Essay #5
You need 5 credible sources for the MLA Works Cited page in your final capstone essay.
Your guidelines for your Final Research Paper are as follows:
This research paper should present a thesis that is specific, manageable, provable, and contestable—in other words, the thesis should offer a clear position, stand, or opinion that will be proven with research.
You should analyze and prove your thesis using examples and quotes from a variety of sources.
You need to research and cite from at least five sources. You must use at least 3 different types of sources.
At least one source must be from an ECC library database.
At least one source must be a book, anthology or textbook.
At least one source must be from a credible website, appropriate for academic use.
The paper should not over-rely on one main source for most of the information. Rather, it should use multiple sources and synthesize the information found in them.
This paper will be approximately 5-7 pages in length, not including the Works Cited page, which is also required. This means at least 5 full pages of text. The Works Cited page does NOT count towards length requirement.
You must use MLA format for the document, in-text citations, and Works Cited page.
You must integrate quotations and paraphrases using signal phrases and analysis or commentary.
You must sustain your argument, use transitions effectively, and use correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
Your paper must be logically organized and focused.
Default Setting Essay Template for 1,200-word essay
9 Paragraphs, 135 words per paragraph, approx. 1,200 words (1,215 to be exact)
Paragraph 1: Attention-getting introduction
Paragraph 2: Transition from introduction to argumentative claim (thesis)
Paragraphs 3-6: Body paragraphs that give reasons for supporting your claim.
Paragraphs 7 & 8: Counterarguments in which you anticipate how your opponents will disagree with you, and you then provide rebuttals to those counterarguments.
Paragraph 9: Conclusion, an emotionally powerful re-statement of your thesis.
Make sure to include a Works Cited page.
Final Essay #5 for 1,200 words
Option A
Develop an argumentative thesis that analyzes the intersection of tribalism and fake facts as anti-vaxxers bring disease back to the world. Consult the following: “The Real Horror of Anti-Vaxxers” by Frank Bruni, Michelle Au’s fear tactic essay in Slate, John Oliver video on vaccinations. See Bulwark “Contagion of Folly.” See New York Times logical fallacies video. Also see "Why Vaccination Refusal Is a White Privilege Problem."
Also take note:
In Peter Beinart's "What the Measles Epidemic Really Says About America," we have an excellent analysis of how the measles epidemic points to a larger breakdown of American society.
This is a compelling work that relates to essay assignment on Anti-Vaxxers.
Variation of Option A
Defend or refute the claim made in "The Anti-Vaxxers Spreading Measles in Portland Should be Arrested" by Patrick A. Coleman.
Option B
See video “3 Arguments Why Marijuana Should Stay Illegal” and read Annie Lowry’s essay “America’s Invisible Pot Addicts” and support, refute, or complicate the argument that legalizing weed is a bad idea. See Netflix documentary Grass Is Greener. You should also consult new study published in The Atlantic about pot smoking and pregnancy risks.
Option C
In context of Alfie Kohn’s “From Degrading to De-Grading,” support, refute, or complicate Alfie Kohn’s assertion that grading is an inferior education tool that all conscientious teachers should abandon. In other words, will students benefit from an accountability-free education? Why? Explain.
Option D
Develop a thesis that about the ritualization of violence as described by Steve Almond in his essay “Is It Immoral to Watch the Super Bowl?” and his video “Eager Violence of the Heart--America’s Football Obsession.” As a source, you can also consult The Professor in the Cage by Jonathan Gottschall.
Option E
Support, refute, or complicate Harlan Coben’s argument from “The Undercover Parent” that spyware is a legit and compelling safety measure that parents may need to use for their children’s computers.
Option F
Read Madeleine Pape's Guardian essay "I was sore at losing to Caster Semeyna," and develop an argumentative thesis about the controversy surrounding Semeyna's desire to compete in women's sports. You can also consult the NYT editorial "The Myth of Testosterone," "The Controversy Around Caster Semeyna Explained," and "The Caster Semeyna Ruling Is a Disgrace to the Sporting World." See PBS video. Also see Vox article "'I am a woman and I am fast.'" Also see Washington Post on the debate on what is scientific or not about gender.
