Article Rebuttal
Calvin Smith
BCOM275
OCTOBER 10, 2012
Elia Par

This is a rebuttal to an article written by Charles Stimson on September 13, 2010 titled Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No. In this article Stimson gives a long and verbose explanation as to why marijuana should not be legalized or decriminalized. He asserts that the overwhelming negative effects far out weigh any benefits. Although Stimson makes numerous claims in an attempt to support his argument, this rebuttal will focus on two.
Stimson claims marijuana has no healthful benefits. There are some negative side effects from using marijuana, but to assert that it has no healthful benefits is a completely false assertion. Drug Sociologist Lynn Zimmer and Narcotics researcher John P. Morgan found this also to be false. Their research uncovered significant benefits to marijuana use. They found for glaucoma sufferers, marijuana reduced the pressure in the patient’s eyes. This pressure caused loss of vision that was irreversible. The study of marijuana in AIDS patients has overwhelming conclusive evidence of its healthful benefits. Marijuana reduces nausea and increases appetite. This makes it easier for patients experiencing severe loss of appetite to have a desire to eat. A study revealed that 50 percent of oncologist recommended marijuana to their patients. Stimson’s argument to the contrary lacks validity. He provides no data to support his claim. He attempts to prove his claim by stating the negative health effects. His claim was not that there were no negative effectives, he stated there were not healthful effects, which are two totally different arguments.
Another claim Stimson makes is that marijuana use is more dangerous that alcohol use. Stimson states long-term moderate consumption of alcohol carries little health risk and even offers some significant benefits. He cites all the research that shows how alcohol, when used in moderation, has some applicable health benefits. Those claims have been found to be true by numerous researchers. The fallacy in his statement is not his claim. He very cleverly uses moderate alcohol use to paint this contrast, but he compares it to excessive and abusive marijuana use. This is a red herring. Ceteris paribus, moderate marijuana use is actually less harmful. A California study of 300 drivers in fatal accidents found that drivers who tested positive for pot and no other drugs were 50 percent less likely to be responsible for the accident. A 2002 article in the British Medical Journal reported that one glass of wine impaired drivers more than smoking one “joint”.
This rebuttal is not to persuade ones opinion one-way or the other. It is to show how important it is to look at what is being communicated in a more critical manner. Just because something is emphatically and passionately stated, it simply does not make it true. It appears the author of this article was more interested in persuading the reader to take a certain side rather than presenting the facts and letting the reader make up his or her mind.

References

Fogarty, A., Rawstorne, P., Prestage, G., Crawford, J., Grierson, J., & Kippax, S. (2007). Marijuana as therapy for people living with HIV/AIDS: social and health aspects. AIDS Care, 19(2), 295-301

Gerber R. (2004) Legalizing Marijuana Drug Policy Reform and Prohibition Politics.
Stimson, C. (September 13, 2010).
Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/legalizing-marijuana-why-citizens-should-just-say-no