You forget that there's been almost a century of lying about the "hazards" of "marijuana" while simultaneously concealing the hazards of other "legal" substances to protect corporate profits and throw people of color in jail.
There is actually pretty strong evidence that is actually was to put people of color in jail (at least initially).
At the very least enough plausible evidence to show that throwing around "bs" like that might be misguided.
https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/
> "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
- John Ehrlichman
Source: https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/
https://www.bicycling.com/health-nutrition/a20040926/timelin...
Are you at all inclined to share sources of this? After reading this long article posted that essentially says "we don't have enough evidence, there's not enough studies being done", someone saying there are well-known problems has me wanting to read more and not just take their word for it.
>A study by the Highway Loss Data Institute in June of last year finds that states that legalized marijuana saw insurance claims for auto accidents increase about 3% over the general national trend for the time. An updated study by the same group finds 6% according to insurance claims, and 5.2% according to police reports.
I hate that the legalization discussion is twisting into "well how safe is it?" If you're really concerned, don't use it unless medically necessary, or take your chances on other drugs which have plenty of known side effects. Just because it can be abused, or may not be safe in heavy dosages, is no reason to jail someone. Pertaining to regulations, I see no reason to extend beyond the current recommendations for alcohol - use in moderation, don't use pregnant, don't drive while impaired, etc.
For the typical user, the logic is usually that marijuana enhances their mood or creativity or coping ability, and that its adverse effects are relatively benign (based on informal/anecdotal knowledge from its millennia of use as a recreational substance). Decisions are also made at the margin, meaning the user rarely considers the impact beyond the immediate costs and benefits (a strong argument for taxation).
What would be useful to the majority of users is research in to how to mitigate the harmful effects to consumption (e.g. through alternatives to smoking) and through clear standards so they know what they are getting, the strength, duration, etc.
Most patients/doctors don't really care if what they're taking is safe or not. The vast majority of Americans don't even know what the active ingredient in Tylenol is.
But you don't see many article pointing out what sure looks like a big public health problem. I have the impression I see a lot more articles about crisis PR based on the Tylenol poisonings.
The same cannot be said of marijuana.
Yeah, it does. It matters a hell of a lot that alcohol isn't safe, and there are a whole bunch of very well-known problems associated with using it regularly. Same for most medications. Many aren't super safe, and there is a fair bit of research and information dissemination required to make sure doctors and patients know the costs and benefits. When we fail at doing that, it causes a lot of harm to a lot of people. You should be able to make your own call, and that means knowing.
The really creepy thing about this conversation is that there is a shitload of money to be made by concealing the hazards of marijuana use, just as there is for alcohol and cigarettes.