Week 5 Anti-Vaxxers, Marijuana, and NFL Violence
July 15 Essay 4 due on turnitin. Your homework for July 16 is to read Annie Lowry’s essay “America’s Invisible Pot Addicts” and in 3 paragraphs support, refute, or complicate the argument that legalizing weed is a bad idea.
We will develop an argumentative thesis that analyzes the intersection of tribalism and fake facts as anti-vaxxers bring disease back to the world. We will consult the following: “The Real Horror of Anti-Vaxxers” by Frank Bruni, Michelle Au’s fear tactic essay in Slate, John Oliver video on vaccinations. See “Anti-Vaxxers Trolled a Doctor’s Office” in the Washington Post. We will also consult Bulwark “Contagion of Folly.” We will also consult New York Times logical fallacies video, and we will read "Why Vaccination Refusal Is a White Privilege Problem."
July 16 We will see video “3 Arguments Why Marijuana Should Stay Illegal” and go over Annie Lowry’s essay “America’s Invisible Pot Addicts. We will also see Netflix documentary and Netflix Explained. If we have time, we will read Alfie Kohn’s “From Degrading to De-Grading.” See this PBS video, which shows both sides of debate.
We will read Steve Almond’s essay “Is It Immoral to Watch the Super Bowl?” and in 3 paragraphs support or refute his claim.
July 17 We will go over Steve Almond’s essay. We will also watch his video “Eager Violence of the Heart--America’s Football Obsession.” As a source, you can also consult The Professor in the Cage by Jonathan Gottschall.
July 18 We will go over Harlan Coben’s argument from “The Undercover Parent” and discuss if spyware is a legit and compelling safety measure that parents may need to use for their children’s computers. We will go over counterarguments. We will also go over your introductions and thesis statements in class. We will go over Madeleine Pape's Guardian essay "I was sore at losing to Caster Semeyna," explain in 3 paragraphs Pape’s defense of Caster Semeyna.
Go over Madeleine Pape's Guardian essay "I was sore at losing to Caster Semeyna," and develop an argumentative thesis about the controversy surrounding Semeyna's desire to compete in women's sports. You can also consult the NYT editorial "The Myth of Testosterone," "The Controversy Around Caster Semeyna Explained," and "The Caster Semeyna Ruling Is a Disgrace to the Sporting World." See PBS video. Also see Vox article "'I am a woman and I am fast.'" Also see Washington Post on the debate on what is scientific or not about gender. We will work on thesis statements in class.
Comma Splice Review
Identify the Comma Splices Below:
It’s not a question of will there be chaos or will there be destruction, it’s a question of how much?
MySpace was disruptive in its time, however, it’s a dated platform and to simply mention it is to make people laugh with a certain derision surely it’s a platform that has seen its time, another example is the meal replacement Soylent, its creator made a drink that says, “You’re too busy to eat,” so drinking this pancake batter-like concoction gives tech people street. I may laugh at its stupidity, instead I should admire it since the product has made millions for its creator. It’s proven to be somewhat disruptive.
To be sure, though, Facebook redefines the word disruptive, it has rapidly accrued over 3 billion users and will soon have half the planet plugged into its site, that is the apotheosis of a greedy person’s fantasy, imagine controlling half the planet on a platform that mines private information and targets ads toward specific personality profiles.
One of the scary disruptions of Facebook is that billions of people have lost their personal agency, what that means that people have unknowingly been manipulated by Facebook’s puppeteers to the point that many Facebook users suffer from social media addiction, moreover, these same users prefer the fake life they curate on social media to the real life they once had, in fact, their previous real life is just a puff of smoke that has faded into the distance, many people no longer even know what it means to be “real” anymore, having lost their agency, having succumbed to their Facebook addiction, they have become zombies waiting for their next rush of social media-fueled dopamine, what a sad state of affairs.
Commas are designed to help writers avoid confusing sentences and to clarify the logic of their sentences.
