AVOID FAULTY REASONING IN MARIJUANA DEBATE

Over the past few weeks, several letters to the editor have expressed
outrage at the thought of medical marijuana legislation being
approved. While most have attempted to disguise their bad faith
arguments as a defense of the medical industry and "good" or "proper"
medicine, facts have a way of undermining that alleged sincerity.

First, in an attempt to defend doctors, the commenters routinely make
the implicit suggestion that doctors are incapable of determining
what medicine is appropriate for their patients. It is a profound
display of bad faith to suggest that doctors don't know the dangers
of carcinogens, or worse, that they will somehow abandon this
knowledge if a new form of medicine is approved.

Second, what pharmaceuticals (aside from vaccines) have cured
ailments? If the answer is none or not many, then there is no reason
to place other forms of treatment above one that hasn't been tested.
The absence of laboratory findings for something that is prohibited
is not the same as saying the findings are inconclusive or negative.

Finally, those stubborn facts have a tendency to undermine faulty
arguments. One such fact is a new breakthrough in smoking cessation
that has helped several people quit tobacco and to reduce their
intake of carcinogens in the process. "Vaporizers" are known to
reduce the intake of carcinogens to a negligible level while still
allowing the ingestion of the targeted ingredient (nicotine or THC),
so arguing that approval of medical marijuana is the same as
recommending the ingestion of carcinogens is patently false.

Debate should continue on this issue, but it would be preferable if
both sides refrained from the use of fallacious reasoning while
advocating their position.

Christopher Call

Springfield