sex education II

Is Marijuana Use Safe?

Modeled example for the final paper assignment

John Smith

University of Arizona Global Campus

PHI103 Informal Logic

Dr. Christopher Foster

Due: Day 7 of Week 5

Begin with a title page, formatted according to APA standards

In recent years, most states have voted to legalize marijuana either for medical and/or

recreational use (DISA Global Solutions, 2020). However, federal law still prohibits the use or

sale of marijuana in the United States, and many groups consider marijuana use to be harmful

(National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2019). As more states consider differing degrees of marijuana

legalization (Sanders, 2018), it is important to consider whether marijuana use is safe. This paper

will explore the question of whether current medical research supports the idea that marijuana

use is harmful to human health. It will present a strong argument that marijuana is relatively safe

and a strong argument that it is unacceptably dangerous. This will be followed by a presentation

of my own argument for the conclusion that marijuana use by adults is acceptably safe. After

answering an objection to my argument, the paper will present an analysis of the merits of

reasoning and support provided by each argument.

Argument that Marijuana Use is Safe

There have been many studies that support the conclusion that marijuana use is safe.

Some of their results are summarized in this argument:

Premise 1: A giant meta-study pooled data from many research studies and determined

that marijuana use did not result in significant cognitive impairment in reaction time,

attention, language, executive function, perceptual function, or motor skills in marijuana

users (Grant et al., 2003).

Premise 2: Meta-data showed minor cognitive impairment from long term marijuana only

in the areas of learning and memory, but these were minor and can be minimized (e.g., in

a medical context) (2003).

Premise 3: Marijuana has beneficial uses that outweigh its minor harms (Wetterau, 2015).

A good intro paragraph should close with a preview of what the paper will accomplish.

It is good to have clear section headings, showing your instructor exactly where you accomplish each of the main elements of the assignment instructions.

The clearest way to express an argument is by putting it into standard form, with each premise clearly labeled and listed above the conclusion.

Though the premises and conclusion of your argument are in your own words, specific sources of information need to be cited.

This argument is an enhancement of the scholarly argument presented in the Week 3 paper.

All premises and conclusions should be one sentence each.

Premise 4: The above dangers do not constitute being substantially medically dangerous.

Conclusion: Marijuana use is not substantially medically dangerous.

Argument that Marijuana Use is Unsafe

On the other hand, many studies have indicated that there are, in fact, many risks

associated with marijuana use. Some of their chief findings are expressed in the following

argument:

Premise 1: Marijuana is an addictive substance (Volkow et al., 2014).

Premise 2: Marijuana use causes long term negative effects on physical and mental health

(Feeney & Kampman, 2016).

Premise 3: Marijuana use causes elevated driving risks (Neavyn et al., 2014).

Premise 4: Marijuana use among adolescents is correlated with lower academic

achievement, job performance, and social functioning (Palamar et al., 2014).

Premise 5: It is unsafe to use substances that are addictive and that have many negative

effects.

Conclusion: It is unsafe to use Marijuana.

Analysis of the Arguments

As noted, both arguments have premises that are supported by substantial scholarly

research. Both arguments additionally provide strong support for the truth of their conclusions.

Each includes a final premise that links the factual claims made in the previous premises to the

specific language made in the conclusion, resulting in powerful support for each conclusion.

One of the goals of a critical thinker is to make sure to understand the reasoning on all sides of a question as well as possible. Therefore, it is essential to present the strongest reasoning that we can find/think of in support of both sides of our question.

These premises summarize much of your research in your own words.

This premise provides a link from the points made in the first premises to the language of the conclusion.

Neither is deductively valid, but each is inductively strong and appears to have well-supported

premises. However, their conclusions make opposite points, resulting in an apparent

contradiction. There is a good question, therefore, of how to determine which of these

conclusions is most likely to be true.

One way to explain strong evidence for opposite conclusions is with the possibility of

researcher bias. Authors, even of scholarly studies, frequently put more focus on studies whose

results tend to support the conclusions that they personally support. Furthermore, each study will

focus on factors that strengthen the case for its preferred side. For example, a scholar whose

research supports the use of marijuana might focus on mitigating factors such as the fact that

dosages can be carefully controlled in a medical setting. Researchers on the side of the

opposition, on the other hand, may emphasize that addicted users are likely to use the substance

in doses well beyond those recommended by physicians. Therefore, there are biases, including

confirmation bias, even in scholarly sources.

