Marijuana: Opponent’s Factual Brief Essay, Research Paper

Marijuana: Opponent’s Factual Brief

OPPONENT’S BRIEF

Factual Proposition: Consuming marijuana is detrimental to one’s 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 1920’s supporters of marijuana prohibition have exaggerated the

drugs dangers. Many of the ?reefer madness? 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 1970’s in Greece,

Costa Rica and Jamaica. These tests reported on the effects of marijuana on

its users in there natural environment. The reports covered marijuana’s

effect on the brain, immune and reproductive systems. (1) These studies didn’t

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,? Behavioral, Neurochemical, and

Neurohistological Effects of chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Nonhuman

Primate,?pp219-74 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 ? 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, ?Cannabis Sativa: Effects on Brain Function

and Ultra structure in Rhesus Monkeys, ?Biological Psychiatry 15:657 (1980).

B. Claim: Use of marijuana does not cause cognitive impairment.

1. Grounds: In a study it is reported “marijuana intoxication does not

impair brain related cognitive functions”(4)

Weckowicz, T.E. et al, “Effect of Marijuana on Divergent and

convergent Production Cognitive Tests,” 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., ?

Increased Susceptibility to Memory Intrusions and the Stroop Interference Effect

During Acute Marijuana Intoxication,? 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 ? In comparing chronic marijuana

users with non-users, there are no significant differences in learning, memory

recall, and other attention functions.?(6) Page, J.B., ?Psychosociocultural

Perspectives on Chronic Cannabis Use: The Costa Rican Follow Up,?Journal 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 ? Peripheral cannabinoid receptor associated

with lymphatic tissue proving as a effective immune system stimulant?(7) Lynn,

A.b. and Herkenham, M., ?Localization 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, ?

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 ? an increase in responsiveness

when white blood cells from marijuana smokers were exposed to immunological

activators.(8)Wallace, J.M. et al, ?Peripheral Blood Lymphocyte Sub populations

and Mitogen Responsiveness in Tobacco and Marijuana Smokers,? 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 1970’s declares ?there 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 ?Marijuana use does

not increase the risk of HIV infection.(10) Coates, R.A. et al , ?Cofactors of

Progression to Acquired Immunodefifiency Syndrome in a Cohort of Male Sexual

Contacts of men with Immunodeficiency Virus Disease,? 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 ?There are no differences

in hormone levels or reproductive functioning between marijuana users and non-

users?(11) Knights, R., ?Reproductive Test Results,? 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 ? no

problems with fertility have emerged as important as a result of marijuana use?

(12) Hembree, W.C. et al, ?Changes in Human Spermatozoa,?pp429 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 didn’t

attain puberty,(13) Copeland, K.C. et al ,? Marijuana Smoking and Pubertal

Arrest,? 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 ? There have been no

epidemiological studies indicating sexual retardation has occurred in

adolescents? (14) Block, R.I. et al , ?Effects of Marijuana use on Testosterone,

Luteinizing Hormone, and Follicle Stimulating Hormone in Humans? 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 body’s 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,? Behavioral, Neurochemical, and Neurohistological Effects of chronic

Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Nonhuman Primate,?pp219-74 in l. Murphy and A.

Bartke (eds), Marijuana Neurobiology and Neurophysiology, Boca Raton: CRC

press(1992) (3) Heath, B.C. et al, ?Cannabis Sativa: Effects on Brain Function

and Ultra structure in Rhesus Monkeys, ?Biological Psychiatry 15:657 (1980).

(4)Weckowicz, T.E. et al, ?Effect of Marijuana on Divergent and convergent

Production Cognitive Tests,? Journal of Abnormal Psychology 84: 386-98(1975)

(5)Hooker, W.D. and Jones, R.T., ?Increased Susceptibility to Memory Intrusions

and the Stroop Interference Effect During Acute Marijuana Intoxication,?

Psychopharmacology 91: 20-24 (1987) (6) Page, J.B., ?Psychosociocultural

Perspectives on Chronic Cannabis Use: The Costa Rican Follow Up,?Journal of

Psychoactive Drugs 20: pp 57 (1988) (7) Lynn, A.b. and Herkenham, M., ?

Localization 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, ? Journal of Pharmacology and

Experimental Therapeutics 268:1612-23 (1994) (8)Wallace, J.M. et al, ?

Peripheral Blood Lymphocyte Sub populations and Mitogen Responsiveness in

Tobacco and Marijuana Smokers,? 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 , ?Cofactors of Progression to Acquired Immunodefifiency Syndrome in a Cohort

of Male Sexual Contacts of men with Immunodeficiency Virus Disease,? American

Journal of Epidemiology 132:pp717 (1990) (11) Knights, R., ?Reproductive Test

Results,? p111 in V. Rubin and L. Comitas (eds), Ganja in Jamaica, The

Hague:Mouton (1975) (12) Hembree, W.C. et al, ?Changes in Human Spermatozoa,?

pp429 in G.G. nahas and W.D. M. Paton (eds)Oxford : Pergamon Press (1979) (13)

Copeland, K.C. et al ,? Marijuana Smoking and Pubertal Arrest,? Journal of

Pediatrics 96:1079-80 (1980). (14) Block, R.I. et al , ?Effects of Marijuana

use on Testosterone, Luteinizing Hormone, and Follicle Stimulating Hormone in

Humans? Drug and Alcohol Dependence 28:121 (1991)

34c