Average Reviews:
(More customer reviews)This book is something important that needs to be in the public discourse. I don't smoke marijuana, and I've never tried. But I've read a lot about it and this book is not really as biased as the drug counselor claimed in his/her review. In fact, this book is merely an echo of what honest scientists have known for more than a hundred years, with new modern evidence to confirm that knowledge.
Since I cannot offer much more praise for this book than most people here, I thought I could do people who haven't made up their minds a better service by refuting the claims made by the drug counselor. Here is my point-by-point breakdown of that review:
First, the reviewer (I'm going to use the female pronous from now on) said that you get what you look for and she warned us all to take an "unbiased approach."
This is an interesting way to determine if something's biased: if you agree with it, it's not, if you don't agree, it is. And if you don't agree, you then warn others to be "unbiased." Please spare me the moralizing. She's a drug counselor, not a scientist as will become quite clear by the time I'm finished.
The next claim is that marijuana is "a psychologically addictive drug." What she doesn't mention is that this book does not claim otherwise. Obviously one must wonder whether she even read it. The books says, and I'm quoting verbatim from chaper 3 "Marijuana and Addiction," "Marijuana does not cause PHYSICAL [emphasis added] dependence." This is an important distinction: nictotine, caffeine, and alcohol ALL cause physical dependence.
What about psychological dependence? Physical dependence is the one that is the most dangerous. Anything can be "psychologically addictive." All that means is that people get "addicted" to the pleasure something brings. Sex is psychologically addictive, so are most things that make people feel pleasure in any amount. I once read about a man who got psychologically addicted to Advil tablets, yet in and of itself that's not a big deal, and he "quit" without any drug counselor's help. The real danger is from physical dependence: Drugs that cause it also have withdrawl symptoms because they change the make-up of neurotransmitters in the brain. Marijuana DOES NOT DO THAT.
If you're wondering about how much this drug counselor knows, than it's about to get even worse. This is probably the most disingenuious statement in her review:
"There has NOT been a lot said as to the harmful effects of marijuana as relates to traffic accidents, driving under the influence, industrial accidents, etc. The human toll here has yet to be defined but is estimated as astronomical. The economic costs of marijuana's well-known amotivational syndrome are all too well known."
That statement is a flat out lie and by now it's clear that not only did she NOT read the book at all, but she's never read anything about marijuana from an "unbiased approach."
The British government recently completed a study that showed marijuana using motorists are LESS LIKELY to get in car wrecks when they're high (source, "Reason" Nov. 2000). Why? The claming effects caused the drivers to drive more cautiously and less recklessly without causing a decrease in reaction times or judgement as seen with indentical studies using alcohol.
Second, there isn't an "astronomical" human toll from marijuana use. The real number of deaths that the government has linked directly to marijuana use? ZERO. That is not to say that marijuana can't cause deaths, just that it hasn't been shown that it does, in fact most researchers now agree that there is no way to overdose on marijuana.
Finally, "amotivational" syndrome is not causally linked with marijuana. This is a simple distortion of science to serve a poltical agenda: correlation does not equal causation and marijuana does not cause amotivational syndrome. Chirst people, don't review a book you haven't read.
I love this next one, this person really is an idiot:
"(And by the way, one reviewer stated tobacco as being more harmful-that is not proven. The amount of tar and nicotine in one "joint" is much higher than in one cigarette. Get your facts straight)"
Okay folks, if you're following the pattern here than you know what comes next.
First, tobacco smoke is much more harmful than marijuana smoke, but not for the reasons most people realize. Second, anyone who thinks there is nicotine in a joint needs their head examined, and finally all of this has been proven.
Tobacco smoke is bad, really bad. Everyone knows this. It's the smoke that kills, not the nicotine. But tobacco smoke kills only because smokers must inhale such a high amount to get a decent level of nicotine into their bloodstream. Marijuana "joints" deliver much more active ingredient per unit of smoke than tobacco by FAR. Most smokers smoke a pack a day or more, yet the average marijuana user may smoke a couple of joints a week. My roommate uses it a couple of times a month. This is because nicotine causes physical addiction, marijuana does not. The tobacco user inhales an ever increasing level of smoke to get that nicotine fix that was formerly delivered with less, the marijuana user does not need to do this. Trust me, I may not use marijuana, but I do use tobacco.
Also, studies of heavy tobacco users who also use marijuana show no "superadditive" effect: if marijuana smoke was as bad as tobacco smoke than it should've been obvious in people who used both, because that way scientists would be able to get around the fact that many people don't need to smoke that much marijuana to get high. The studies showed that there was no superadditive effect and that marijuana does not obstruct the lung's small airways and cannot be linked to lung cancer or emphysema even in heavy chronic users.
Marijuana smokers inhale less over time than tobacco users, so they experience less lung damage. But let's be clear: any smoke burns when you inhale, thus that probably means it's not as good for you as not inhaling it. And marijuana smoke contains lung irritants, just like tobacco smoke does. The honest truth? Marijuana has not been linked to the problems that tobacoo has been, but that is not proof that it is safe to smoke it, it just may be safer than tobacco.
Okay, I debunked the "unbiased approach" and I apoloigze for the length of this review. I think the reviewer I debunked did a disservice to all of you: she obviously didn't read the book, and she flat out lied.
She said that one reviwer wrote that some people just get what they look for.
I'd like to add that some people should take off their blindfolds before they try to see.
Click Here to see more reviews about: Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts: A Review Of The Scientific Evidence
0 comments:
Post a Comment