PHL 111 Final Project McConneaughey

.docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

111

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by melzee

1 Final Project Marijuana use has been central to heated debates for decades. Whether marijuana is beneficial or harmful is a topic that has attracted significant attention from researchers, policymakers, and the general public alike. This attention is primarily due to the increasing global trend of decriminalization and legalization, which has raised many ethical, medical, and social concerns. It is crucial to examine the benefits and risks of marijuana use objectively. Having used marijuana to alleviate symptoms of PTSD, I have personally received its benefits and have heard of several therapeutic reasons for use. Conversely, the adverse effects of marijuana use also need to be studied to understand better how society can leverage the use of the beneficial plant and mitigate abuse. The primary argument of Cannabis in the Clinic, written by Jennifer Walter (2020), is that research on marijuana remains inconclusive. While studies show the potential benefits of marijuana for some medical conditions, others reveal adverse effects on cognitive function and mental health. Walter highlights the need for more concrete evidence and comprehensive research on marijuana’s impact on various individuals and uses. Walter contends that research on marijuana is limited due to regulatory restrictions (2020). The Cannabis sativa plant is classified as a Schedule I drug in America, making clinical studies challenging (Walter, 2020). Another point made in Cannabis in the Clinic is that the effects of marijuana can vary depending on factors such as the user’s purpose (recreational vs. medical), the method of consumption, and the concentration of THC and CBD in the product. She also shows how marijuana has shown two possible results correlated to mental health.

2 According to Walter (2020), a controlled study was conducted on schizophrenic patients who received more significant relief from cannabidiol (CBD) than those without CBD. Conversely, another study showed habitual tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) users were at greater risk of psychosis (Walter, 2020). Walter concludes her thesis by saying that research on marijuana remains inconclusive due to the variability in its effects on individuals and the limited number of clinical studies available. As recreational marijuana use continues to rise, there is a pressing need for more concrete evidence and comprehensive research to better understand its effects on various individuals and in different contexts. Using Staci Gruber’s works, Walter provides a valuable resource to her argument. Being a Harvard University faculty member, the director of Marijuana Investigations for Neuroscientific Discovery (MIND), and the director of the Cognitive and Clinical Neuroimaging Core at McLean Hospital makes Gruber well credentialed and an authority on the matter of marijuana research. Additionally, Walter connects the lack of substantial research excellently. She shows a gap in clinical studies, highlights varying effects of THC and CBD use, and produces inconsistent results on the impact of marijuana use on different medical conditions. This argument is inductive as the conclusion is likely based on the author’s premises. Also, Walter (2020) uses speech to indicate that her conclusion is possible and not absolute. I believe the argument made is well supported. The author shows contradictory evidence in each premise presented. In so doing, she strengthens her argument by compounding that insufficient research has been conducted and what has been done is inconclusive. While she presents a solid argument, Walter fails to provide the reader with the ability to substantiate her reference to

3 various studies mentioned in the article. In light of the lack of references, she leaves the reader with the sense that other data may have been omitted. Walter (2020) maintains an impartial tone throughout her essay, objectively analyzing several studies covering various age groups, issues, and control types, including comparisons between cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). She uses Staci Gruber’s research, a highly accredited researcher in the field, to emphasize the importance of researching as the present data is primarily empirical. Walter (2020) also presents opposing themes such as: Some studies show that marijuana may provide relief for patients with a slew of conditions, such as anxiety, chronic pain and even cancer. Yet others find that the drug can slow cognitive function and may worsen some mental health conditions. p. 41 In so doing, she provides the reader with no clear choice on the theme other than insufficient research to understand marijuana’s benefits or drawbacks. Another example of her neutral position is when Walter (2020) says, “Our understanding of marijuana’s effect on mental health is murky. Some studies suggest it might exacerbate conditions like schizophrenia or psychosis, but the results aren’t always black and white.” (p. 42). While the article meets the currency, relevance, and purpose criteria under the CRAAP test, the authority and accuracy criteria require more precision. Although Walter writes for a reputable science magazine, she is not a subject matter expert on marijuana research. While she cites the work of Staci Gruber, a highly regarded researcher in the field, she fails to provide citations for other research she mentions. For example, she states, “In a 2017 clinical trial of 88 patients with schizophrenia, researchers in the U.K. administered 1,000 milligrams of CBD each day to about half of the study participants” (Walter, 2020) p. 42. However, she provides no additional information on the study beyond this statistic. This lack of detail, combined with the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help