Why can't we have an open, honest discussion about both the pros and cons of marijuana use? I'll explain:
When scientific research finds benefits of marijuana use, drug advocates accept these findings without any skepticism. They use these findings as "solid proof" marijuana needs to be legalized, even if these findings are on a small scale, or preliminary, or haven't been repeated elsewhere.
When scientific research finds risks of benefits use, drug advocates say the researchers are biased, the findings are wrong, and assume every aspect of the research is incorrect. They are highly skeptical of the conclusions regardless of a large sample size or how frequently the results have been reproduced.
In short, science is right when it supports getting high and wrong when it does not according to drug advocates.
It seems unfair to pretend that marijuana is a perfect substance that can do absolutely no harm and is purely beneficial, because there is no evidence to support that claim. I think this lopsided viewpoint is hindering legalization because drug advocates are lying to the public about what weed can actually do.
For example, marijuana can be terrible for people who suffer from mental illness, and they are currently group most likely to self-medicate with marijuana. Drug advocates say marijuana is a cure-all for mental illness however, despite having no firm medical proof to back that up. Isn't that doing more harm than good?
As you are somebody who supports medical marijuana, wouldn't educating and informing the public about all aspects of marijuana, both good and bad, be a positive thing? That way people could make an informed decision about using it. Shouldn't we stop pretending the risks don't exist?
ehrgeizium2 karma
Why can't we have an open, honest discussion about both the pros and cons of marijuana use? I'll explain:
When scientific research finds benefits of marijuana use, drug advocates accept these findings without any skepticism. They use these findings as "solid proof" marijuana needs to be legalized, even if these findings are on a small scale, or preliminary, or haven't been repeated elsewhere.
When scientific research finds risks of benefits use, drug advocates say the researchers are biased, the findings are wrong, and assume every aspect of the research is incorrect. They are highly skeptical of the conclusions regardless of a large sample size or how frequently the results have been reproduced.
In short, science is right when it supports getting high and wrong when it does not according to drug advocates.
It seems unfair to pretend that marijuana is a perfect substance that can do absolutely no harm and is purely beneficial, because there is no evidence to support that claim. I think this lopsided viewpoint is hindering legalization because drug advocates are lying to the public about what weed can actually do.
For example, marijuana can be terrible for people who suffer from mental illness, and they are currently group most likely to self-medicate with marijuana. Drug advocates say marijuana is a cure-all for mental illness however, despite having no firm medical proof to back that up. Isn't that doing more harm than good?
As you are somebody who supports medical marijuana, wouldn't educating and informing the public about all aspects of marijuana, both good and bad, be a positive thing? That way people could make an informed decision about using it. Shouldn't we stop pretending the risks don't exist?
I'd love to get your input on this matter.
View HistoryShare Link