MARIJUANA NOT THE ONLY SUBSTANCE DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR BODY'S HEALTH

I find it disturbing that everyone who writes in talking about
anti-marijuana propaganda goes on to give one-sided, fairly pro-marijuana
arguments. It seems as though their ability to think critically has been
damaged.

Granted there are those who vilify marijuana to the extreme, but marijuana
is not nearly as benign as Lauren Schnider and Scott Maggard have made it
out to be.

Here are some examples.

Scott quotes Alison Smiley basically saying that marijuana users drive more
carefully while high and so pose less risk than alcohol users.

That's the danger.

In 1994, a study was released that showed the effects of marijuana use in
Boeing 747 pilots.

Without drugs, every pilot landed a simulator within 27 feet of the
centerline.

High on marijuana, their performance plummeted to something like 150 feet
from the centerline.

They all knew how badly they had done, and said, I'll never do that again.

But the next day, when they were tested again, their performance only
improved marginally, something like 130 feet from center, but every single
one applauded themselves for doing so much better.

Is marijuana a danger?

Yes, because the next day when you don't realize that it's still affecting
you, you think you're back to 100 percent.

Lauren made comments to the effect that marijuana really isn't that
dangerous because it doesn't kill you while speeding does. (Actually it's
the difference in speed that kills.)

Likewise, you might say that people don't die of cigarettes. But they do
die from the things cigarettes can do to your body.

She seems to think that because something doesn't kill you directly and
immediately, then it must not kill you at all.

Marijuana does have more harmful substances than tobacco, but (at least in
the users I know) people do not smoke it as often as cigarettes.

Does that make it benign?

And what about cost to society?

It takes a long time for a smoker to develop emphysema or lung cancer, and
when they do many of them are on Medicare. Should society pay for the
result of their willful behavior?

What if it takes that long for marijuana related illnesses to show up?
Should we pay for the consequences of their illegal behavior?

The crux of Scott's argument seems to be that marijuana doesn't cause
schizophrenia.

That's kind of like being concerned about getting powder burns while
playing Russian roulette.

Let's have some perspective on which issues are more important.

Scott's statement that we should not give out false information is quite
true; accurate information is needed.

It's not an issue of whether marijuana is harmful to your body - it is.

But so are antibiotics, digoxin, codeine, Sinutab, caffeine, a high fat
diet, and being a couch potato.

The question is threefold:

1) Should society allow individuals to do harmful things to their body?

2) If an individual causes harm to themselves is it society's
responsibility to pay for the clean up?

3) Does that harmful activity cause harm to others in the society?

It's not an easy answer, because if marijuana is illegal, perhaps tobacco
and alcohol should be illegal also.

What about coffee? As long as we're at it, why not make fatty foods illegal?

Why not make exercise mandatory for everyone? Perhaps showers should be
illegal so we don't slip in them?

There has to be a balance between individual freedom and the good of society.

So far our government has drawn the line at marijuana and 70 mph.

The question is whether or not that is a good place to draw the line.