If you cook Jeff will clean the dishes. (Will you cook Jeff?)
While we were eating a rattlesnake approached us. (Were we eating a rattlesnake?)
Comma Rule 1: Use a comma before a coordinating conjunction (FANBOYS) joining two independent clauses.
Rattlesnakes are high in protein, but I’d rather eat a peanut butter sandwich.
Rattlesnakes are dangerous, and the desert species are even more so.
We are a proud people, for our ancestors passed down these famous delicacies over a period of five thousand years.
The exception to rule 1 is when the two independent clauses are short:
The plane took off and we were on our way.
Comma Rule 2: Use a comma after an introductory clause or phrase.
When Jeff Henderson was in prison, he developed an appetite for reading.
In the nearby room, the TV is blaring full blast.
Tanning in the hot Hermosa Beach sun for over two hours, I realized I had better call it a day.
The exception is when the short adverb clause or phrase is short and doesn’t create the possibility of a misreading:
In no time we were at 2,800 feet.
Comma Rule 3: Use a comma between all items in a series.
Jeff Henderson found redemption through hard work, self-reinvention, and social altruism.
Finding his passion, mastering his craft, and giving back to the community were all part of Jeff Henderson’s self-reinvention.
Comma Rule 4: Use a comma between coordinate adjectives not joined with “and.” Do not use a comma between cumulative adjectives.
The adjectives below are called coordinate because they modify the noun separately:
Jeff Henderson is a passionate, articulate, wise speaker.
The adjectives above are coordinate because they can be joined with “and.” Jeff Henderson is passionate and articulate and wise.
Adjectives that do not modify the noun separately are cumulative.
Three large gray shapes moved slowly toward us.
Chocolate fudge peanut butter swirl coconut cake is divine.
Comma Rule 5: Use commas to set off nonrestrictive (nonessential) elements.
Restrictive or essential information doesn’t have a comma:
For school the students need notebooks that are college-ruled.
Jeff’s cat that just had kittens became very aggressive.
Nonrestrictive:
For school the students need college-ruled notebooks, which are on sale at the bookstore.
Jeff Henderson’s mansion, which is located in Las Vegas, has a state-of-the-art kitchen.
My youngest sister, who plays left wing on the soccer team, now lives at The Sands, a beach house near Los Angeles.
Option B
See video “3 Arguments Why Marijuana Should Stay Illegal” and read Annie Lowry’s essay “America’s Invisible Pot Addicts” and support, refute, or complicate the argument that legalizing weed is a bad idea. See Netflix documentary Grass Is Greener. You should also consult new study published in The Atlantic about pot smoking and pregnancy risks.
Here is Emily Oster's excerpt:
First, it is enormous and comprehensive. The study includes more than 600,000 women—effectively all the women who gave birth in Ontario from 2012 through 2017—and the data come from administrative records. Infant outcomes were measured objectively, and information on marijuana use was collected in the same way for everyone in the sample: Women were asked about it at an early prenatal visit, and their answers were included in their official records. Use was self-reported, but, again, at least all the women were asked the same question.
Second, the authors did about as well as seems possible in handling the “women who use marijuana are different” problem. The women who reported cannabis use were much more likely to be teenagers, were poorer, were more likely to be underweight, and were much, much more likely to smoke cigarettes. Fifty-eight percent of the marijuana users smoked cigarettes, versus only 8 percent of the nonusers. Tobacco use is well known to increase the risk of prematurity and various birth complications.
The authors dealt with the issue by using a matching technique: They matched users to nonusers with all of the same characteristics. Faced with a 16-year-old underweight tobacco smoker in the user category with no previous pregnancies, the researchers looked in their (much larger) sample of nonusers for another 16-year-old underweight tobacco smoker with no previous pregnancies. They (or rather, their computers) did a version of this for all the marijuana users. Individuals without a match were left out. Individuals with many matches were compared with the average of their matches.
