Instead of editorials and opinion pieces, which is what all of the previous blog posts have been about, I am posting news articles for the fourth and final round of blog posts before Project III is due.
Early in the semester, I asked you to read two editorials dealing with the legalization of marijuana for recreational use (they're both still on Blackboard if you want to peruse them again). Joe Kline's article was pretty dismissive of the health risks associated with smoking marijuana, while The Christian Science Monitor's editorial board described the drug as a serious threat to physical and mental health, and thus society in general.
The following article published in the Sacramento Bee, "Legalize it? Medical evidence on marijuana blows both ways," surveys recent medical investigations into the effects of marijuana on the body and mind. What do you think about the information contained within this article? Did it change your understanding of the issue? If you previously believed either that marijuana is a harmless drug, or that it is a serious health risk, did this article change your stance in any way? Do you think it is even fair to characterize marijuana either as a harmless drug or a dangerous drug after reading this article?
Here is the address for the article:
http://www.sacbee.com/2009/05/17/v-print/1861861/legalize-it-medical-evidence-on.html
Your response, whether you respond to this or the second option, must be at least 150 words in length and is due by March 9th.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
This article did not change my stance on the legalizing of marijuana. It seemed that for each fact, there was another fact right below it that stated the opposite. Each study that said it was harmful to a person had another study done right after it that proved the opposite. For instance with depression. The article said that with people who had never used the substance before, depression increased drastically. Then in a study right below it, it was proven that THC in low doses could actually act as an antidepressant. These two facts are proving the opposite. Even when the article was talking about lung health, there was a point, counterpoint argument. It said that marijuana did not have any association with lung cancer, but it could cause chronic bronchitis. So this article really didn’t give in information that would make a person lean either toward legalizing marijuana or toward keeping it illegal. That’s why it did not change my opinion at all.
-- Haley Walker
This article did not change my views on legalizing marijuana in any way. The article almost makes you question if the people running these surveys and tests even know what they’re doing, just because every test is followed by the same test a few years later, but with a change in the results. Is it possible that the government was running these tests in the past and came up with wrong results to make people think it was a lot worse than it actually is? I think it is fair to say, especially after reading the article provided, that marijuana should not be labeled as a harmful drug, as it has a lot more pros than cons; in my opinion cigarettes should be illegal not marijuana. One of my favorite quotes or studies from the article stated, “a 2007 study at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, published in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, found that students who smoked marijuana had better grades than those who used only tobacco or those who did not smoke any substance.”
--Jon Cotroneo
I agree, "Legalize it? Medical evidence on marijuana blows both ways.” Despite the amount of research and evidence that was proven or disproved, the outcomes were contradictory. For instance, Dr. Tashkin states that he “would be in favor of legalization,” but he “would not encourage anybody to smoke any substances, because of the potential for harm.” He also claims that “tobacco smoking causes far more harm, and in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm.” Why be in favor of a critical issue if you lack the courage to further support it? This news article was very informative, and I learned how certain components of marijuana could or could not function. It is a matter of fact that the amount of marijuana an individual consumes leads to health benefits or health problems. Moderate use of the drug might have a positive effect on health problems and a negative effect on health benefits. Since this is the case, why not over-compensate by classifying marijuana as a dangerous drug? I think that it is fair to classify marijuana as a dangerous drug. Therefore, it did not change my understanding of the issue.
The article summed up, in a nutshell, my personal opinion about the legalization of marijuana. The article does a good job of staying objective, providing both sides of the argument. I really liked how the article pointed out that fact you can find any literature about any characteristic of marijuana, whether positive or negative. Just like anything, opinions are heavily swayed by negative reports, leaving no room for the other side of the story. I think California is researching marijuana so heavily because of the tax money they can receive from it, especially with their state being in such debt. I think a lot of opinions are subjective to your region of the country. Just like many things are debatable, I don’t see this debate going anywhere too fast but it is gaining popularity. Whether for or against the legalization of marijuana or any debate at that, one has to take in each side of the story before forming an opinion and I think this article does a clear job of exemplifying that.
-Taylor Friesenhahn
I think the information presented in this article is all seemingly valid. I have always been hopeful that marijuana will become legalized in the near future, and this writer makes a good point that one can always find what he or she is looking for when it comes to information backing up a certain political stance. This article did not change my opinion at all, but the information comparing marijuana to tobacco and use of alcohol was a strong point. I would not go so far to say marijuana is a completely harmless drug, but it certainly should not be characterized as a dangerous one. Anything used in excess is going to hurt your body in some way shape a form, whether smoking too much marijuana or binge drinking. After reading this article I can see both sides but it does not change my opinion. There are much more harmful legal substances available out there.
