and non-users, which have turned out to be opinions. I have been smoking almost daily for 14 yrs and have suffered from unknown headaches for about 7 of those years. I wonder if there is any connection. Do you have any info that might help?     Sincerely J. McMullen
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FYI on December 01, 1999 at 11:52:23 PT
Another study
This was an actual controlled dose study, rather than just a retrospective analysis of data, as was the case in Australia.
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread1955.shtml
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by DontArrestMe on November 30, 1999 at 16:19:42 PT
U Must Be Joking...
His prose is really interesting. Each sentence has its own line, as if to imply that each statement corresponds to a study or statistic or, gasp, a fact!"I find it disturbing that everyone who writes in talking about anti-marijuana propaganda goes on to give one-sided, fairly pro-marijuana arguments"...So I am going to retort with a one-sided, definitely anti-marijuana argument of my own. Ha ha, I will show them critical thinking skills!``Marijuana users drive more carefully ... That's the danger.'' Was this supposed to be a counterexample to your thesis. Oh, I get, it is hard to lie consistently.In reference to the 1994 study...When you say drugs, are you including alcohol as well? It would be hard to land a plane correctly drunk; it would be just as hard the next day, because he would be hung over. I thought statistics was a fairly exact science when it wanted to be. "Something like" 150 ft. lends itself to loose interpretation. The most effective way to win an argument is to refute opposing arguments. (That is probably why most pro-marijuana articles appear to be one-sided, duh) Why didn't you cite a study on drunk pilots? Don't want to confuse the readers with unnecessary information?"but every single one applauded themselves for doing so much better." Am I the only one able to detect his true feelings about marijuana users? That does provide a motive for lying. This touch of emotionalism only hurts your credibility even further. This article is just a wolf in sheep's clothing. He dislikes marijuana users so he has to find a way to pursuade the masses. If at first you don't succeed, lie, lie again."Likewise, you might say that people don't die of cigarettes. But they do die from the things cigarettes can do to your body." What Laura said is not that hard to understand. You don't even need critical thinking skills to comprehend her statement. Drugs, guns, et ali don't kill people; dangerous behavior is the killer. In this case, the dangerous behavior is speeding. Everybody does it to one degree or another, and don't even mention alcohol while you are on the subject! I could see the writer trying to say that someone who has smoked weed is more likely to speed and thus exhibit dangerous behavior. Someone who is drunk is almost definitely going to exhibit dangerous behavior on the road."She seems to think that because something doesn't kill you directly and immediately, then it must not kill you at all."Hearsay! Well he can read minds; unfortunately, he doesn't do a very good job. You completely misinterpreted what she said with this horrible analogy."The crux of Scott's argument seems to be that marijuana doesn't cause schizophrenia." Well, some well-meaning people like the antidrug himself(Barry) spread a lot of lies about marijuana to further their politcal agenda. Scott has the added burden of refuting such erroneous statements."That's kind of like being concerned about getting powder burns while playing Russian roulette." Talk about extremism; if you meant to sway the people with emotionalism, it probably worked. Still, you are hurting your own cause with stupid analogies like this.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by arcturus on November 30, 1999 at 06:00:54 PT:
hurrah
hurrah hurrah!!Observer for president! I'm so glad you're out there(in here).arcturus
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by FoM on November 29, 1999 at 22:07:38 PT
I think!
My feeling are even if marijuana has some toxic effects it surely can't be as harmful as the air people are forced to breath in many of our cities. The side effects of the prescription drugs they advertize on tv are enough to make a person think more then twice about taking any but marijana doesn't have any serious side effects but laughing and getting the munchies. Peace, FoM!PS: Good to see you observer! 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by lookinside on November 29, 1999 at 21:56:22 PT:
a rare bit of common sense....