The goal was to have the two groups look as similar as possible on all variables other than use of marijuana. Then they could go ahead and compare the two groups with some confidence that the effects they saw were due to the differences in marijuana use.
Ultimately, the authors did find some increased risk of poor birth outcomes among the cannabis users: most notably an increased risk of premature birth, an increased risk of the infant being small for his or her gestational age, and an increased risk of transfer to the NICU. These risks were large if not staggering. For example, the risk of preterm birth was 10 percent in the cannabis user group versus 7 percent among nonusers. That’s a statistically significant difference.
This study could change the tenor of the discussion around marijuana and pregnancy. Already the website UpToDate, a resource for doctors to get up-to-the-minute advice about treating patients, suggests that medical professionals urge greater caution in light of these findings. That change seems appropriate. The JAMA study represents a sizable advance over what we knew before.
However, this new study is not perfect or comprehensive, and it shouldn’t be the end of the story. For one thing, despite the matching effort, it may be that the marijuana users in the sample were different from nonusers in ways that were unobservable to the researchers. Put differently, users are more likely to be underweight—could it be that they are less healthy in other respects, too? Since the researchers did not observe other metrics of health, they could not use their matching program to hold those constant. Nor did the authors offer answers to important questions such as: Does it matter when in pregnancy the marijuana use occurs? Does it matter if the user smokes marijuana or prefers edibles? And on and on. The authors, moreover, did not look into how marijuana use in pregnant women affects a child’s brain development later in life.
A blanket warning against marijuana use, moreover, might not be advisable given possible side benefits. Marijuana has been shown to dramatically mitigate nausea, for instance, so women with severe nausea may decide the advantages outweigh the risks.
In my writing I often complain about the studies we have available, usually without being constructive. Here, I think it is worth asking what even better evidence might look like. This question is not going away, and we need better answers.
The best evidence would come from randomized controlled trials. You might think that’s completely impossible—could we really randomly encourage some pregnant women to smoke pot? But I can see a couple of ways to do it.
One is to focus on women with severe nausea and treat some of them randomly with marijuana (probably in the form of edibles). Since a feasible medicinal benefit exists, there is a stronger argument for why this experiment is ethical despite the risk. A second is to take a sample of women who already use marijuana and randomly encourage some of them to quit during pregnancy. This type of study is the source of most of our evidence on tobacco.
A somewhat more social-scientific approach would be to look at whether pregnancy and birth complications go up in states that legalize marijuana (since presumably legalization increases usage, in pregnancy and out).
Until our data improve, we work with what we have. At this point, if you’re pregnant and a marijuana user and you’re wondering what to do, my answer is: Don’t freak out; do think seriously about quitting.
There are more or less 3 positions:
One. Keep marijuana illegal.
Two. Legalize marijuana with the caveat that you regulate it.
Three. Legalize marijuana and don't regulate it because regulation will create a black market thereby cancelling the benefits of legalization.
Suggested Outline for Marijuana Debate
Paragraph 1:Introduce your topic with a salient statistic about pot growth, profits, dependence numbers, or the new study in The Atlantic about pregnancy risk.
Paragraph 2: Transition to your thesis in which you make an argumentative claim about legalized marijuana and its effects on society.
Paragraphs 3-6 would be your supporting paragraphs.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 would be your counterargument-rebuttal paragraphs.
Paragraph 9, you conclusion will be a powerful restatement of your thesis.
Excerpt from Annie Lowrey's "America's Invisible Pot Addicts" (headings my own):
Daily Use from 9-40%
Public-health experts worry about the increasingly potent options available, and the striking number of constant users. “Cannabis is potentially a real public-health problem,” said Mark A. R. Kleiman, a professor of public policy at New York University. “It wasn’t obvious to me 25 years ago, when 9 percent of self-reported cannabis users over the last month reported daily or near-daily use. I always was prepared to say, ‘No, it’s not a very abusable drug. Nine percent of anybody will do something stupid.’ But that number is now [something like] 40 percent.” They argue that state and local governments are setting up legal regimes without sufficient public-health protection, with some even warning that the country is replacing one form of reefer madness with another, careening from treating cannabis as if it were as dangerous as heroin to treating it as if it were as benign as kombucha.
