When it comes to legalizing cannabis there are many obstacles to overcome. One of the primary objections the prohibitionists use is the 'we must protect the children' line. This can be a very powerful argument as nobody wants to be seen as intentionally or unintentionally putting children in harms way or increasing their exposure to real danger. Fear is usually the strongest human motivator and if a parent or other adult fears for the safety of their, or anothers child, that can be extremely difficult to overcome. Recently I came across an exchange in the comments of an article related to legalization that illustrates this very well. The following is the exchange, with only the last names edited, and my analysis.
Lama R
I am Papua New Guinean and would like to say that, marijuana is affecting most of the young children who are the potential future leaders of this beautiful nation. Currently marijuana use is illegal but many young people are using it maybe because our laws are not strong to arrest and prosecute those who use marijuana.
Reply
Pueblo P
Here in America we are learning that prosecuting people for using a harmless drug is a waste of valuable resources. Marijuana is almost completely harmless, that is a fact.
If you need to research the plant, or need a place to produce your state regulated crop you might want to contact healersfarm.com. I understand they are building cannabis research facilities in Colorado.
Reply
Dexter
Stop spreading lies. Go to scholar.google.com It FOR A FACT lowers your IQ, and diminishes ability to plan and use data to think. I am not making this up based on an article in a liberal news source, this is the scientific fact. Not a single doctor or report is in existence that supports your claim.
Reply
Exile
It is true that heavy use of marijuana worsens short term memory and critical thinking skills so long as the individual does not continue regular puzzle solving practices. However, criminalization only allows this drug to remain on the black market and remain within easy reach for an overwhelming majority of the youth in our country. Legalize it, regulate it, and only then will you protect people. Prohibition taught us this lesson decades ago with alcohol, yet we keep beating that tired old drum like it actually works. All going against the majority does is stuff money into the pockets of criminals and puts the vulnerable members of our society at even greater risk. By putting them in prison, fining them, confiscating all their property, or forcing them to go to pushers for something that is subsequently less harmful than the other products those individuals want you hooked on. From a societal, medical, and financial standpoint, there is no good reason not to legalize it outright.
My analysis of the argument ‘What about the children?’
Lana R makes the statement “that marijuana is affecting most of the young children” and that “many young people are using it maybe because our laws are not strong to arrest and prosecute those who use marijuana” suggesting that first, marijuana causes negative ‘affect’ and subsequently harm to ‘young children’ and ‘young people’ and second, the answer is to arrest and prosecute them.
Pueblo P posits that “Marijuana is almost completely harmless, that is a fact.” Implying that marijuana is not causing harm to young children.
Dexter tries to support Lana’s statement claiming “It FOR A FACT lowers your IQ, and diminishes ability to plan and use data to think.”
Exile expresses the potentially greatest harm to ‘young children’ and ‘young people’ using marijuana by saying it “remains within easy reach for an overwhelming majority of the youth in our country. Legalize it, regulate it, and only then will you protect (the young children). Prohibition puts the vulnerable members of our society at even greater risk by putting them in prison, fining them, confiscating all their property” also pointing out prohibitions failure to control supply.
These four individuals brilliantly voice both the best and worst of both sides of the marijuana legalization argument. The “we need to think about the children” position is one of the most powerful of the prohibitionist arguments, expressed here by Lana. It is countered by a highly disputed and very problematic claim of a benign effect by Pueblo, which is in turn refuted by the prohibitionists big gun IQ blast, as made by Dexter. Exile addresses Lana’s concern and proposed solution by pointing out harsh penalties for marijuana users has not reduced availability or use and has caused harm instead.
I love these four positions of argument because each is one of the strongest and also the weakest either side has. All of them are correct as well as being wrong. Here is how.