Alison Hoffmann
The article did not change my opinion on this issue. I have never thought that we should legalize marijuana, and I still do not. Like the article says, it isn’t as dangerous as alcohol, but frankly I don’t think it’s a fair argument. It’s like saying that when you hit somebody, at least you didn’t kill them, because that would be worse. Just because something else is worse doesn’t make that first thing okay. I wouldn’t say marijuana is a really dangerous drug, but the article shows that it can cause harm. The chances of that harm happening are slim, but there is still a chance. I thought the information in this article was arranged well, and it showed both sides. It also showed how the results from a study can change when the study is done 5 years later. It showed how there are a lot of variables included in studies. But overall, the article did not change my opinion.
--Bethany Greiving
This article did not change my stance on whether I think Marijuana usage should be legalized. I do not think that there is enough evidence to write Marijuana off as a harmless drug or even to categorize it as safer than some other drugs. Although it may seem to be safer because it does not have some of the same affects as other dangerous drugs, I am not sure if that is entirely the case. I do not believe there has been enough research done on a long term scale to determine the lifetime effects the drug could have on a person’s body, along with the type of dependency it causes. The studies in this article show that the findings on the health risks associated with Marijuana usage are conflicting. And as mentioned in the beginning of the article by Dr. Abrams, “…you can find in the literature whatever you were looking for.” As in all debates, each side will show evidence proving why they think they are right on a particular topic. Both sides of a debate hold up until more factual evidence is found on one of the sides. Although I hold my own personal opinion; I do not believe this debate has reached the point where one side has more “real” proof than the other. This article just proved that we still have a long way to go before this debate will be settled.
-Laura Sowell
“Legalize it? Medical Marijuana blows both ways,” is great at showing both sides, but does not change my stance on the legalization of marijuana. If it was so bad why use it as medicine? I’m sure it has side effects, anything abused, over used, taken in mass quantities can be harmful just like over eating. It’s proven to help more than hurt. When looking at all the different research one needs to make a checklist: how long the study lasted, who was studied, who funded it, what was the purpose, when, where, and why to name a few.
There are many factors. As noted by UCLA pulmonologist Dr. Donald Tashkin, who has studied marijuana's effects on the lungs for three decades, “That's just the nature of medical science. You have to deal with variability. The population studied may be different or the methods used to study may differ.”
Very few studies are unbiased so you need to know who is wanting it done, and who is doing it. If they feel strong either way you should be skeptical, especially if they have control over how the results are carried out or interpreted. Marijuana is neither harmless nor dangerous. Moderation in life should be the slogan, and warning labels should apply like with any drug used for medical purposes.
~Holly Dilliplane~
My stance on the issue of the legalization of marijuana remains one of uncertainty. This article only seemed to increase this uncertainty if anything. At one point in the article the author quotes Dr. Abrams as saying, “that you can find in the literature whatever you were looking for.” This has been my main problem with the issue as a whole. Contradictory evidence for both sides on the medical benefits and risks has been presented. This evidence has cause much confusion for me on what the actual properties of marijuana are, and I believe has not been enough to classify marijuana as either harmful or harmless. Until a truly objective, full, and credible study or experiment is done on the drug, I believe this issue will remain in debate with the people of the US. It will likely not be until such a study that I will be able to give a definite answer either way on the issue.
-Tyler Allgood
This information is typical, two studies that show opposite results. There are conclusions from studies that list off beneficial effects, as well as unwanted effects. My personal favorite is: “a 2007 study at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, published in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, found that students who smoked marijuana had better grades than those who used only tobacco or those who did not smoke any substance.” There are thousands of prescription drugs on the market, most of which have unwanted side effects. Marijuana has side effects as well. My understanding was unchanged. I don’t think marijuana is a dangerous drug. No overdoses from marijuana were mentioned, because it’s not possible. I think a lot of people want marijuana legalized to smoke and get high for entertainment purposes. Other people want marijuana legalized because they would medically benefit. These are two different issues that get tossed around in the same argument.
