Is Marijuana Use Safe? 5 Comments By F

IS MARIJUANA USE SAFE? 5 Is Marijuana Use Safe? Comment by Foster, Christopher: Begin with a title page, formatted according to APA standards Dr. Christopher Foster PHI103 Informal Logic Ashford University Modeled example for week 3 assignment With many states legalizing both medical and recreational marijuana, an important question for voters, legislators, and potential users is whether marijuana is safe. There have been many studies done on the topic, with findings on both sides.

The focus of this paper will be to present scholarly research on both sides of the question and to evaluate the quality of each. To provide the most reliable information possible, I have chosen to present the findings of meta-studies on each side of the question of the safety of marijuana use. I will present and evaluate the reasoning used by each and conclude with a discussion of the value of different types of sources in terms of the degree of support that they provide for their conclusions.

The paper begins with an introductory paragraph, allowing readers to learn and see the importance of the research topic. Introductory paragraphs should contain a preview of what will be covered in the rest of the paper.

Presentation of an Argument that Marijuana Use is Safe

A significant meta-study conducted by researchers at UC San Diego examined the long-term neurocognitive effects of cannabis use. The study analyzed data from other scientific studies, comparing 623 cannabis users against 409 non- or minimal users (Grant, Gonzales, Carey, Natarajan, & Wolfson, 2003). The researchers found that chronic marijuana users showed minor decreases in learning and memory, but no other significant cognitive effects. They concluded that cannabis is probably safe for medical purposes (Grant et al., 2003).

This argument can be summarized as follows:

Premise 1: Combining data from multiple studies on marijuana's effects on cognitive function creates a large, robust data pool.

Premise 2: In six of eight cognitive domains studied—reaction time, attention, language, executive functions, perception, and motor skills—no significant impairment was observed among marijuana users.

Premise 3: In the areas of learning and memory, where impairment was noted, the effects were minor and could be attributed to sample bias or insufficient washout periods.

Premise 4: Medical marijuana use generally involves short-term consumption, which minimizes potential adverse effects.

Premise 5: The potential benefits of medical marijuana outweigh minor or uncertain harms.

Conclusion: Therefore, medical marijuana use has an acceptable margin of safety under controlled conditions (Grant et al., 2003).

The reasoning appears strong, as the premises are supported by extensive scientific data. The large meta-analysis lends credibility, and the efforts to account for biases and confounding factors strengthen the argument. Nonetheless, limitations exist: differences in study methodologies, variations in usage patterns, and the inability to fully establish causality in observed associations. These weaknesses suggest the need for cautious interpretation, but overall, the evidence indicates a relatively safe profile for medical marijuana use in controlled contexts.

Presentation of an Argument that Marijuana Use is Unsafe

Conversely, a 2016 study highlights the numerous potential long-term harms associated with marijuana, especially when used by adolescents. The authors argue that marijuana can cause addiction, respiratory issues, psychiatric problems, cognitive impairments, and social disadvantages (Feeney & Kampman, 2016). The key premises include:

Premise 1: Marijuana is addictive (Volkow, Baler, Compton, & Weiss, 2014).

Premise 2: Marijuana causes breathing problems, such as obstructive lung disease and chronic bronchitis (Tashkin, Baldwin, Sarafian, Dubinett, & Roth, 2002).

Premise 3: Use of marijuana increases the risk of developing psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia (Arseneault, Cannon, Witton, & Murray, 2004).

Premise 4: Marijuana impairs cognitive functions, affecting attention, memory, processing speed, and executive functioning (Thames, Arbid, & Sayegh, 2014).

Premise 5: Use by adolescents correlates with poorer academic achievement, reduced employment prospects, and strained social relationships (Palamar et al., 2014).

Premise 6: Marijuana use slows psychomotor responses and reaction times, elevating accident risks, particularly in driving scenarios (Neavyn, Blohm, Babu, & Bird, 2014).