An adults concern and fear, especially a parents, for children is very real and cannot be dismissed. But who does ‘young children’ mean and are they different from the ‘young people’? We will for the ease of this discussion consider all minors, those under 18 years of age, to be ‘young children’ and those who are 18-25 years old to be ‘young people’. Lana’s fear of marijuana ‘affecting’ ‘young children’ and ‘young people’ must be pacified. However, her solution has been tried and she needs understand it does not work or have its effectiveness proven. To attempt to assuage her fear Pueblo claims marijuana is “almost harmless” as a “fact”. To reinforce her fear of marijuana’s harm and dismiss Pueblos claim, the “fact” that marijuana “lowers your IQ” is given by Dexter. Facts are supported by evidence. In such a contentious argument such as this, the only evidence that can be trusted is that which is unbiased, found using the scientific method which can be reproduced and has been peer reviewed. Neither Pueblo nor Dexter offer anything to support their statements of ‘fact’, let alone supply solid evidence. The claim of “almost harmless” is so general and overbroad as to be able to include or exclude almost any harm based on a purely subjective view of what constitutes harm. Therefore it is possible to either prove or disprove harm to ‘young children’ or ‘young people’ caused by marijuana ‘use’ potentially turning Pueblo’s ‘fact’ into a false assertion. Dexter’s instance of harm to IQ is likewise unsubstantiated and directed not toward ‘young children’ or ‘young people’ but to an ambiguous ‘your’. Tackling both Lana’s fear and solution, the admission of caused harm legitimizes the fear but makes the solution suggested the source of that harm in the action of prosecution due to criminalization, and that legalization instead is the answer, is made by Exile. In the US though, we prosecute for possession of marijuana not its ‘use’, which is Lana’s stated concern. The effects of prohibition on alcohol as evidence to support the claim of legalizations reduction of harm of prosecution is given without the evidence required in this discussion, though it does exist and is generally known and accepted to be the case. While prosecution is a real potential harm to ‘young people’, and though ‘young children’ are often arrested they are rarely if ever prosecuted and imprisoned for marijuana possession crimes or have their property seized.
As can be shown, each position, can be either true or false depending on specifics. In this case the ‘affect’ of ‘young children’ being caused ‘harm’ in the form of prosecution is potentially very unlikely, due to the legal systems handling of crimes committed by minors less harshly than by adults. The negative effect on minors due to prosecution of adult providers or caretakers in their household can be very substantial and long lasting however. An ‘affect’ to their IQ could be possible if proven scientifically. Potential harm to ‘young people’ through legal action is very real and possibly devastating so. Long term economic ruin and incarceration are both realistic scenarios for ‘young people’ prosecuted for marijuana possession. While making the subjective claim that marijuana as a substance is ‘almost harmless’ when in relation to other substances or activities can be made and demonstrated scientifically, in this instance of effect on IQ or through legal punishment it is not reasonable. Significant scientific research has been done to determine the effect of marijuana use on IQ. The evidence does show a negative effect on IQ in ‘young children’ and ‘young people’ in some cases, but to what degree and consequence? Is the impact lasting or deleterious as to be noticeable or make any difference to any given outcome? Which harm is greater, marijuana use or prohibition? What solution provides the best opportunity for a positive outcome for the two groups we are discussing? Is prohibition and harsh punishment for ‘young children’ and ‘young people’ or legalization of marijuana better? What does the science say?
So who is right and who is wrong in their arguments scientifically pursuant to this specific discussion? They can’t all be right, can they? Well, yes actually, they can be. Then none of them are wrong, are they? Again, yes, they are all wrong. Here’s how.
Again it depends upon specifics, are we talking about ‘young children’ or ‘young people’? The results and outcomes are different for each group. That which may cause harm to one group has little or no potential to cause discernable harm to the other. As previously discussed the threat of legal action against adults is very real and can cause extreme harm. The effects of economic hardship, incarceration and felony stigmatization are well known and documented. These threats are so minimal as to be unmeasureable to minors. A negative effect on IQ has been measured in some developing brains, with the effect being greater the younger the individual is. This effect though is statistically insignificant, is temporary and leaves no measurable impact on possible future outcomes in relation to cognition. Studies suggesting significant or lasting reductions in IQ have been proven, through peer review, to be seriously flawed, limited and inaccurate.
