Marijuana use is detrimental to one's health
Debate Rounds (3)
Now, as far as 'experimental evidence' goes, I'd like to point out some things.
Scientific evidence associating marijuana use with health problems began being published around the 1930s, and the government was already trying to ban the use of marijuana since its recreational use came into light in 1910. However, the government didn't get much traction until the paper, chemical, and timber industries were threatened in the early 1930s by hemp, due to its abundance (poised to produce 4x the raw materials for paper than wood could) as well as its superior quality. "Hemp paper does not turn yellow and disintegrate, as wood pulp paper does. The Library of Congress reports that 300-400 year old hemp paper is still in good shape. However, 97 percent of the non-fiction books printed between 1900 and 1939 on wood-based paper will be unreadable in 50 years. (Wilson)" Taking into consideration that industrial hemp actually doesn't contain very high concentrations of THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannibanol, the main active ingredient in marijuana), it's my opinion that the government started supporting a campaign of fear against marijuana to blind people to its potential industrial applications. The first smear campaign against hemp was imposed by William Hearst in 1920, because a new cheap method of processing hemp was introduced that poised to end his reign in the timber industry.
This means that yes, I am questioning the validity of the scientific experiments produced around and following the 1930s. Especially since the methods of the experiments weren't released until significantly after the results were published, and when they were, the methods were found to be questionable at best. There is no conclusive, quantitative evidence that marijuana does any damage at all to one's health, even in present day.
Now, getting back on topic: Why marijuana use is NOT detrimental to an individual's health.
I'd like to just convey some simple facts about hemp, in bullet-point format for clarity's sake:
- hempseed is about 25% protein, and was used in cultures for thousands of years
- hempseed is more digestible than soy protein, and has the highest total concentration of omega-3 fatty acids (which help insulate neuronal fibers and improve brain function and longevity; also shown to help combat cancer, AIDS, inflammation, ADHD, and most other diseases as well) of any oil
- Medicinal effects include stimulating the appetite, reducing nausea, lowering pressure in the eyes, stimulating the immune response and reducing pain, especially migraine headache pain (Wilson)
- It is an antibacterial, antiviral, anti-convulsant, bronchodilator and expectorant. It reduces spasticity and ataxia in multiple sclerosis, stops menstrual bleeding and helps PMS and the pain of childbirth. Hemp extracts were widely used in medicines in America until it was banned (Wilson)
Now, I know that hemp isn't actually marijuana itself, but they both come from the same plant. Actually, one of the only differences (chemically, not structurally) between the two is that marijuana has lower and higher CBD and THC contents, respectively: "Unlike hemp, marijuana has a high THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol) content and a low CBD (cannabidiol) content. CBD blocks the psychoactive effect of THC in the nervous system. That means in all plants in the Cannabis family, there is a chemical that will induce a psychoactive effect and another that will block it. The illegal drug is cultivated to have a THC content of anywhere from 3 percent to 22 percent. The ratio of CBD to THC is less than one. (host.madison)"
Hemp and marijuana, derived from the same plant, have the same 'ingredients' that vary only in their relative concentrations with respect to the individual structural plant loci.
The psychoactive compound THC in marijuana, that causes the recreationally-adored effect in its users, does not cause death or even damage (that can be proved scientifically). It acts on the brain's cannabinoid receptors, the most abundant type of receptor in the brain. There are few to none cannabinoid receptors in the brainstem and pons, which both play roles with circadian rhythms, unconscious respiratory actions, and cardiovascular function. In short; it absolutely CANNOT kill you. Also, the psychoactive effect created by THC is chemically simple; the THC enters the bloodstream and is carried through the blood brain barrier, where cannibus ligands bind to cannabinoid receptors in the brain. Once the ligands are bound to the receptors, the receptors start producing more anandamide; a receptor responsible for slowing down the rate of neuronal firing. This means that THC use could potentially help patients with seizure disorders as well.
In some unconfirmed studies, actually, it was reported that marijuana use has be associated with increased brain activity; the explanation asserted was that the user was using more of his/her brain (different neuronal pathways, to be specific) and in a different manner, thus moderately increasing dendrite length and synaptic plasticity (both which are important for cognitive functioning).
In conclusion, I do not believe that marijuana use is detrimental to one's health. First, there is good reason to suggest that the so-called 'scientific' evidence
provided around and after the 1930s was extremely bias, due to both the fact that the primary smear campaign was started when hemp was poised to replace wood with regards to its industrial applications as well as the fact that the scientists who published the questionable results about marijuana didn't reveal their actual methods for a significant period of time. Also, there are a myriad of medical applications for hemp, as well as marijuana use; some of which are being utilized present-day.
eXclusua forfeited this round.
MemeLove forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by enclave101 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no argument
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.