Law & Politics

http://pinterest.com/pin/193865958929894646/

Continuing from Part 1 of my What the FAQ?, in regards to Whitehouse.gov’s rather exhaustive (and highly biased) FAQ section on marijuana:

Question: Isn’t marijuana generally harmless?

From the horse’s mouth: “No. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning it has a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”

That’s weird. The same government that designated marijuana a Schedule I drug considers it a harmful substance, what are the odds? I’m no scientist or anything, but is “marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug” really compelling evidence that it is harmful? The US dairy lobby thinks milk is good for you and wanted us all to drink at least 3 glasses a day. Science, that pesky nuisance that demands crazy things like “evidence” and “correlations” to issue judgments, is not so sure about milk. The archaic claim was challenged with evidence and the narrative of milk has changed accordingly. Why the powers that be fight so hard to cling to simply anachronistic information boggles my mind. Every other substance on the Schedule I list belongs there, by their own definition. Marijuana does not. How can they claim it has no medical value and high propensity for abuse when the federal government has issued patents on cannabis medical applications? What really twists my nips about this is that there is, literally, tons of scientific, peer-reviewed, academically backed studies that support the claim that marijuana is, in fact, generally harmless. Not in Congress, pot is a 4 letter word in that chamber.

The page goes on to iterate that getting high can impact your perceptions, coordination, problem solving etc. They even state that memory impairment can last up to 7 days following use of the drug (not sure who they tested for this data gem). As a bonus they also keep spreading the now-debunked claim that marijuana increases the risk of schizophrenia, so that’s fun! They state some more of the standard “don’t smoke pot” one-liners we’ve all heard growing up. At least they had the decency to also discuss the new studies that show marijuana smoke doesn’t harm the lungs and can even be beneficial. (But no medical value, right? *facepalm*)

Some truthiness to explore:
This section is rife with references to studies. One such claim is that, “there are very real consequences associated with marijuana use. In 2010, marijuana was involved in more than 461,000 emergency department visits nationwide. This is nearly 39 percent of all emergency department visits involving illicit drugs, and highlights the very real dangers than can accompany use of the drug.”

That bit about the 461,000 emergency department visits links to the source of that statistic. When looking deeper I found that this figure came with an asterisk in the data table. That asterisk denoted, “because a visit may involve multiple drugs, the sum of visits by drug will be greater than the total.” There is no figure for marijuana-only emergency room visits and some deduction can tell us why: no one goes to the ER for strictly marijuana. Not ever.

I, for one, would like my government to use clean data when dictating absolutes. Yeah, I’ll give you that one, doing a plethora of hard drugs, getting drunk, and smoking pot is probably not a recipe for survival. However, pull the marijuana out of the equation and your dumbass is still likely bound for the ER.

Title: Whitehouse.gov and Cannabis: What the FAQ? Part 2, Source: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X3TYxSmVd_c/UZqapfaz7-I/AAAAAAAAA30/dRlwugDwrD8/s320/POTus_Freda_edited-1.jpg

Even with this inflated threat paradigm they like to use when vilifying marijuana, can we honestly begin to claim that it is on par with other Schedule I substances? It is an assault on logic and intelligence to stand by these antique views on marijuana. It is acceptable to believe the Earth is flat–if you’re a Near Eastern Bronze Age astronomer. You would get laughed out of the room if you spouted that nonsense today. Why won’t the federal view on marijuana evolve? In the face of so much evidence to the contrary, how can they stand by these claims?

Stay tuned! More Whitehouse.gov What the FAQ? will be forthcoming.