The result is that Lana’s fear that marijuana’s ‘affect’ on ‘young children’ through their use, and that ‘use by young people’ will have a negative impact on their future potential to be community leaders is not based in reality, is not supported by the scientific data and is both unjustified and irrational. It will not “diminish(es) ability to plan and use data to think.” Marijuana use does not have lasting effect on IQ regardless of the users age, the degree of or length of that use. Of greater threat than marijuana use by these groups to their IQ, either short or long term, and their potential future cognitive outcomes are poor nutrition, living environment, quality of education and economic status. Her fear is entirely justified and real in the context of prohibition and the harms it causes to both ‘young children’ and ‘young people’. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that prohibition of marijuana and harsh legal penalties are far more harmful to and limiting of possible futures for both ‘young children’ and ‘young people’ than their ‘use’ of it. While this discussion does not advocate marijuana use by those with brains still developing it is clear that if that does happen, the effects are neither lasting nor detrimental on its own. Resources for enforcing prohibition of marijuana are better used for increasing access to quality nutrition, education and improving living conditions, both generally and in regard to specifically improving possible outcomes for ‘young children’ and ‘young people’ becoming future community leaders. Conversely the evidence shows that legalization actually reduces marijuana usage by youth thereby further reducing any potential harm from consumption and eliminates all harms caused by prohibition.
Note: Dexter’s partial statement ‘diminishes ability to plan and use data to think.’ was not addressed as those are part of the measure of IQ and is included in that part of the discussion.
Resources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC100921/pdf/20020402s00015p887.pdf
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...ce_Cannabis_Use_and_Regulation.pdf?1439332294
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/adb-adb0000103.pdf
https://proxy.baremetal.com/cannabi...g_info/Macleod_Cannabis_Youth_Lancet_2004.pdf
Wickersham Commission Report on Alcohol Prohibition (Table of Contents)
Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs - Table of Contents
The Facts About Drug Abuse
Francis L. Young
World Health Organization - Health Implications of Cannabis - Table of Contents
60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana - Medical Marijuana - ProCon.org
Adolescents | Drug War Facts
Families, Students & Youth | Drug War Facts
The truth is out there. Find it.
Knowledge is power, be strong.
Lama R
I am Papua New Guinean and would like to say that, marijuana is affecting most of the young children who are the potential future leaders of this beautiful nation. Currently marijuana use is illegal but many young people are using it maybe because our laws are not strong to arrest and prosecute those who use marijuana.
Reply
Pueblo P
Here in America we are learning that prosecuting people for using a harmless drug is a waste of valuable resources. Marijuana is almost completely harmless, that is a fact.
If you need to research the plant, or need a place to produce your state regulated crop you might want to contact healersfarm.com. I understand they are building cannabis research facilities in Colorado.
Reply
Dexter
Stop spreading lies. Go to scholar.google.com It FOR A FACT lowers your IQ, and diminishes ability to plan and use data to think. I am not making this up based on an article in a liberal news source, this is the scientific fact. Not a single doctor or report is in existence that supports your claim.
Reply
Exile
It is true that heavy use of marijuana worsens short term memory and critical thinking skills so long as the individual does not continue regular puzzle solving practices. However, criminalization only allows this drug to remain on the black market and remain within easy reach for an overwhelming majority of the youth in our country. Legalize it, regulate it, and only then will you protect people. Prohibition taught us this lesson decades ago with alcohol, yet we keep beating that tired old drum like it actually works. All going against the majority does is stuff money into the pockets of criminals and puts the vulnerable members of our society at even greater risk. By putting them in prison, fining them, confiscating all their property, or forcing them to go to pushers for something that is subsequently less harmful than the other products those individuals want you hooked on. From a societal, medical, and financial standpoint, there is no good reason not to legalize it outright.
My analysis of the argument ‘What about the children?’