Conclusion: Marijuana use can result in significant physical, psychological, neurological, and social harms, especially among youth.

The strength of this argument lies in its reliance on multiple peer-reviewed studies linking marijuana to adverse health outcomes. The premises are supported by epidemiological data, longitudinal studies, and neurobiological research. However, some weaknesses must be acknowledged. Many findings are correlational, making it difficult to establish causation definitively. For instance, the association between marijuana and psychosis could be influenced by confounding factors such as genetic predispositions or environmental stresses. Additionally, most studies focus on adolescent users, limiting generalizability to adult populations or medical use contexts.

Evaluation of Evidence Sources

Both arguments draw on scientific and scholarly sources, which provide a higher degree of credibility than non-scholarly references. The meta-study supporting marijuana safety consolidates data from numerous rigorous investigations, making its conclusions more robust and less susceptible to bias. Conversely, the opposing side relies on a collection of studies highlighting potential harms, some of which are correlational and may not establish causality (Feeney & Kampman, 2016). This difference exemplifies why evaluating the quality of sources is vital in forming reliable conclusions.

Non-scholarly sources often lack transparency about methodology, leading to potential partisan bias. For example, advocacy websites may selectively cite studies favoring their position without adequately addressing conflicting evidence. On the other hand, scholarly research, although not immune to bias, typically undergoes peer review and adheres to scientific standards. Nevertheless, even within scholarly literature, discrepancies and contradictions can arise due to methodological differences, variations in sample populations, and interpretative biases, as seen in the contrasting findings about marijuana’s neurocognitive effects.

Conclusion

The comparative analysis of the two sides underscores the importance of scrutinizing evidence sources critically. While the scientific research generally favors the view that marijuana, particularly in medical contexts, has a relatively safe profile, this conclusion is tentative and contextual. The potential for adverse effects, especially among vulnerable populations like adolescents, cannot be dismissed. Consequently, policymakers and consumers should consider the strength of supporting evidence, understanding that even high-quality studies may contain limitations. The process of evaluating arguments highlights the need for ongoing research and the prudent application of scientific findings to public health decisions.

In future, it would be advisable to prioritize scholarly sources and comprehensive meta-analyses to better understand the complex effects of marijuana. A nuanced approach that recognizes both potential therapeutic benefits and risks is essential for informed decision-making that safeguards public health while respecting individual autonomy.

References

• Arseneault, L., Cannon, M., Witton, J., & Murray, R. M. (2004). Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: Examination of the evidence. British Journal of Psychiatry, 184(2), 110-117.
• Feeney, K. E., & Kampman, K. M. (2016). Adverse effects of marijuana use. The Linacre Quarterly, 83(2), 96-103.
• Grant, I., Gonzales, R., Carey, C., Natarajan, L., & Wolfson, T. (2003). Non-acute (residual) neurocognitive effects of cannabis use: A meta-analytic study. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9(5), 679-689.
• Neavyn, M. J., Blohm, E., Babu, K. M., & Bird, S. (2014). Medical marijuana and driving: A review. Journal of Medical Toxicology, 10(3), 341-347.
• Palamar, J. J., Fenstermaker, M., Kamboukos, D., Ompad, D. C., Cleland, C. M., & Weitzman, M. (2014). Adverse psychosocial outcomes associated with drug use among US high school seniors: A comparison of alcohol and marijuana. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 40(6), 425-434.
• Thames, A. D., Arbid, N., & Sayegh, P. (2014). Cannabis use and neurocognitive functioning in a non-clinical sample of users. Addictive Behaviors, 39(5), 1070-1074.
• Tashkin, D. P., Baldwin, G. C., Sarafian, T., Dubinett, S., & Roth, M. D. (2002). Respiratory and immunologic consequences of marijuana smoking. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 42(11_suppl_1), 71S-81S.
• Volkow, N. D., Baler, R. D., Compton, W. M., & Weiss, S. R. B. (2014). Adverse health effects of marijuana use. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(23), 2219-2227.