Both arguments provide well-supported premises and very strong reasoning. Evaluating

which is stronger can be a difficult question. It depends upon the specific application we are

considering. If a teenager is considering recreational marijuana use, the second argument

provides substantial evidence that the demonstrated harms make the choice unacceptably

dangerous. However, if a legislator is contemplating voting for a law to legalize medical

marijuana within a state, the evidence from the first argument is adequate, in my view, to

conclude that use by adults in a medical context is acceptably safe. So relative to the question of

adult use, I determine that the first argument is stronger.

Specific examples can help to clarify and strengthen key points.

Presentation of My Own Argument

Based on my research and my evaluation of the reasoning that I have found therein, I

now present my own reasoning regarding the safety of marijuana use:

Premise 1: A scholarly study found that use of marijuana by adolescents results in long-

term cognitive impairment (Meier et al., 2012).

Premise 2: A substance whose use results in long-term cognitive impairment when used

by adolescents is not acceptably safe for recreational use by adolescents.

Premise 3: These impairments were not found in those who started smoking marijuana as

adults (Meier et. al, 2012).

Premise 4: Marijuana has only minor harms when used by adults (Grant et al., 2003).

Premise 5: Marijuana has many beneficial medical uses (Ault, 1999).

Premise 6: A substance that has many beneficial medical uses and only minor harms is

acceptably safe for medical use.

Conclusion: Marijuana is not acceptably safe for recreational use by adolescents but is

acceptably safe for medical use by adults.

Response to an Objection to the Argument

Though my argument is backed by substantial research and has premises that entail the

truth of its conclusion, there are still potential objections. One potential objection here is that the

legalization of marijuana for medical use by adults could make it more easily accessible for all,

thereby resulting in more recreational use, including by teens.

Though the premises and conclusion of your argument are in your own words, specific sources of information need to be cited.

Linking premises 2 and 6 makes the argument valid.

A response to this objection comes from studies that have investigated this very question.

Though states have different results, the strongest results come from meta-studies, which can

aggregate and analyze the results from many different studies. “A 2018 meta-analysis concluded

that the results from previous studies do not lend support to the hypothesis that MMLs [medical

marijuana laws] increase marijuana use among youth” (Anderson et al., 2019). In fact, some

studies show an actual decline in teen usage after MMLs have been passed, possibly because it

becomes “… more difficult for teenagers to obtain marijuana as drug dealers are replaced by

licensed dispensaries that require proof of age.” Therefore, the risk of increased use by teens

does not seem to be borne out by the scholarly research.

Conclusion

It is my conclusion, therefore, that marijuana use is not safe for adolescents, but that

medical marijuana use by adults is acceptably safe. Though use at a young age can have

deleterious health consequences to mental functioning (Meier et al., 2012), use by adults has

minimal risks and has benefits that render the risks acceptable (Grant et al., 2003).

It is common for people to be wedded to a position and to seek evidence only to support

their side. However, in pursuit of truth, critical thinkers make a point of understanding the best

arguments on all sides of important questions. This allows them to be more informed and also

more fair-minded, open to changing their views to whichever position most aligns with the best

evidence.

A simple concluding paragraph summarizes what has been learned and reaffirms key conclusions. Make sure to address both bullet points.

References

Anderson, M., Hansen, B., Rees, D. I., Sabia, J. (2019). Association of marijuana laws with teen

marijuana use. JAMA Pediatrics 173(9), pp. 879-881.

https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1720

Ault, A. (1999). Institute of medicine says marijuana has benefits. Lancet 353(9159), p. 1077-

1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)76443-6

Feeney, K. E., & Kampman, K. M. (2016). Adverse effects of marijuana use. The Linacre

Quarterly, 83(2), 174-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00243639.2016.1175707

DISA Global Solutions (2020, November 4). Map of marijuana legality by state.

https://disa.com/map-of-marijuana-legality-by-state

Grant, I., Gonzales, R., Carey, C. L., Natarajan, L., & Wolfson, T. (2003). Non-acute (residual)

neurocognitive effects of cannabis use: A meta-analytic study. Journal of the

International Neuropsychological Society, 9(5), 679-689.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617703950016

Meier, M., Caspi, A., Ambler, A., Harrington, H., Houts, R. Keefe, R. S. E., McDonald, K.,

Ward, A., Poulton, R., & Moffitt, T. E. (2012). Persistent cannabis users show

neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife. PNAS, 109(40), pp. E2657-

E2664. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1206820109

National Institute on Drug Abuse (2019, December). Marijuana drug facts.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

Provide as many references as the assignment instructions state.