i smoked pot for 25 years...i suffered some ill effects...i drank for 22 years, i suffered much more serious ill effects...i quit both, because i didn't enjoy either anymore...my wife is ill...marijuana gives her relief from a variety of symptoms...much more so than the 7-8 medications prescribed for the same symptoms...RESPONSIBLE ADULT use of drugs/alcohol/tobacco should be allowed...prohibition will not work...denying a citizen medical attention because his problem is self induced will not work...the government would like squeeky clean worker bees...what they would get is suicidal/homocidal bees...people need to relax..somehow...something becoming more and more difficult in today's society...maybe instead of making substances illegal, how about making irresponsible behavior illegal?   FoM...thx for this forum
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by observer on November 29, 1999 at 21:51:12 PT
Adelaide Accident Study url
link should be:http://www.mapinc.org/find?K=Adelaide+accident+drivers&COL=Body&T=All+words&MAX=100&Y=All&DE=Low
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by observer on November 29, 1999 at 21:48:06 PT
marijuana users drive more carefully
> I find it disturbing that everyone who writes in talking about anti-marijuana propaganda goes on to give one-sided, fairly pro-marijuana arguments. Everyone? Wow. That covers alot...> It seems as though their ability to think critically has been damaged. I see. A rather insulting remark, continaing an insinuation of drug use (and insinuation, by extension, of supposed harms of marijuana). Note also that only one side ("everyone who writes in talking about anti-marijuana propaganda") have had their "ability to think critically ... damaged." Somehow I doubt if Mr Heyman finds the lack of criticality on the part of the prohibitionists very "disturbing".>Scott quotes Alison Smiley basically saying that >marijuana users drive more carefully while>high and so pose less risk than alcohol users. >>That's the danger.Oh! That's the danger? The `danger' of what? The `danger' of driving more carefully, or of telling the truth?for example see this 1998 report: "CANNABIS CRASH RISK LESS: STUDY"``The largest study ever done linking road accidents with drugs and alcohol has found drivers with cannabis in their blood were no more at risk than those who were drug-free.In fact, the findings by a pharmacology team from the University of Adelaide and Transport SA showed drivers who had smoked marijuana were marginally less likely to have an accident than those who were drug-free.A study spokesman, Dr Jason White, said the difference was not great enough to be statistically significant but could be explained by anecdotal evidence that marijuana smokers were more cautious and drove more slowly because of altered time perception. . .''http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n945/a08.htmlfor more articles on this, seehttp://www.cannabisnews.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/cnews/redir.cgi?http://www.mapinc.org/find?K=Adelaide+accident+drivers&COL=Body&T=All+words&MAX=100&Y=All&DE=Low> 1994, a study was released that showed the effects of marijuana use in Boeing 747 pilots. . . But the next day, when they were tested again, their performance only improved marginally... [etc]So, in other words these were probably people who had little or no experience with cannabis? No one is suggesting that brain surgeons or air traffic controllers etc go to work high. But that particular "a study" hardly sounds representative of the real world in any event.> The question is threefold: 1) Should society allow individuals to do harmful things to their body? 2) If an individual causes harm to themselves is it society's responsibility to pay for the clean up? 3) Does that harmful activity cause harm to others in the society? The "the question" really exists for those who have head over heals accepted the tenets of statism. "Should society allow individuals..." (statists are forever dreaming up new reasons why their reified "society" should jail and steal from individuals). The question is "Has government attempted to prevent the excercise of rights?" (Rights, being inalienable and not given by governments, can neither be taken by governments; and can only be defended or abridged by governments.) The answer, in the case of the traditional right of a man to his own body with respect to medicines is "Yes, governments seek to trample on that right, also."(see "What is a `statist'?" http://www.fatalblindness.com/FREEDOM990607.htm )> If an individual causes harm to themselves is it society's responsibility to pay"? [etc.] Only in a socialist (statist) state-mandated or state-run "health care" system where a reified "society" has money extorted from it (via taxation). Once that leap is made (from a free market health care system to a statist one), then any reason is sufficient "a high fat diet, and being a couch potato" (etc.) to coerce "society" (in this case, the victims of statism).> Does that harmful activity cause harm to others in the society?Heyman seems to put forward some kind of a syllogism here. (A subtle bit of casuistry, indeed!) It would be true if it read, "Does a given activity cause harm to others in the society?" It is not enough to loosely classify an "activity" (people have done for 1000's of years, never mind that) which may be a "harmful activity" under some circumstances (but not a great many others), and then make the leap that any similar "activity" (harmful or not, affecting others or not) is proscribed. When governments attempt to make this leap, people scoff at such governments, as happened for alcohol during Prohibition. It won't wash.``Abusus non tollit usum.'' [Abuse is no argument against proper use.] -- Latin proverb > There has to be a balance between individual freedom and the good of society. Yes, and that balance is at the point of the initiation of force.(see "Initiation of Force" http://www.fatalblindness.com/FREEDOM991122.htm )``Those, who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' -- Ben Franklin > So far our government What's this "our government" business? When "our government" becomes something other than us, then we have problems. Like we see when the people vote to have access to medical marijuana, and "our governement" (is it really us?) steps in "our" face with its boot and chooses to ignore the will of "our" people. > has drawn the line Such lines; such laws (and we're not talking about murder, we're talking about things made illegal by corrupted government only recently) are not like the ancient laws of 'the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.' In free nations (at least) the citizens thereof are able to vote to retain traditional freedoms; free citizens may vote to change laws. > at marijuana and 70 mph. More conflation, intended to mix drug use with driving (in the mind of the reader, at least). It contains the subtle message that marijuana is somehow tied to driving; that your liberties are always correctly constricted by governemnt because of any new invention that exists (like automobiles or 747 airplanes), whether you're using the invention in a public area, or even at all.> The question is whether or not that is a good place to draw the line. Well, line-drawers aside, an increasing number of adult Americans simply want back their traditional freedom to use whatever medicines they choose. That was a freedom only recently stolen by government.I'm not sure Mr Heyman has significantly advanced our understanding of the issues. But I do appreciate his style! It reminds me of ol' Harry Anslinger...``marijuana users drive more carefully ... That's the danger.'' -- Patrick Heyman``He killed the old man. . . That’s marijuana!'' -- Harry Anslinger http://www.redhousebooks.com/galleries/assassin.htm
take action!
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: