Hi, All I am saying is that so much criticism of drugs (in this case MJ) is based on a long standing moral precedent.
The Main Claims against MJ are
1. MJ is a 'gateway' drug
There is no scientific evidence for the theory that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. The cannabis-using cultures in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America show no propensity for other drugs. The gateway theory took hold in the sixties, when marijuana became the leading new recreational drug. It was refuted by events in the eighties, when cocaine abuse exploded at the same time marijuana use declined. As we have seen, there is evidence that cannabis may substitute for alcohol and other "hard" drugs. A recent survey by Dr. Patricia Morgan of the University of California at Berekeley found that a significant number of pot smokers and dealers switched to methamphetamine "ice" when Hawaii's marijuana eradication program created a shortage of pot. Dr. Morgan noted a similar phenomenon in California, where cocaine use soared in the wake of the CAMP helicopter eradication campaign.The one way in which marijuana does lead to other drugs is through its illegality: persons who deal in marijuana are likely to deal in other illicit drugs as well.
I'll go Both sides of the argument here;
MJ is Harmless?
Any discussion of marijuana should begin with the fact that there have been numerous official reports and studies, every one of which has concluded that marijuana poses no great risk to society and should not be criminalized. These include:
the National Academy of Sciences Analysis of Marijuana Policy (1982);
the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (the Shafer Report) (1973);
the Canadian Government's Commission of Inquiry (Le Dain Report) (1970);
the British Advisory Committee on Drug Dependency (Wooton Report) (1968);
the La Guardia Report (1944);
the Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations (1916-29);
and Britain's monumental Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1893-4).
It is sometimes claimed that there is ``new evidence'' showing marijuana is more harmful than was thought in the sixties. In fact, the most recent studies have tended to confirm marijuana's safety, refuting claims that it causes birth defects, brain damag e, reduced testosterone, or increased drug abuse problems.
The current consensus is well stated in the 20th annual report of the California Research Advisory Panel (1990), which recommended that personal use and cultivation of marijuana be legalized: "An objective consideration of marijuana shows that it is respo nsible for less damage to society and the individual than are alcohol and cigarettes."
References: The National Academy of Sciences report, Marijuana and Health (National Academy Press, 1982), remains the most useful overview of the health effects of marijuana, its major conclusions remaining largely unaffected by the last 10 years of research. Lovinger and Jones, The Marihuana Question (Dod d, Mead & Co., NY 1985), is the most exhaustive and fair-handed summary of the evidence against marijuana. Good, positive perspectives may be found in Lester Grinspoon's Marihuana, the Forbidden Medicine (Yale Press, 1993) and Marihuana Reconsidere d (Harvard U. Press 1971), which debunks many of the older anti-pot myths. See also Leo Hollister, Health Aspects of Cannabis, Pharmacological Reviews 38:1-20 (1986).
On the Other Hand; MJ is Harmfull?
Just as most experts agree that occasional or moderate use of marijuana is innocuous, they also agree that excessive use can be harmful. Research shows that the two major risks of excessive marijuana use are:
respiratory disease due to smoking and
accidental injuries due to impairment.
Marijuana and Smoking:A recent survey by the Kaiser Permanente Center found that daily marijuana-only smokers have a 19% higher rate of respiratory complaints than non-smokers. These findings were not unexpected, since it has long been known that, aside from its psychoactive ingredients, marijuana smoke contains virtually the same toxic gases and carcinogenic tars as tobacco. Human studies have found that pot smokers suffer similar kinds of respiratory damage as tobacco smokers, putting them at greater risk of bronchitis, sore throat, respiratory inflammation and infections.
Although there has not been enough epidemiological work to settle the matter definitively, it is widely suspected that marijuana smoking causes cancer. Studies have found apparently pre-cancerous cell changes in pot smokers. Some cancer specialists have reported a higher-than-expected incidence of throat, neck and tongue cancer in younger, marijuana-only smokers. A couple of cases have been fatal. While it has not been conclusively proven that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer, the evidence is highly suggestive. According to Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA, the leading expert on marijuana smoking:"Although more information is certainly needed, sufficient data have already been accumulated concerning the health effects of marijuana to warrant counseling by physicians against the smoking of marijuana as an important hazard to health." Fortunately, the hazards of marijuana smoking can be reduced by various strategies:
use of higher-potency cannabis, which can be smoked in smaller quantities,
use of waterpipes and other smoke reduction technologies, and
ingesting pot orally instead of smoking it.
Note: Kaiser's emphasis on Daily MJ smokers as opposed to NON SMOKERS. Its a matter of abuse ladies and gents.
There is no evidence that the prohibition of marijuana reduces the net social risk of accidents. On the contrary, recent studies suggest that marijuana may actually be beneficial in that it substitutes for alcohol and other, more dangerous drugs. Research by Karyn Model found that states with marijuana decrim had lower overall drug abuse rates than others; another study by Frank Chaloupka found decrim states have lower accident rates too. In Alaska, accident rates held constant or declined following the legalization of personal use of marijuana. In Holland, authorities believe that cannabis has contributed to an overall decline in opiate abuse. Recent government statistics showed that the highest rates of cocaine abuse in the West were in Nevada and Arizona, the states with the toughest marijuana laws
In terms of MJ related Deaths, The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk of injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant, though not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts. That pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and coordination at complex tasks including driving. There have been numerous reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of 1023 emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination. This is perhaps the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we shall see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less dangerous than alcohol. Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides of the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number one hazard of moderate pot use. This is no different to a night out on the town just drinking. When i smoke i make sure im in a condusive environment with friends and good music, i dont drink much before i smoke and while im high i usually dont drink either. Its more the way people abuse the drug rather than the drug thats more dangerous.
There are pros and cons on both sides of the field but no different to alcohol or tobacco. As a drug yes its open to abuse but theres no evidence of chemical addiction in infrequent users.
Too many people place the onus of stupidity on the drug where really its usually the poor judgement of individuals taking it that lands them in trouble, just like with alcohol though because its a drug that usually subdues people theres next to no chance of aggression or public liability.