Include an APA formatted references page with your paper.

Neavyn, M. J., Blohm, E., Babu, K. M., & Bird, S. B. (2014). Medical marijuana and driving: A

review. Journal of Medical Toxicology 10(3), 269-279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-

014-0393-4

Palamar, J. J., Fenstermaker, M., Kamboukos, D., Ompad, D. C., Cleland, C. M., & Weitzman,

M. (2014). Adverse psychosocial outcomes associated with drug use among US high

school seniors: A comparison of alcohol and marijuana. American Journal of Drug and

Alcohol Abuse, 40(6), 438-446. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952990.2014.943371

Sanders, L. (2018, January 2). Marijuana legalization 2018: Which states might consider

cannabis laws this year? http://www.newsweek.com/marijuana-legalization-2018-which-

states-will-consider-cannabis-laws-year-755282

Volkow, N. D., Baler, R. D., Compton, W. M., & Weiss, S. R. B. (2014). Adverse health effects

of marijuana use. New England Journal of Medicine, 370, 2219-2227.

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1402309

Wetterau, N. (2015). Medical marijuana—Can we do no harm? Family Doctor: A Journal of the

New York State Academy of Family Physicians, 3(3), 16-20.

http://www.nysafp.org/News/Family-Doctor-A-Journal-for-the-NYSAFP

grading rubric.html

PHI103.W5A1.02.2021

Description:

Total Possible Score: 20.00

Introduces Readers to the Topic and Includes a Brief Preview of What the Paper Will Accomplish

Total: 1.00

Distinguished - Clearly introduces readers to the topic and includes a thorough, but brief preview of what the paper will accomplish.

Proficient - Introduces readers to the topic and includes a brief preview of what the paper will accomplish. Minor details are missing or slightly unclear.

Basic - Vaguely introduces readers to the topic and includes a limited preview of what the paper will accomplish. Relevant details are missing and/or unclear.

Below Expectations - Attempts to introduce readers to the topic and include brief preview of what the paper will accomplish; however, significant details are missing and unclear.

Non-Performance - The introduction of readers to the topic and brief preview of what the paper will accomplish are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions.

Presents the Best Argument, in Standard Form, on One Side of the Issue

Total: 2.00

Distinguished - Clearly presents the best argument, in standard form, on one side of the issue.

Proficient - Presents a good argument, in standard form, on one side of the issue. The argument is slightly underdeveloped.

Basic - Presents an argument, in standard form, on one side of the issue. The argument is underdeveloped or there are errors in the use of standard form.

Below Expectations - Attempts to present an argument, in standard form, on one side of the issue; however, the argument is significantly underdeveloped or not in standard form.

Non-Performance - The presentation of the best argument, in standard form, on one side of the issue is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Presents the Best Argument, in Standard Form, on the Other Side of the Issue

Total: 2.00

Distinguished - Clearly presents the best argument, in standard form, on the other side of the issue.

Proficient - Presents a good argument, in standard form, on the other side of the issue. The argument is slightly underdeveloped.

Basic - Presents an argument, in standard form, on the other side of the issue. The argument is underdeveloped or there are errors in the use of standard form.

Below Expectations - Attempts to present an argument, in standard form, on the other side of the issue; however, the argument is significantly underdeveloped or not in standard form.

Non-Performance - The presentation of best argument, in standard form, on the other side of the issue is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Evaluates the Quality of the Two Arguments, Explains Any Fallacies, Biases, or Rhetorical Tricks Committed, and Justifies Why One is Stronger Than the Other

Total: 2.00

Distinguished - Thoroughly evaluates the quality of the two arguments, comprehensively explains any fallacies, biases, or rhetorical tricks, and clearly justifies why one is stronger.

