
Legalizing marijuana is fine. But don’t ignore the science on its dangers - petethomas
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/25/feature/legalizing-marijuana-is-fine-but-dont-ignore-the-science-on-its-dangers/
======
jgrowl
> Whether or not to legalize weed is the wrong question. The right one is: How
> will growing use of delta-9-THC affect individuals and communities?

I do not agree with this statement. We do need to study the short and long-
term effects of cannabis at an individual and greater societal level. However
current law hinders our ability to do so. Moreover it is my assertion that the
criminalization causes much more damage to the individual and society than its
use ever could.

The author admits to using cannabis throughout their 20s and 30s but doesn't
seem contend with the consequences of how her life could have been drastically
changed for the worse if she had gotten into legal trouble while smoking.
Arrest, no financial aid, loss of opportunities, institutionalization...

Most would agree that cannabis is not completely harm free, but this article
reeks of scare propaganda against legalization while trying to sound like "I'm
being impartial to legalization."

The legal aspect is the most important part to deal with first. Stop
destroying lives. Increase awareness. Reduce harm.

------
TillE
What a title for an article which is extremely light on actual science. But
what really killed me was the anecdote citing a particularly stupid, long
debunked myth while freely inventing some bullshit explanation on the fly. Is
there a study behind this? No, it just sounds good. Science.

> In the same way someone who habitually increases the volume in their
> headphones reduces their sensitivity to birdsong, I followed the “gateway”
> pattern from pot and alcohol to harder drugs

~~~
account23456789
1) It's an opinion article, written by a neuroscientist who does link to
studies to back up his support. His main point is that there are dangers, and
he is surprised people are not talking about it more. 2) His anecdote in no
way claims that weed always leads to harder drugs, but simply that he happened
to follow the pattern. It's a way to connect his past usage to his current
occupation. He isn't trying to say "weed is a gateway" drug, but only that it
was for him. 3) Editors write titles, not authors. 4) Ugh, I don't care.

------
julvo
References would be more than appropriate for this title.

Otherwise, the article is full of anecdotes and the old correlation vs.
causality dilemma.

