Factual Proposition: Consuming marijuana is detrimental to oneÆs health.
Definition of key terms:
1. Consumption= Smoking or eating marijuana.
2. Marijuana= Psychoactive mind altering substance, also known as cannabis.
3. Detrimental= Serious harm.
Primary Inference:
Smoking or eating marijuana is likely to create serious health problems for most individual users or society.
Overview:
Since the 1920Æs supporters of marijuana prohibition have exaggerated the drugs dangers. Many of the ôreefer madnessö tales that were used to bring support for early anti- marijuana laws , continue to appear in reports today. The most important studies of recent times took place in the 1970Æs in Greece, Costa Rica and Jamaica. These tests reported on the effects of marijuana on its users in there natural environment. The reports covered marijuanaÆs effect on the brain, immune and reproductive systems. (1) These studies didnÆt answer all the questions about the effects of marijuana on the user, but supported the idea that marijuana for the majority of its users was not detrimental to the health of the users brain, immune or reproductive system. In looking at all the reports that are published there are perhaps, random studies which may indicate greater toxicity of the drug. But in all of these cases, the research was flawed or inaccurate since the findings cannot be duplicated by other scientists.
Contention I: Marijuana does not damage brain cells.
A. Claim: Use of marijuana does not cause memory loss.
1. Grounds: In a recent study rhesus monkeys were exposed to the equivalent of 4-5 joints per day for an entire year without any alteration of hippocampal architecture.(2) Slikker, W. et al,ö Behavioral, Neurochemical, and Neurohistological Effects of chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Nonhuman Primate,öpp219-74 in l. Murphy and A. Bartke (eds), Marijuana Neurobiology and Neurophysiology, Boca Raton: CRC press(1992)
2. Warrant: Alteration in hippocampal structure results in memory loss.
3. Backing: A study reports ô Any alteration of the hippo campus, a cortical brain region, results in negative consequences for learning and memory in humans.(3) Heath, B.C. et al, ôCannabis Sativa: Effects on Brain Function and Ultra structure in Rhesus Monkeys, ôBiological Psychiatry 15:657 (1980).
B. Claim: Use of marijuana does not cause cognitive impairment.
1. Grounds: In a study it is reported ô marijuana intoxication does not impair brain related cognitive functionsö(4)
Weckowicz, T.E. et al, ôEffect of Marijuana on Divergent and convergent Production Cognitive Tests,ö Journal of Abnormal Psychology 84: 386-98(1975)
2. Warrant: Studies have shown that marijuana does not effect brain related cognitive functions.
3. Backing: Researchers have proved scientifically that marijuana does not impair cognitive brain functioning include(5)Hooker, W.D. and Jones, R.T., ôIncreased Susceptibility to Memory Intrusions and the Stroop Interference Effect During Acute Marijuana Intoxication,ö Psychopharmacology 91: 20-24 (1987)
Claim C: Use of marijuana does not cause difficulties in learning.
1.Grounds: No evidence found that marijuana users suffer from brain impairment.
2. Warrant: Since there is no evidence correlating marijuana use to brain impairment there can be no learning difficulties associated specifically with the use of marijuana.
3. Backing: A study in 1988 shows ô In comparing chronic marijuana users with non-users, there are no significant differences in learning, memory recall, and other attention functions.ö(6) Page, J.B., ôPsychosociocultural Perspectives on Chronic Cannabis Use: The Costa Rican Follow Up,öJournal of Psychoactive Drugs 20: pp 57 (1988)
Contention II: Marijuana does not impair immune system functioning.
Claim A: Using marijuana stimulates the immune system.
1. Grounds : In the last two years THC (the active drug in Marijuana)has been discovered as a ô Peripheral cannabinoid receptor associated with lymphatic tissue proving as a effective immune system stimulantö(7) Lynn, A.b. and Herkenham, M., ôLocalization of cannabinoid Receptors and Non saturable High Density Cannabinoid Binding Sites in Peripheral Tissues of the Rat: Implications for Receptor- Mediated Immune Modulation by Cannabinoids, ô Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 268:1612-23 (1994)
2. Warrant: The active drug in marijuana is THC, thus marijuana is an immune stimulant.
3. Backing: In 1988, a study showed ô an increase in responsiveness when white blood cells from marijuana smokers were exposed to immunological activators.(8)Wallace, J.M. et al, ôPeripheral Blood Lymphocyte Sub populations and Mitogen Responsiveness in Tobacco and Marijuana Smokers,ö Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20: 9-14 (1988)
Claim B: Use of marijuana does not increase bacterial, viral or parasitic infection.
1.Grounds: There has never been any scientific data which proves marijuana increases bacterial, parasitic or viral infections among humans.
2.Warrant: Since there is no evidence of an increase in viral, parasitic or bacterial infection when marijuana is used it cannot be associated with an increase in these infections.
3. Backing: A study performed in the 1970Æs declares ôthere is no difference in disease susceptibility between marijuana users and matched controls.(9) Carter, W.E. (ed), Cannabis in Costa Rica: A study of Chronic Marijuana Use, Philadelphia: Institute for Study of Human Issues (1980)
Claim C: The use of marijuana does not increase the risk of HIV infection.
1. Grounds: There have only been myths, but no scientifical evidence proving use of marijuana increases the rate of infection for HIV.
2. Warrant: Since there is no evidence , marijuana is not responsible for any increase in the risk of infection from the HIV virus.
3. Backing: A study taken in 1990, clearly states ôMarijuana use does not increase the risk of HIV infection.(10) Coates, R.A. et al , ôCofactors of Progression to Acquired Immunodefifiency Syndrome in a Cohort of Male Sexual Contacts of men with Immunodeficiency Virus Disease,ö American Journal of Epidemiology 132:pp717 (1990)
Contention III: Marijuana does not harm ones sexual maturation and reproduction.
