Is marijuana really harmless, like everyone has
been saying?
This is an example of what
logic texts call a "strawman" argument, an easily knocked down target that its
opponents have set up to make it appear that they are defeating their enemy. We frequently
hear prohibitionist propagandists like Dona Shalala say that the "latest
research" proves that "marijuana isn't harmless, like everyone has been
saying." This then refutes the arguments against arresting marijuana users, because
these arguments are based on the assumption that marijuana is harmless.There are two problems with this line.
First, as a "strawman" it misrepresents the position of the
anti-prohibitionists. The arguments against arresting marijuana users are not based on the
assumption that marijuana is "harmless." Nothing is
harmless for everyone, under all circumstances, and at all doses.
Second, it is particularly ironic that those who say that making
marijuana available for medical use would "send the wrong message to children"
don't seem to hear their own words. If only "the latest research" has proven
that marijuana isn't harmless, then it must be pretty safe. Besides
"harmlessness" does not particularly appeal to adolescents.
Finally, consider the meaning of the words "harmless,"
"safe," and "dangerous." These are relative terms as we use them in
everyday life. Riding a bicycle is "safe," but many people are killed in bicycle
accidents every year. Drinking pure water is surely "harmless," but a few people
die every year from drinking too much water. It upsets the body's electrolytic balance,
and the heart stops beating. In this relative context, compared to other substances,
marijuana is clearly not "dangerous," but this does not mean that it is
absolutely "harmless."
This is a frequently unasked question: Is being
arrested "harmless?" Actually, it can be quite "dangerous." What is
the latest research on that?
Supported