3 Causes of Pot Rising to Addiction Levels
But cannabis is not benign, even if it is relatively benign, compared with alcohol, opiates, and cigarettes, among other substances. Thousands of Americans are finding their own use problematic in a climate where pot products are getting more potent, more socially acceptable to use, and yet easier to come by, not that it was particularly hard before.
For Keith Humphreys, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University, the most compelling evidence of the deleterious effects comes from users themselves. “In large national surveys, about one in 10 people who smoke it say they have a lot of problems. They say things like, ‘I have trouble quitting. I think a lot about quitting and I can’t do it. I smoked more than I intended to. I neglect responsibilities.’ There are plenty of people who have problems with it, in terms of things like concentration, short-term memory, and motivation,” he said. “People will say, ‘Oh, that’s just you fuddy-duddy doctors.’ Actually, no. It’s millions of people who use the drug who say that it causes problems.”
Users or former users I spoke with described lost jobs, lost marriages, lost houses, lost money, lost time. Foreclosures and divorces. Weight gain and mental-health problems. And one other thing: the problem of convincing other people that what they were experiencing was real. A few mentioned jokes about Doritos, and comments implying that the real issue was that they were lazy stoners. Others mentioned the common belief that you can be “psychologically” addicted to pot, but not “physically” or “really” addicted. The condition remains misunderstood, discounted, and strangely invisible, even as legalization and white-marketization pitches ahead.
Central Debate
The country is in the midst of a volte-face on marijuana. The federal government still classifies cannabis as a Schedule I drug, with no accepted medical use. (Meth and PCP, among other drugs, are Schedule II.) Politicians still argue it is a gateway to the use of things like heroin and cocaine. The country still spends billions of dollars fighting it in a bloody and futile drug war, and still arrests more people for offenses related to cannabis than it does for all violent crimes combined.
Yet dozens of states have pushed ahead with legalization for medical or recreational purposes, given that for decades physicians have argued that marijuana’s health risks have been overstated and its medical uses overlooked; activists have stressed prohibition’s tremendous fiscal cost and far worse human cost; and researchers have convincingly argued that cannabis is far less dangerous than alcohol. A solid majority of Americans support legalization nowadays.
Marketing a Lie
Academics and public-health officials, though, have raised the concern that cannabis’s real risks have been overlooked or underplayed—perhaps as part of a counter-reaction to federal prohibition, and perhaps because millions and millions of cannabis users have no problems controlling their use. “Part of how legalization was sold was with this assumption that there was no harm, in reaction to the message that everyone has smoked marijuana was going to ruin their whole life,” Humphreys told me. It was a point Kleiman agreed with. “I do think that not legalization, but the legalization movement, does have a lot on its conscience now,” he said. “The mantra about how this is a harmless, natural, and non-addictive substance—it’s now known by everybody. And it’s a lie.”
Thousands of businesses, as well as local governments earning tax money off of sales, are now literally invested in that lie. “The liquor companies are salivating,” Matt Karnes of GreenWave Advisors told me. “They can’t wait to come in full force.” He added that Big Pharma was targeting the medical market, with Wall Street, Silicon Valley, food businesses, and tobacco companies aiming at the recreational market.
Sellers are targeting broad swaths of the consumer market—soccer moms, recent retirees, folks looking to replace their nightly glass of chardonnay with a precisely dosed, low-calorie, and hangover-free mint. Many have consciously played up cannabis as a lifestyle product, a gift to give yourself, like a nice crystal or an antioxidant face cream. “This is not about marijuana,” one executive at the California retailer MedMen recently argued. “This is about the people who use cannabis for all the reasons people have used cannabis for hundreds of years. Yes, for recreation, just like alcohol, but also for wellness.”