Claim A: Marijuana does not impair in anyway male reproductive functioning .
1. Grounds: The Jamaican field studies proved ôThere are no differences in hormone levels or reproductive functioning between marijuana users and non-usersö(11) Knights, R., ôReproductive Test Results,ö p111 in V. Rubin and L. Comitas (eds), Ganja in Jamaica, The Hague:Mouton (1975)
2. Warrant: Since science has proven there is no difference in male functioning , marijuana does not effect the male reproductive system in any way.
3. Backing: In surveys of marijuana users it has been reported ô no problems with fertility have emerged as important as a result of marijuana useö(12) Hembree, W.C. et al, ôChanges in Human Spermatozoa,öpp429 in G.G. nahas and W.D. M. Paton (eds)Oxford : Pergamon Press (1979)
Claim B: Marijuana does not impair female reproduction in humans
1. Grounds : there is no support in scientific literature tha is current reporting that marijuana impairs female reproductive functioning.
2. Warrant: Without scientific fact, the claim that marijuana effects females reproduction is nothing but a myth.
3. Backing: There have been no epidemiological studies showing any information that female users of marijuana are effected reproductively.
Claim C: Use of Marijuana does not retard adolescents sexual development.
1. Grounds: Besides of one individual case where a adolescent didnÆt attain puberty,(13) Copeland, K.C. et al ,ö Marijuana Smoking and Pubertal Arrest,ö Journal of Pediatrics 96:1079-80 (1980). There has been no proof that sexual development of adolescents who smoke marijuana exists.
2. Warrant : Without scientifical data the claim that marijuana retards an adolescents sexual development is nothing but a myth.
3. Backing: Scientific research shows ô There have been no epidemiological studies indicating sexual retardation has occurred in adolescentsö (14) Block, R.I. et al , ôEffects of Marijuana use on Testosterone, Luteinizing Hormone, and Follicle Stimulating Hormone in Humansö Drug and Alcohol Dependence 28:121 (1991)
Conclusion:
Supporters of marijuana prohibition make claims about marijuana without scientifically proving them. At the present day marijuana has been scientifically proven not to be detrimental to the bodyÆs brain, immune and reproductive systems. If we as a society can analyze scientific evidence, instead of being persuaded by some unwarranted claims , perhaps we can convert our ignorance into awareness .
Bibliography
(1). Carter, W.E. (ed), Cannabis in Costa Rica: A Study of Chronic Marijuana Use, Philadelphia: institute fot study of Human Issues(1980): Rubin, V. and Comitas, L., Ganja in Jamaica , The Hague : Mouton (1975): Stefanis, C. et al , Hashish: Studies in Long Term Use , New York : Raven Press (1977).
(2) Slikker, W. et al,ö Behavioral, Neurochemical, and Neurohistological Effects of chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Nonhuman Primate,öpp219-74 in l. Murphy and A. Bartke (eds), Marijuana Neurobiology and Neurophysiology, Boca Raton: CRC press(1992)
(3) Heath, B.C. et al, ôCannabis Sativa: Effects on Brain Function and Ultra structure in Rhesus Monkeys, ôBiological Psychiatry 15:657 (1980).
(4)Weckowicz, T.E. et al, ôEffect of Marijuana on Divergent and convergent Production Cognitive Tests,ö Journal of Abnormal Psychology 84: 386-98(1975)
(5)Hooker, W.D. and Jones, R.T., ôIncreased Susceptibility to Memory Intrusions and the Stroop Interference Effect During Acute Marijuana Intoxication,ö Psychopharmacology 91: 20-24 (1987)
(6) Page, J.B., ôPsychosociocultural Perspectives on Chronic Cannabis Use: The Costa Rican Follow Up,öJournal of Psychoactive Drugs 20: pp 57 (1988)
(7) Lynn, A.b. and Herkenham, M., ôLocalization of cannabinoid Receptors and Non saturable High Density Cannabinoid Binding Sites in Peripheral Tissues of the Rat: Implications for Receptor- Mediated Immune Modulation by Cannabinoids, ô Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 268:1612-23 (1994)
(8)Wallace, J.M. et al, ôPeripheral Blood Lymphocyte Sub populations and Mitogen Responsiveness in Tobacco and Marijuana Smokers,ö Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20: 9-14 (1988)
(9) Carter, W.E. (ed), Cannabis in Costa Rica: A study of Chronic Marijuana Use, Philadelphia: Institute for Study of Human Issues (1980)
(10) Coates, R.A. et al , ôCofactors of Progression to Acquired Immunodefifiency Syndrome in a Cohort of Male Sexual Contacts of men with Immunodeficiency Virus Disease,ö American Journal of Epidemiology 132:pp717 (1990)
(11) Knights, R., ôReproductive Test Results,ö p111 in V. Rubin and L. Comitas (eds), Ganja in Jamaica, The Hague:Mouton (1975)
(12) Hembree, W.C. et al, ôChanges in Human Spermatozoa,öpp429 in G.G. nahas and W.D. M. Paton (eds)Oxford : Pergamon Press (1979)
(13) Copeland, K.C. et al ,ö Marijuana Smoking and Pubertal Arrest,ö Journal of Pediatrics 96:1079-80 (1980).
(14) Block, R.I. et al , ôEffects of Marijuana use on Testosterone, Luteinizing Hormone, and Follicle Stimulating Hormone in Humansö Drug and Alcohol Dependence 28:121 (1991)
