Rhetoric & Writing

Anonymous. “Legal Marijuana: Should you be very Afraid?”. ProQuest.com. Northwest Asian Weekly, 29 March 2014, 19 July 2015.

The legalization of marijuana has its good and bad qualities, at least that’s what an anonymous writer, has to say about it. This anonymous writer from The Northwest Asian Weekly, who I will be referring to as AW, states that the biggest concerns for the legalization of marijuana is the “gateway theory”, fear of it being addictive, and health hazards which can be traced back to the person instead of the actual plant.

AW express that marijuana is only a gateway drug, because people acquire it illegally. Drug dealers, more than half of the time, have more dangerous drugs with them, as AW describes “The local, legal pot store clerk’s product will not only be regulated, without mystery ingredients, he won’t be trying to upgrade you to his cocaine special the next shelf over”. AW argues that if you remove the criminal involvement with marijuana there will be a less chance person will move on to harder drugs compared to buying marijuana at your local store clerk, where there will be no heroine, meth, and other illegal drugs. Overall, AW is basically stating drug dealers hold a big factor for a marijuana user moving on to more dangerous and addictive drugs.

According to AW, the addiction risk for marijuana use is less than caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and so on. AW states that research from science boards have calculated the addiction rate to nine percent from people who’ve tried it and twenty to thirty percent from people who smoke it on a regular basis. AW points out people who become addictive to marijuana are already prone to become an addict when AW claims “Ultimately, pot will most likely carry the highest risk of addiction for people who become addicted to things anyway because they are simply addictive people”. In general, AW is describing that the addictive risk for marijuana, is not the plant itself, but is depended on the people who smoke it.

The health issue for marijuana use is not as dangerous as other substances as AW asserts “Health-wise, it’s only logical to assume that inhaling smoke is detrimental, especially if followed by the ingestion of an entire bag of Cheetos”. Compared to the side effects tobacco and drinking can have on the body, marijuana is not as dangerous especially how AW compares a person who is stoned to one who is drunk. AW gives an example of a person who is drunk and driving over seventy miles an hour with aggressive behavior, compared to a person, who is stoned and calm driving, about twenty miles per hour making the difference in behavior drastic. AW is trying to make a statement that it’s up to the person to be responsible, because alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, but it’s still a legal substance. AW declares “Just because something is bad for you doesn’t mean it should be illegal. Tobacco, alcohol, unprotected sex, potato chips, soda, touching dead birds, mining for coal, driving cars, and licking frozen flagpoles are all bad for you, but perfectly legal”, meaning marijuana does have it’s minor side effects, but it does not mean it’s a dangerous item to one’s health or choices as AW describes it.

This anonymous writer reports that marijuana is not as dangerous as most claim it is, and the side effects to smoking it, is depended on the person. I found this article helpful, because it helps with my point of view on marijuana. The side effects and aftermath of marijuana is depended on the person, because like AW states, marijuana is for the most part, harmless. This article summarizes the conspiracies surrounding marijuana and points out the actual reality of it.

Nogueira, Felipe. “Where Drug Myths Die: An Interview with Carl Hart.” ebscohost.com. EBSCOhost, 01 June 2015. Web. 19 July 2015.

The article I found online is an interview between Felipe Nogueira & Carl Hart: an associate professor of Psychiatry & Psychology at Columbia University. He works in the Division of Substance Abuse at the New York State Psychiatric Institute as a research scientist & is a member of the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse and on the board of directors of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence and the Drug Policy Alliance.

Dr. Hart believes that drug users actually have rational behavior & are able to choose which drugs appeal to them. He is posed with many questions & provides his feedback on some of marijuana’s most controversial aspects. He says that marijuana is not a gateway drug, but however many cocaine & heroin users did start off smoking marijuana. His research has shown that the majority of marijuana users don’t go on to smoke other drugs and uses the example of “The last 3 presidents smoked marijuana before taking office, therefore marijuana is a gateway drug to the White House” to show the irrational silly myth of marijuana being a “gateway”. With that statement he is saying that just because that they may have been involved with marijuana in the past, doesn’t mean that it is the drug itself that influences the mindset, but the behavior and mentality of the user. He says those who use harder drugs have been affiliated with petty crimes in the past & those have a slight influence on their drug behavior.

