This essay examines the ongoing debate surrounding medical marijuana laws, exploring arguments from both opponents and proponents. It addresses whether marijuana holds legitimate medical value, evaluates the health risks of use relative to other legal substances, and assesses the claim that medical marijuana policies encourage drug use among children. Drawing on sources including a 1999 U.S. Institute of Medicine study and statements from DEA officials, the paper concludes that marijuana does have legitimate therapeutic applications, that risk is a relative concept requiring individual assessment, and that available data does not support the assertion that medical marijuana laws increase marijuana use among youth.
This paper demonstrates the counterargument-and-rebuttal technique. It first presents the strongest opposing claims (no medical value, health risks, harm to children) and then systematically refutes each with supporting evidence. This structure is particularly effective in persuasive writing because it anticipates reader objections and directly addresses them rather than ignoring them.
The essay opens with a brief framing introduction, then moves through two sections developing the case against medical marijuana (lack of medical value, health risks, and social messaging). It then pivots to proponent arguments covering therapeutic applications, a relativistic view of drug safety, and the youth use question. Each major claim made in opposition is answered, creating a clear point-counterpoint flow throughout.
The debate over medical marijuana laws has fueled discussion over its true benefits, its risks, and its impact on children. This essay examines the pros and cons of these arguments, finding that medical marijuana does have legitimate medical purposes. It may carry risks, but this is a relative term that must be weighed under individual circumstances. Furthermore, available data does not support the contention that medical marijuana use is increasing drug use among children.
Opponents of medical marijuana contend that it lacks any meaningful medical value. A 1999 U.S. Institute of Medicine study assessing the potential health benefits of marijuana concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. The study indicated that more effective medications are currently available. Additionally, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug, which means it has a "high potential for abuse, inducing dangerous side effects, and having no currently accepted medicinal use in treatment in the U.S."
Even if marijuana does have medical value, critics argue that the risks of use exceed its benefits. Smoking three to five joints is roughly equivalent to smoking approximately twenty cigarettes, and marijuana smoke leaves three times more tar on a person's lungs. As a result, daily marijuana-only smokers have a nineteen percent higher rate of respiratory complaints than non-smokers. Because marijuana degrades short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and coordination in complex tasks including driving, daily users also face a 30% higher risk of injuries from accidents.
Medical studies have further found that "marijuana contains much more tar, carbon monoxide, and other dangerous chemicals than tobacco; that marijuana smoking affects fertility in both men and women; that it has led to increases in cancers of the head, mouth, and neck; and that it affects school and work performance more than any other drug."
There is also a social messaging concern. By characterizing the use of illegal drugs as quasi-legal and state-sanctioned, critics argue that legalizers destabilize the societal norm that drug use is dangerous. Allowing the medical use of marijuana, they claim, sends the wrong message to children. Children entering drug abuse treatment have routinely reported that they heard marijuana described as medicine and therefore believed it to be beneficial for them.
You’re 53% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.