The Argument Against Marijuana You Don’t Often Hear



Recently, much has been made over President Obama’s 17,000 word interview with New Yorker magazine.  Given the list of wide ranging subjects covered, many have been surprised Barack’s claim that marijuana is not “more dangerous than alcohol” got so much attention. This has reignited the usual  back and forth on the pros and cons of both drugs.

But what you don’t hear  in the argument against marijuana is how a lack of nasty physical reactions to “over smoking” can encourage use of the drug.  Aside from some tokers reporting feelings of paranoia, what are the disincentives for those who consume too much cannabis?  Munching bags of junk food, “laugh face”, or a heightened case of the lazies can be applicable complaints, but none are all that harsh.  It’s not like folks using too much THC find themselves swearing off the stuff because of it’s painful aftereffects.

By comparison, drinking too much booze is generally followed by any number of unpleasant reactions.  They can include but are not limited to nausea, vomiting, dizziness, headaches, depression, and even deadly alcohol poisoning.  Hangovers are so bad, doctors in New York City have developed an I.V. drip designed to soften the effects.  Simply put, drinking too much causes the kinds of miserable consequences most people don’t wish to repeat any time soon, if at all.

The argument against marijuana you rarely hear is how it’s lack of painful side effects makes it both more appealing and more likely to be abused.  The body simply does not deliver the same kind of rapid, undisguised punishment with pot as it does with alcohol.  With that natural warning system down, and THC levels up, users can become all too comfortable forming an unhealthy, even dangerous, long term habit.  Maybe President Obama should reconsider his words.