Pot Replaces Motivation
Evan started off smoking with his friends when they were playing sports or video games, lighting up to chill out after his nine-to-five as a paralegal at a law office. But that soon became couch-lock, and he lost interest in working out, going out, doing anything with his roommates. Then came a lack of motivation and the slow erosion of ambition, and law school moving further out of reach. He started smoking before work and after work. Eventually, he realized it was impossible to get through the day without it. “I was smoking anytime I had to do anything boring, and it took a long time before I realized that I wasn’t doing anything without getting stoned,” he said.
His first attempts to reduce his use went miserably, as the consequences on his health and his life piled up. He gained nearly 40 pounds, he said, when he stopped working out and cooking his own food at home. He recognized that he was just barely getting by at work, and was continually worried about getting fired. Worse, his friends were unsympathetic to the idea that he was struggling and needed help. “[You have to] try to convince someone that something that is hurting you is hurting you,” he said.
Weaponizing Marijuana Potency as a Consumer Product Is Big Money with Big Health Consequences
Lax regulatory standards and aggressive commercialization in some states have compounded some existing public-health risks, raised new ones, and failed to tamp down on others, experts argue. In terms of compounding risks, many cite the availability of hyper-potent marijuana products. “We’re seeing these increases in the strength of cannabis, as we are also seeing an emergence of new types of products,” such as edibles, tinctures, vape pens, sublingual sprays, and concentrates, Ziva Cooper, an associate professor of clinical neurobiology in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center, told me. “A lot of these concentrates can have up to 90 percent THC,” she said, whereas the kind of flower you could get 30 years ago was far, far weaker. Scientists are not sure how such high-octane products affect people’s bodies, she said, but worry that they might have more potential for raising tolerance, introducing brain damage, and inculcating dependence.
As for new risks: In many stores, budtenders are providing medical advice with no licensing or training whatsoever. “I’m most scared of the advice to smoke marijuana during pregnancy for cramps,” said Humphreys, arguing that sellers were providing recommendations with no scientific backing, good or bad, at all.
In terms of long-standing risks, the lack of federal involvement in legalization has meant that marijuana products are not being safety-tested like pharmaceuticals; measured and dosed like food products; subjected to agricultural-safety and pesticide standards like crops; and held to labeling standards like alcohol. (Different states have different rules and testing regimes, complicating things further.)
Health experts also cited an uncomfortable truth about allowing a vice product to be widely available, loosely regulated, and fully commercialized: Heavy users will make up a huge share of sales, with businesses wanting them to buy more and spend more and use more, despite any health consequences.
Prohibition Is Not the Answer: Regulation Is
This is not to say that prohibition is a more attractive policy, or that legalization has proven to be a public-health disaster. “The big-picture view is that the vast majority of people who use cannabis are not going to be problematic users,” said Jolene Forman, an attorney at the Drug Policy Alliance. “They’re not going to have a cannabis-use disorder. They’re going to have a healthy relationship with it. And criminalization actually increases the harms related to cannabis, and so having a strictly regulated market where there can be limits on advertising, where only adults can purchase cannabis, and where you’re going to get a wide variety of products makes sense.”
Still, strictly regulated might mean more strictly regulated than today, at least in some places, drug-policy experts argue. “Here, what we’ve done is we’ve copied the alcohol industry fully formed, and then on steroids with very minimal regulation,” Humphreys said. “The oversight boards of a number of states are the industry themselves. We’ve learned enough about capitalism to know that’s very dangerous.”
A number of policy reforms might tamp down on problem use and protect consumers, without quashing the legal market or pivoting back to prohibition and all its harms. One extreme option would be to require markets to be noncommercial: The District of Columbia, for instance, does not allow recreational sales, but does allow home cultivation and the gifting of marijuana products among adults. “If I got to pick a policy, that would probably be it,” Kleiman told me. “That would be a fine place to be if we were starting from prohibition, but we are starting from patchwork legalization. As the Vermont farmer says, I don’t think you can get there from here. I fear its time has passed. It’s generally true that the drug warriors have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”
Then, there are THC taxes, designed to hit heavy users the hardest. Some drug-policy experts argue that such levies would just push people from marijuana to alcohol, with dangerous health consequences. “It would be like saying, ‘Let’s let the beef and pork industries market and do whatever they wish, but let’s have much tougher restrictions on tofu and seitan,’” said Mason Tvert of the Marijuana Policy Project. “In light of the current system, where alcohol is so prevalent and is a more harmful substance, it is bad policy to steer people toward that.” Yet reducing the commercial appeal of all vice products—cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana—is an option, if not necessarily a popular one.