Proficient - Evaluates the quality of the two arguments, explains any fallacies, biases, or rhetorical tricks, and justifies why one is stronger. Minor details are underdeveloped or missing.

Basic - Minimally evaluates the quality of the two arguments, partially explains any fallacies, biases, or rhetorical tricks, and somewhat justifies why one is stronger. Relevant details are underdeveloped and/or missing.

Below Expectations - Attempts to evaluate the quality of the two arguments, explain any fallacies, biases, or rhetorical tricks, and justify why one is stronger; however, significant details are underdeveloped and missing.

Non-Performance - The evaluation of the quality of the two arguments, the explanation any fallacies, biases, or rhetorical tricks, and the justification of why one is stronger, are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions.

Presents One's Own Argument, in Standard Form, on the Topic

Total: 3.00

Distinguished - Clearly and accurately presents one's own argument, in standard form, on the topic.

Proficient - Presents one's own argument, in standard form, on the topic. The argument is slightly unclear or underdeveloped.

Basic - Minimally presents one's own argument, in standard form, on the topic. The argument is unclear or underdeveloped.

Below Expectations - Attempts to present one's own argument, in standard form, on the topic; however, the argument is not in standard form, is unclear, or has significant errors.

Non-Performance - The presentation of one's own argument, in standard form, on the topic is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Presents the Best Possible Objection to One's Argument

Total: 2.00

Distinguished - Clearly and accurately presents the best possible objection to one's argument.

Proficient - Presents an objection to one's argument. Minor details are slightly unclear or underdeveloped.

Basic - Vaguely presents an objection to one's argument. The objection is unclear and/or underdeveloped.

Below Expectations - Attempts to present the best possible objection to one's argument; however, significant details are unclear and underdeveloped.

Non-Performance - The best possible objection to one's argument is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Presents the Best Reply to the Objection to One's Argument

Total: 2.00

Distinguished - Clearly and accurately presents the best reply to the objection to one's argument.

Proficient - Presents a reply to the objection to one's argument. Minor details are slightly unclear or underdeveloped.

Basic - Presents a vague reply to the objection to one's argument. Relevant details are unclear and/or underdeveloped.

Below Expectations - Attempts to present the best reply to the objection to one's argument; however, significant details are unclear and underdeveloped.

Non-Performance - The best reply to the objection to one's argument is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.

Summarizes the Evidence and Evaluates How Controversial Topics Should Be Addressed by Critical Thinkers

Total: 1.00

Distinguished - Comprehensively summarizes the evidence and evaluates how controversial topics should be addressed by critical thinkers.

Proficient - Summarizes the evidence and evaluates how controversial topics should be addressed by critical thinkers. Minor details are slightly underdeveloped or missing.

Basic - Minimally summarizes the evidence and evaluates how controversial topics should be addressed by critical thinkers. Relevant details are underdeveloped and/or missing.

Below Expectations - Attempts to summarize the evidence and evaluate how controversial topics should be addressed by critical thinkers; however, significant details are underdeveloped and missing.

Non-Performance - The summary of the evidence and evaluation of how controversial topics should be addressed by critical thinkers are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions.

Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics

Total: 2.00

Distinguished - Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to understand.

Proficient - Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors and is mostly easy to understand.

Basic - Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors which may slightly distract the reader.

Below Expectations - Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors which distract the reader.

Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Written Communication: APA Formatting

Total: 1.00

Distinguished - Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.

Proficient - Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors. 

Basic - Exhibits limited knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements. 

Below Expectations - Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.

Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Written Communication: Page Requirement

Total: 1.00

Distinguished - The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages. 

Proficient - The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages. 

Basic - The length of the paper is equivalent to at least three quarters of the required number of correctly formatted pages.

Below Expectations - The length of the paper is equivalent to at least one half of the required number of correctly formatted pages.   

Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Written Communication: Resource Requirement

Total: 1.00

Distinguished - Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.

Proficient - Uses the required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.

Basic - Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are used within the body of the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly.

Below Expectations - Uses an inadequate number of sources that provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted correctly.

Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.

Powered by