Lana R makes the statement “that marijuana is affecting most of the young children” and that “many young people are using it maybe because our laws are not strong to arrest and prosecute those who use marijuana” suggesting that first, marijuana causes negative ‘affect’ and subsequently harm to ‘young children’ and ‘young people’ and second, the answer is to arrest and prosecute them.
Pueblo P posits that “Marijuana is almost completely harmless, that is a fact.” Implying that marijuana is not causing harm to young children.
Dexter tries to support Lana’s statement claiming “It FOR A FACT lowers your IQ, and diminishes ability to plan and use data to think.”
Exile expresses the potentially greatest harm to ‘young children’ and ‘young people’ using marijuana by saying it “remains within easy reach for an overwhelming majority of the youth in our country. Legalize it, regulate it, and only then will you protect (the young children). Prohibition puts the vulnerable members of our society at even greater risk by putting them in prison, fining them, confiscating all their property” also pointing out prohibitions failure to control supply.
These four individuals brilliantly voice both the best and worst of both sides of the marijuana legalization argument. The “we need to think about the children” position is one of the most powerful of the prohibitionist arguments, expressed here by Lana. It is countered by a highly disputed and very problematic claim of a benign effect by Pueblo, which is in turn refuted by the prohibitionists big gun IQ blast, as made by Dexter. Exile addresses Lana’s concern and proposed solution by pointing out harsh penalties for marijuana users has not reduced availability or use and has caused harm instead.
I love these four positions of argument because each is one of the strongest and also the weakest either side has. All of them are correct as well as being wrong. Here is how.
An adults concern and fear, especially a parents, for children is very real and cannot be dismissed. But who does ‘young children’ mean and are they different from the ‘young people’? We will for the ease of this discussion consider all minors, those under 18 years of age, to be ‘young children’ and those who are 18-25 years old to be ‘young people’. Lana’s fear of marijuana ‘affecting’ ‘young children’ and ‘young people’ must be pacified. However, her solution has been tried and she needs understand it does not work or have its effectiveness proven. To attempt to assuage her fear Pueblo claims marijuana is “almost harmless” as a “fact”. To reinforce her fear of marijuana’s harm and dismiss Pueblos claim, the “fact” that marijuana “lowers your IQ” is given by Dexter. Facts are supported by evidence. In such a contentious argument such as this, the only evidence that can be trusted is that which is unbiased, found using the scientific method which can be reproduced and has been peer reviewed. Neither Pueblo nor Dexter offer anything to support their statements of ‘fact’, let alone supply solid evidence. The claim of “almost harmless” is so general and overbroad as to be able to include or exclude almost any harm based on a purely subjective view of what constitutes harm. Therefore it is possible to either prove or disprove harm to ‘young children’ or ‘young people’ caused by marijuana ‘use’ potentially turning Pueblo’s ‘fact’ into a false assertion. Dexter’s instance of harm to IQ is likewise unsubstantiated and directed not toward ‘young children’ or ‘young people’ but to an ambiguous ‘your’. Tackling both Lana’s fear and solution, the admission of caused harm legitimizes the fear but makes the solution suggested the source of that harm in the action of prosecution due to criminalization, and that legalization instead is the answer, is made by Exile. In the US though, we prosecute for possession of marijuana not its ‘use’, which is Lana’s stated concern. The effects of prohibition on alcohol as evidence to support the claim of legalizations reduction of harm of prosecution is given without the evidence required in this discussion, though it does exist and is generally known and accepted to be the case. While prosecution is a real potential harm to ‘young people’, and though ‘young children’ are often arrested they are rarely if ever prosecuted and imprisoned for marijuana possession crimes or have their property seized.