Dr. Hart says that “drug addiction is behavior that disrupts your physiological functions, your job, your family life, and these behavioral disruptions have to occur on multiple occasions”. He backs up his claim by saying that just because you have 1 disruption in the important aspects of your life, doesn’t make one an addict. Addiction takes time & most statements regarding “marijuana addiction” is just simple hyperbole being shout out by the Ignorant.

When it comes to statistics, marijuana actually has the lowest addiction rate of any mind-altering drug with 10% of users being addicted. This is a way better stat than those who consume cigarettes: 33%, heroin: 25%, cocaine: 20%, and alcohol: 15%. Although the alcohol addiction rate is quite low, he says it’s the most harmful when it comes to being addicted because there have been cases where many have died from alcohol withdrawal, where a withdrawal for marijuana doesn’t even exist. He says that the “killing of the brain cells” myth may be true, but it rarely happens as it requires the user to consume 20-50 times the “normal” amount a human would use.

Overall this resource is very valuable into the debate about marijuana usage on the brain & whether it’s a gateway or not. It’s always more relieving when a doctor provides his insight based on research & studies he has been conducting in the past. This provides a more sophisticated & less bias perspective on the myths. Other people in the class might find this interview helpful because the doctor is affiliated with many drug-based groups & sees the evidence first hand through his experiments. This interview should serve as an insight about what the answers are over the most popular myths regarding marijuana.

Ammerman, Seth. “Should Medical Marijuana Be Prescribed to Children?”  usnews.com U.S. News Digital Weekly 28 Dec. 2012. Web. 07 Jul. 2015

Seth Ammerman is a clinical professor of pediatrics at the School of Medicine and medical director of the Adolescent Health Van. He argues that marijuana is not benign for adolescents.  He affirms that even if marijuana is being used as a medicine, it can have side effects. Including that without the research background, we really don’t know if it will work or not and it makes it difficult to recommend marijuana under those circumstances.

Ammerman states that us humans produce “endocannabinoids” which are marijuana-like substances. From limited research cannabinoids and cannabidiol have some benefits however, as Ammerman says, “finding the proper dosage for maximum therapeutic benefit and least risk of side effects is problematic.”  Due to different levels of these compound plants dosing wouldn’t be as accurate.  If he would propose a few cannabinoids then he wouldn’t be able to prescribe a particular dose, how much to use or how frequently because they “make accurate dosing difficult.”

He then continues to explain how some marijuana products don’t have the information for the right dosage of cannabinoid because they are not tested.  Declaring that ” patients often need to try different preparations and doses to find one that will help with the symptoms being treated.” Ammerman believes there are other, better standard pain medications or maybe even nonmedical treatments for pain that should be considered first. As well as that everyone is different, “successful treatment for a specific problem in a particular individual do not necessarily project to a broader population. Patients may respond differently to and experience different side effects from the same medication.”

The maturation of the brain doesn’t fully develop until the early mid-20’s and Ammerman states that ” the developing brain of a child is often more vulnerable to exposure to compounds than that of an adult.” Meaning that substance use can alter an adolescent’s brain because it is still in the process of development. The younger they start using marijuana the worse the effect of it is on their brain’s pattern which shifts.  Ammerman describes the using of medical marijuana in pediatric and adolescent populations as being ” completely trial and error.”

Essentially,  this article contends that chidden should not use marijuana because even if it may have benefits there are still some weaknesses. It made me understand that it is some what risky to prescribe medical marijuana to adolescents due to the fact that we don’t know the outcome of it.

Williams,  Patrick. “‘Smokey dare: Maybe it’s time to regulate marijuana like cigarettes’.” Alt-PressWatch, The Dallas Observer, 20 Aug. 2009. Web. 19 Jul. 2015.

Patrick Williams is a writer for the Dallas Observer. In ‘”‘Smokey dare: Maybe it’s time to regulate marijuana like cigarettes’,” published by The Dallas Observer in August 2009, Williams interviews Craig Johnson who is head of ProtectYouth, a lobbying and nonprofit group. Williams initially establishes that while Craig Johnson is interested in legalizing marijuana, he still does not believe that children should be using the drug.

