Three Opposing Viewpoints are Methodically Debated…
Cannabinoid medicines have had a wavering reputation mainly due to its relation to the cannabis sativa plant or “marijuana” a typical slang term. Marijuana is commonly used as an illicit drug in the United States. Many proponents suggest that marijuana is innocuous and may even be a beneficial medical substance. However, even after its legalization in some states, some medical practitioners and lawmakers continue to advocate against its use. Three viewpoints take on the challenge of debating this issue. Of those viewpoints is one made by Bill McCarberg who declares that cannabinoids have been proven to work, but the effects rely on the delivery route or intake of the medication. Similarly, David Bearman urges that marijuana has proved its effectiveness at treating several noted medical conditions; also improving the quality of life for those who are diagnosed with such illnesses and diseases. In the third viewpoint, the article “Marijuana’s Dangers Makes It a Poor Candidate for Medicine” it is perceived, through various side effects, that it’s a choice that may jeopardize the health of numerous medical marijuana patients.
Marijuana is a form of terminology used to identify the dried leaves, flowers, or stems of the Cannabis plant. It is known that the unique herb contains an estimated amount of 400 chemicals. Approximately 80 of the chemicals are known as cannabinoids, which is believed to be medically beneficial when treating some illnesses. The most valuable active chemical is known as delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or THC (“Medical Marijuana”). According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this has been found to be safe and effective when treating nausea, vomiting, and diseases such as anorexia. In other words, cannabinoids manifest a pivotal role in the “body’s pain mechanisms” (“Medical Marijuana”). As a conclusion of multiple studies and research, medical researchers believe that cannabinoids can assist patients suffering from chemotherapy, postoperative recovery, and spinal cord injury, as well as neuropathic pain, multiple sclerosis (MS), diabetes, and HIV/AIDS (“Medical Marijuana paragraph). However, those who oppose to the medical use of marijuana believe that it contains carcinogens, which has the capability of causing cancer in any living tissue (“Medical Marijuana”). Also, due to the use of marijuana, users may grow to be dependent on marijuana and thus, become addicted to the substance.
The first viewpoint was presented by Bill McCarberg, a founder of the Chronic Pain Management Program for Kaiser Permanente. He advocates that the cannabinoids chemical in marijuana has portrayed its effectiveness when reducing pain. Although he strongly conveys his thoughts and feelings on marijuana’s effectiveness, he states that “Hopefully, robust scientific data will soon allow cannabinoids…” (McCarberg). This doesn’t reassure the author’s audience of the effectiveness because essentially, he is claiming that there aren’t enough studies that fully show the advantages of medical marijuana. Most of his argument strongly relies on the effects of pathos because of his verbiage. For instance, he declares that “the possibility of cannabinoid medicines are very promising” (McCarberg). While his credibility is strong due to his experienced background and using pathos in an argument to the assumed audience of those who are supportive is possibly effective, it makes the author seem less credible. Moreover, he believes that the delivery route of the marijuana substance is effective and provide the Canadian approved product Sativex as an example and appropriate comparison. The main positive aspect of his argument is that he addresses the opposing arguments. To end, Bill McCarberg concludes that cannabinoid pain relievers are “possibly effective”.
Another stance on the usage of medical marijuana was the one argued by the article “Marijuana’s Dangers Make It a Poor Candidate for Medicine”. This article disagrees with the idea of using marijuana as medication by blatantly stating that “Marijuana is an unlikely medication candidate” due to its multiple side effects (“Marijuana‘s Dangers”). His argument is stalwartly supported within.
After further analyzing these two viewpoints, the most successful argument on the medical marijuana topic is actually one presented by David Bearman. In our final viewpoint presented by Bearman, he utilizes an immense amount of effective logos in which he reveals the multiple research and studies that prove that marijuana has a strong advantage. For instance, he provides the study of Dr. Donald Tashkin, a prominent pulmonologist, which suggests that “cannabis smokers have a reduced risk of lung cancer over nonsmokers” (). However, after stating that Dr. Donald Tashkin believes that more research is necessary to confirm this conclusion, David Bearman pairs his conclusion with Kaiser Permanente ‘s survey of 65,000 patient charts that have signified no difference in cancers of the mouth, throat, and lungs between individuals who have smoked cannabis and are smoke-free.
According to Bearman, these two pieces of information strongly suggest that either reduces the chances of cancers of the respiratory tree or has no effect (Bearman). Furthermore, David Bearman uses pathos by asking “Why should people suffer unnecessarily” and stating “The medical marijuana movement is not concerned with decriminalizing or legalizing cannabis for recreational use. It is concerned with helping people with serious illnesses and disabilities to get on with their lives” (Bearman). His use of the rhetorical question and statement implements a feeling of desperate need and evokes a sense of pity and poignancy in his wavering and hostile audience. In addition, his article represents ethos, especially because he is a reputable physician that specializes in pain management and cannabinoid medicine. Therefore, his information is credible to the audience, thus creating a sense of trust between the author and his audience and his use of sources are equally credible. Additionally, his use of medical jargon indicates the he is knowledgeable and experienced in this field.
On the contrary, while the author Bill McCarberg does provide a worthy argument, he lacks a strong presentation of information because he doesn’t effectively utilize any ethos, logos, or pathos in his argument. He appeals to several anonymous authorities numerous times. For example, to introduce a research or study he states, “basic research…numerous studies… such research…a small number of studies…additional research…” This creates a lack of research and credibility in the author ‘s argument. There is also little use of logos and no use of pathos in that article. In the article “Marijuana’s Dangers Make It a Poor Candidate for Medicine”, there is no author which is credited for the written work. However, it does have a large amount of logos presented, of which most are accredited. This specific argument lacks both pathos and a detailed elaboration of subject. In other words, it was too broad and there was no sense of connection between the author and the audience. Throughout the article there was simply a neutral tone. To conclude, David Bearman’s argument proved to be the most convincing!
While most people declare that medical marijuana has promise and is beneficiary, others will most likely continue to claim that marijuana has a wide-ranging effect, and with long-term marijuana usage side-effects may only worsen. However, it is possible with medical advancements that medical marijuana will become a supported derivative to many pain killers and treatments by the general public. Opinions and research of some may declare that cannabinoids are advantageous and safe, while others may advocate the complete opposite in that it may put lives on the line. Meanwhile, other individuals may stand in a gray area and advocate that it is beneficial, but this may rely on the delivery route or intake of the medication. In conclusion, because of David Bearman’s use of rhetorical concepts and persuasion skills he is deemed most convincing.