As can be shown, each position, can be either true or false depending on specifics. In this case the ‘affect’ of ‘young children’ being caused ‘harm’ in the form of prosecution is potentially very unlikely, due to the legal systems handling of crimes committed by minors less harshly than by adults. The negative effect on minors due to prosecution of adult providers or caretakers in their household can be very substantial and long lasting however. An ‘affect’ to their IQ could be possible if proven scientifically. Potential harm to ‘young people’ through legal action is very real and possibly devastating so. Long term economic ruin and incarceration are both realistic scenarios for ‘young people’ prosecuted for marijuana possession. While making the subjective claim that marijuana as a substance is ‘almost harmless’ when in relation to other substances or activities can be made and demonstrated scientifically, in this instance of effect on IQ or through legal punishment it is not reasonable. Significant scientific research has been done to determine the effect of marijuana use on IQ. The evidence does show a negative effect on IQ in ‘young children’ and ‘young people’ in some cases, but to what degree and consequence? Is the impact lasting or deleterious as to be noticeable or make any difference to any given outcome? Which harm is greater, marijuana use or prohibition? What solution provides the best opportunity for a positive outcome for the two groups we are discussing? Is prohibition and harsh punishment for ‘young children’ and ‘young people’ or legalization of marijuana better? What does the science say?
So who is right and who is wrong in their arguments scientifically pursuant to this specific discussion? They can’t all be right, can they? Well, yes actually, they can be. Then none of them are wrong, are they? Again, yes, they are all wrong. Here’s how.
Again it depends upon specifics, are we talking about ‘young children’ or ‘young people’? The results and outcomes are different for each group. That which may cause harm to one group has little or no potential to cause discernable harm to the other. As previously discussed the threat of legal action against adults is very real and can cause extreme harm. The effects of economic hardship, incarceration and felony stigmatization are well known and documented. These threats are so minimal as to be unmeasureable to minors. A negative effect on IQ has been measured in some developing brains, with the effect being greater the younger the individual is. This effect though is statistically insignificant, is temporary and leaves no measurable impact on possible future outcomes in relation to cognition. Studies suggesting significant or lasting reductions in IQ have been proven, through peer review, to be seriously flawed, limited and inaccurate.
The result is that Lana’s fear that marijuana’s ‘affect’ on ‘young children’ through their use, and that ‘use by young people’ will have a negative impact on their future potential to be community leaders is not based in reality, is not supported by the scientific data and is both unjustified and irrational. It will not “diminish(es) ability to plan and use data to think.” Marijuana use does not have lasting effect on IQ regardless of the users age, the degree of or length of that use. Of greater threat than marijuana use by these groups to their IQ, either short or long term, and their potential future cognitive outcomes are poor nutrition, living environment, quality of education and economic status. Her fear is entirely justified and real in the context of prohibition and the harms it causes to both ‘young children’ and ‘young people’. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that prohibition of marijuana and harsh legal penalties are far more harmful to and limiting of possible futures for both ‘young children’ and ‘young people’ than their ‘use’ of it. While this discussion does not advocate marijuana use by those with brains still developing it is clear that if that does happen, the effects are neither lasting nor detrimental on its own. Resources for enforcing prohibition of marijuana are better used for increasing access to quality nutrition, education and improving living conditions, both generally and in regard to specifically improving possible outcomes for ‘young children’ and ‘young people’ becoming future community leaders. Conversely the evidence shows that legalization actually reduces marijuana usage by youth thereby further reducing any potential harm from consumption and eliminates all harms caused by prohibition.
Note: Dexter’s partial statement ‘diminishes ability to plan and use data to think.’ was not addressed as those are part of the measure of IQ and is included in that part of the discussion.
Resources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC100921/pdf/20020402s00015p887.pdf
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...ce_Cannabis_Use_and_Regulation.pdf?1439332294
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/adb-adb0000103.pdf
https://proxy.baremetal.com/cannabi...g_info/Macleod_Cannabis_Youth_Lancet_2004.pdf
Wickersham Commission Report on Alcohol Prohibition (Table of Contents)
Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs - Table of Contents
The Facts About Drug Abuse
Francis L. Young
World Health Organization - Health Implications of Cannabis - Table of Contents
60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana - Medical Marijuana - ProCon.org
Adolescents | Drug War Facts
Families, Students & Youth | Drug War Facts
The truth is out there. Find it.
Knowledge is power, be strong.