Johnson believes that by legalizing marijuana, the US will be able to regulate and tax it more effectively and in doing so limiting the access of it to minors and youth. Williams then explains Johnson and his groups efforts in attempting to legalize marijuana. The group had been collecting data from the government that shows the effects of tobacco regulation in the 90s. Since the government put pressure on tobacco companies to stop pandering their products to youth, the result was that fewer high school aged students are using tobacco. But, as this number went down, the number of youth that are using marijuana has stayed the same and even surpassed those who use tobacco, even though cannabis is still illegal.

Williams then cites an online source to state that the number of tobacco merchants who sold to minors had decreased 11.3 percent up to 2009 because of government regulations. Yet still, regardless of the amount of marijuana arrests made, the price of marijuana has mostly stayed the same and young people are using the drug the without decrease.

Johnson states that the US is more able to regulate the tobacco market than the marijuana market because the former is legal. “Effective regulation beats our current system of ineffective criminalization any day,” he argues. Williams agrees with Johnson’s ideals and then mentions the benefits legalizing marijuana could have on the government as well as young people. “Demographics are changing, old people are giving up seats of power and a younger, more reform-minded generation (you know, stoners) is taking the reins,” Williams states.

Ultimately, this article is arguing for the legalization of marijuana so that the government can effectively regulate it and in turn keep it out of reach of youth. This article would be good for anymore comparing marijuana with tobacco in their own argument in terms of teen use and government policies and economy.

National Public Radio.“When Weed Is The Cure: A Doctor’s Case for Medical Marijuana.” Alt-PressWatch. FreshAirPhiladelphia.com. Fresh Air Philadelphia

14 Jul. 2015. Web. 19 Jul. 2015.

When many think of medical marijuana, instinct leads to the controversy of patients usage.  However, through this interview on Fresh Air Philadelphia,  National Public Radio, insight is derived from the opposite side of the spectrum. Dr. Casarett, author of “When Weed Is The Cure: A Doctor’s Case for Medical Marijuana”, and director of the hospice and palliative care program at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, argues his view on medical marijuana. Doctors are the ones with authority to prescribe such medicine and in this case,  Dr. Casarett just might not prescribe it to you.

Initially, Dr. Casarett got into the subject of medical marijuana, out of hospice and palliative care, due to one of his earlier patients. She was an advanced cancer patient who thought marijuana might simply help. Regardless of his own opinion, from that time, Dr. Casarett answered based a system taught to him ”…. I started to give her the answer that I was taught in medical school that medical marijuana is not a real thing. Marijuana is an illegal drug.” Sometime after it, however, he himself decided research up on it for he didn’t technically know if his words, spoken, were true.

In Dr. Casaretts studies, he has found that medical marijuana does have its positive effects that can be observed in its present state. “There’s a fair amount of science behind it, and there probably will be more with every passing year as we get more experience doing research.” With marijuana being proven to help nerve cells from shooting out pain, it exemplifies its constructive usage. Nevertheless, Dr. Casarett goes on about his concerns for the future. “ What makes me a little bit nervous,… there’s been enough research done to make many of us worry that long-term cognitive effects… have found some combination of a decrease in neuropsychological function,… associated with thinking and memory.” Being stated, his view has been on edge for medical marijuana can help many of his patients for the time being,  however, questions, what are the odds of it hurting them in the long run?

Dr. Casaretts interview portrayed how most doctors are on the same boat as most Americans; in terms of knowing the cause and effects of smoking marijuana. All he can go by is his own personal values and beliefs. “It’s not something I promulgate. I wouldn’t actually tell a patient that I think you should use medical marijuana.” Although he notices the positive impact that marijuana has upon its users, Dr. Casarett still sticks to his own gut until he gains surety within the opposing view.

Fresh Air Philadelphia’s interview on Dr. Casarett was valuable towards my research for it shows a unique perspective of medical marijuana usage that can be debated. My classmates would find this source useful as well for it gives a point of view that seems to be obsolete. Most would just research what the patients have to say on marijuana consumption and forget the doctors themselves are the ones who prescribe it.