--Jonathan Martin
Not only do I agree with the legalization of marijuana, I feel it can’t happen soon enough! We will save billions of dollars, join the world in growing a huge cash crop, and help Americans every day with their personal daily struggles. If this bill gets passed we will be on our way to a better tomorrow. To quote joe Klein, “$68 billion per year on is spent on corrections, and one-third of those being corrected are serving time for nonviolent drug crimes,” just think if one-third of the $68 billion was saved we would have about an extra $22.8 billion to spend somewhere else. “$150 billion (spent on) policing and courts, and 47.5% of all drug arrests are marijuana-related”. If we break this down one-third of 150 is 50 and 47% of 50 is 23.5, so there is another $23.5 billion saved. The arguments used in the other article are very weak and contradicting. Weed should be legal so we can tax it similar to cigarettes… alcohol in my opinion is way more dangerous and detrimental to our health and actions then weed, it is just ridiculous that it is illegal in the first place.
Chelsea Byrne
This article has done nothing for my stance on marijuana legislation. I did however enjoy some of the facts within. I have a pretty simple basis for my beliefs on marijuana. It is so readily available that anyone at any age can acquire it, and therefore in my eyes legalizing it will have little effect on use. Regardless on its effect on use, I believe it should be legal anyway. I hate to believe that we have to protect ourselves from marijuana. The only drug I use is alcohol and I made the conscious decision not to do other drugs. It’s not because I didn’t want to be frowned upon or categorized, but it’s that I really don’t enjoy being too intoxicated. People should be able to make these decisions on their own, especially with marijuana because we have drugs that are equally available, and far worse. I believe we should be more focused on how so many pharmaceuticals end up in the hands of those who they are not prescribed. Reason being is many of these drugs are highly addictive, very dangerous to health, and in most households. I also believe that arguing legislation for medical use is a simple arena for all use. It’s just used as another way to persuade people either way, and many people will believe whatever they read. To me it boils down to thinking for us, something that many people will never do.
Michael Brannon
The article did not really have any thing new to add to the marijuana argument I have not already heard. When it comes to pointless debates I believe this one takes the cake. Since so much research has gone into both sides of the argument, it is almost impossible to choose a completely valid side. The only reasoning that I can agree with is that marijuana is worse than alcohol. By saying this, I don't necessarily mean we should legalize it since it's the less of two evils. But I am also not saying that we should legalize alcohol.
I do believe marijuana has some health risks. But just about everything a person can do contains some form of risk. If the legalization of marijuana would boost our economy and help our country financially then I am all for it. I don't believe it will cause any trouble for the U.S. that we don't deal with already, so the only outcome I can see is a positive.
-Brian Lewis
The loss of objectivity has plagued our society for decades now. Special interests, greed, and nonrenewable resources have locked us into a struggle to “get ours.” In a world where no one is wrong, and everyone is right, people have begun to look to others to tell them what to think. No more do we use our common sense to tell us wrong from right, good from bad, or up from down. This is perfectly displayed in the Sacramento Bee’s article “Legalize it? Medical evidence on marijuana blows both ways.” I believe the message the Sacramento Bee is trying to send is that everyone needs to realize there is some validity to the other side’s argument. It has become apparent that marijuana will most likely be legalized, or at the least decriminalized. This scares many people in the world. To those people, they have shown studies for which marijuana may not be as bad as previously shown by focused experiments searching for a certain result. They also seem to be making the point, for those who are pro-marijuana, that there are health hazards associated with marijuana. Just as there are with any other drug, the debate will urge on and people will choose the side of convenience, familiarity, or perhaps the person who yells the loudest. I just hope those making the laws can be objective and do what is best for our society, both morally and economically.
--JB Helton
This article did not change my views about the legalization of marijuana. The article itself seemed a little bit contradictory in itself. As stated in the article, there are both pros and cons about marijuana. Also, in the article it says that tobacco smoke has more harmful effects on a person than marijuana does. In that case, people should be more worried about making tobacco and cigarettes illegal. Marijuana is harmful, but it is not as dangerous as what some people think. There are many other harmful substances out there than marijuana, such as alcohol. This article has made me see both sides of the argument, but it does not make me opinions about the topic of legalizing marijuana change.
Blair Bailey
This article really didn’t help to sway me one way or the other, since my decision was already made. I don’t think it should be legalized. Honestly I think there are a lot of medications that should not be legal. Of course marijuana fits into the limits of side effects allowed for medication in the US. Have you seen the huge lists of side effects on FDA approved medications? It is ridiculous! Honestly there is not conclusive evidence either way, and until there is I don’t think it is a good idea to legalize it. Also in order to keep myself for being a hypocrite in wanting to have one substance banned and keeping the other hazardous substances (most popularly tobacco and alcohol), I am in favor of banning those as well. Either ban it all, or make it all legal. If the government is going to make choices for its people’s health, it needs to just do it.
-Ever Cavender
Post a Comment