10

Polar opposite to this question - what popular arguments are made against legalizing marijuana and lifting the strict regulations on hemp?
Especially when compared with other abused plants like tobacco or green tea.

This information is actually more difficult to gather than sociological and historical assessments and scientific studies (Henningfield, Benowitz, Nutt) cited in favor.

[edit] The question previously asked for "arguments, including popular fallacious ones" . sorry, please ignore the distinction.

Community
  • 1
kaay
  • 213
  • 1
  • 8
  • 3
    In a democracy fallacious arguments are also relevant arguments because they influence public opinion. It doesn't matter how factually right a decision is: when it is against public opinion, it is still a bad decision to make. – Philipp Nov 04 '15 at 10:01
  • Damn good point. I'll change it. – kaay Nov 04 '15 at 11:52
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but whether an argument is fallacious or not is opinion based, each side calling the arguments of the other side fallacious. Of course in a debate you could say "well you are just a sucker" but that wouldn't be a fallacious argument, that wouldn't be an argument at all, rather an insult. – Bregalad Nov 04 '15 at 13:41
  • @Bregalad whether or not an argument is called fallacious is usually opinion based...but one (with the time and motivation) can certainly fact check arguments. –  Nov 04 '15 at 15:18
  • Apologies, all - I was convinced that "fallacious" meant exclusively "containing a fallacy; logically unsound", and not "false; mistaken". I'm not a native speaker. – kaay Nov 05 '15 at 03:55
  • I do not know if this has been publicly used: Legalizing cannabis seems like a contradiction when compared with all the legal activity towards reducing the number of tobacco smokers; while tobacco is -still- tolerated due to the great number of addicts, legalizing marijuana is a step in the opposite direction. TL;DR: We would like marijuana and tobacco both banned, there is no sense legalizing now marijuana to ban it again when we get to the point of banning tobacco. – SJuan76 Nov 05 '15 at 22:50
  • @SJuan76 I'm sure it has been used, though it doesn't hold a lot of water given that Marijuana has been shown to not be as bad plus the fact that smoking is merely one of many ways to use the substance. Also keep in mind we haven't banned tobacco. We've merely restricted where one can use it in public...which typically parallels the pot regulations as well. –  Nov 10 '15 at 21:49

2 Answers2

6
  • The "Marijuana is not harmful" saying is actually a fallacy, and Marijuana (rather the THC within it) is harmful. Smokers become depressive and schizophrenic. Even if that particular drug do not lead to a physical addition like Nicotine or Alcohol it leads to a psychotic addiction, marijuana smokers needs to escape reality more and more.
  • If it is easier to procure oneself marijuana, more people are likely to try it than if they need to find relays in the black market. In turn, if more people try it, more people would continue to smoke it (regularly or not) after their first try.
  • Second-hand smoking is much, much worse for Marijuana than it is for cigarettes, and it already is pretty ugly for cigarettes. The horrible odour can smell up to 500m away from the smoker, incommoding people who don't want to smell that, but also children which are especially sensible to bad smells.
  • People which are under a state of THC consumption act stupid and lead to various kind of depredations in the public space and public trouble. Of course this is also true if the drug is illegal, however the legalisation could significantly increase the # of smokers
  • People who smoke marijuana when it is illegal are actually looking for rebellion against society and do it, at least in part, because it is illegal. If marijuana is legal, they will not feel rebellious enough smoking that, and could turn out to worse drugs I'd rather not mention.
  • Even if it is forbidden there will be people which will have the bad idea to drive various kind vehicles under the influence of THC, leading to accidents. Again this remain true whether or not the drug is legal, but then again, legality might increase # of consumers.
  • People militating for legalisation are actually just doing so in order to smoke freely, rather than doing it for the other reasons they claim to defend (such as having extra tax revenue).
  • Their arguments are fallacious, because it is based on the premise that fighting against the black market failed, when if fact it didn't. Police regularly catch drug traffickers, so such a repression system actually works fine. Even if marijuana is legalized, drug traffic will continue for other drugs, so doing so will not solve the problem of drug traffic magically.
  • Since the point of legalizing is to tax the marijuana legally sold, it automatically creates a demand for black market of untaxed marijuana, like there is already for untaxed tobacco.
  • There is the question of the age at which somking marijuana become legal, which normally is 18. In that cases it creates a demand for teenages under 18 and a legal marked makes it easier for them to procure themseves with drugs, using their greater brothers ID cards for example.
Bregalad
  • 7,371
  • 4
  • 31
  • 67
  • 8
    This answer could be improved by pointing out which of these arguments are fallacious and which are valid. – Philipp Nov 04 '15 at 14:48
  • 3
    The answer could be improved by showing examples of publically making those exact arguments – user4012 Nov 04 '15 at 14:58
  • As a random list of both factual and fallacious arguments, this is fine, but few of these are actually used with any regularity. –  Nov 04 '15 at 15:20
  • 1
    Well my answer is far from perfect, if you guys have a better answer go ahead. Also it's opinion based which ones are fallacious and which ones aren't. – Bregalad Nov 04 '15 at 22:23
  • 1
    Each point could have essays written about them, full of terms like "ad hominem circumstantial" and "non sequitur". Let's not do that. The point is to see them all together. – kaay Nov 05 '15 at 03:37
6

Just last year, President Obama came out saying that Pot is no more dangerous than Alcohol. I believe this is the first time a sitting president has come out for the drug Marijuana.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/01/27/going-the-distance-david-remnick

Directly after this interview, the director of the NIDA came out and rebuked President Obama saying that it is harmful and has long term affects on the brain based on a recent large scale study in 2013.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/directors-page/messages-director/2012/09/marijuanas-lasting-effects-brain

To quote some of the report.

"Participants who used cannabis heavily in their teens and continued through adulthood showed a significant drop in IQ between the ages of 13 and 38—an average of 8 points for those who met criteria for cannabis dependence. (For context, a loss of 8 IQ points could drop a person of average intelligence into the lowest third of the intelligence range.)"

Another report from Brain was released in 2012 with long term brain defects as associated with Marijuana.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=effect%20of%20long-term%20cannabis%20use%20and%20zalesky

"Axonal connectivity was found to be impaired in the right fimbria of the hippocampus (fornix), splenium of the corpus callosum and commissural fibres. Radial and axial diffusivity in these pathways were associated with the age at which regular cannabis use commenced. Our findings indicate long-term cannabis use is hazardous to the white matter of the developing brain."

SpoiledTechie.com
  • 363
  • 2
  • 7