Counterargument and Rebuttal Section of Your Essay
Where can we seek counterarguments? Websites that champion cannabis consumption, of course. So let's look at a cannabis blog.
https://cannabis.net/blog/opinion/shutting-up-the-invisible-pot-addicts-idea
Counterargument #1: Daily Wine Vs. Daily Pot, Faulty Comparison?
Perhaps most important might be reintroducing some reasonable skepticism about cannabis, especially until scientists have a better sense of the health effects of high-potency products, used frequently. Until then, listening to and believing the hundreds of thousands of users who argue marijuana is not always benign might be a good start.
There’s no shortage of other reasonable proposals, many already in place or under consideration in some states. The government could run marijuana stores, as in Canada. States could require budtenders to have some training or to refrain from making medical claims. They could ask users to set a monthly THC purchase cap and remain under it. They could cap the amount of THC in products, and bar producers from making edibles that are attractive to kids, like candies. A ban or limits on marijuana advertising are also options, as is requiring cannabis dispensaries to post public-health information.
According to organizations such as NIDA, these daily wine drinkers are “alcoholics” or “heavy drinkers”. Within their realm of rationalization, consuming anything daily means automatically you’re an addict.
Counterargument #2: People rely on daily substances all the time: Two Wrongs Make a Right Fallacy
However, it is important to make the distinction between daily use and addiction. For instance, if someone smokes up every single night after a long day of work to unwind…how does that make them an addict. Just because of the substance in question?
If you’re having trouble sleeping and go to a doctor, they will either prescribe you a regimen of exercises or some Zoloft to get you sleeping. Within this scenario, if you take Zoloft every night to go to sleep…are you addicted or just ‘medicating’?
And this is where Cannabis is also very different from every other type of recreational drug on the market. Due to the cannabinoid activity within the plant and the plethora of medical benefits these terpenes and cannabis provides to the endocannabinoid system; many people substitute cannabis for medicines like Zoloft.
Counterargument #3: Addicts are going to be addicts anyway; if it's not pot, it will be something else, so what the hell?
Of course, the psychological aspects of cannabis could play a role within the mental structure of an addict. However, for an addict…if it’s not one substance it’s another. If they aren’t addicted to cannabis, they would be addicted to food, sex or anything really.
Nonetheless, we can’t place heavy regulations on cannabis based on the reactions of a small minority of people.
Counterargument #4: Lots of things are dangerous, like cars. Should we illegalize cars?
Let me put it to you this way. Some people will inevitably crash their cars and kill other people. This is fact. Does this mean that we get rid of all cars, place limits on how fast cars can go?
We do have some regulation when it comes to cars though. We make sure they are road worthy, we have certain rules and guidelines within the public space…however we’re not placing limits on manufacturers. We’re not setting a National Top Speed of 60 MPH where every car manufacturer is forced to make cars that can only go 60 MPHs.
Similarly, placing restrictions on a budding industry, setting limitations on THC levels and so forth is irrational.
Counterargument #5: "You can't trust the government."
The only reason why “some people” are having issues with cannabis is because the government has been spreading misinformation about cannabis for decades. The “trust” in the government authority have diminished over time.
Rebuttal:
A lot of studies Lowrey refers to are independent academic studies, not government ones.
Counterargument #6: "Just be careful, bro."
Cannabis is a mind altering substance and you should always be careful when you’re playing with brain chemistry, however the problem doesn’t lie with the substance but rather education surrounding the substance.
Furthermore, addiction goes far beyond any particular substance. It has to do with identity, purpose, behavioral patterns, genetics and of course a sense of belonging.
Recent Comments