The format this time was a guest column pro/con opinion piece run by CBS News.com. On the pro-side, we have the friendly, familiar face of Ethan Nadelmann, founder and director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Nadelmann does a wonderful job at providing a serious response to a serious issue facing our country (if not the world). He provides a clear, concise viewpoint which is complimented by various references to current events and statistics.

On the con-side, we have a co-written piece by Stephen Baldwin and Kevin McCullough; I can only assume that the task of putting 500 or so different words side by side was a bit overwhelming for any single prohibitionist? For those of you not familiar, Stephen Baldwin is an actor who became a born-again Christian after his cleaning woman prophesized that Stephen and his wife would have their own ministry in the future. He has since “turned his life around” and one of his major targets is marijuana (perhaps no one told him that marijuana is not a sin?).

Stephen’s partner, Kevin, is quite the colorful, loving character as well. You may be familiar with some of his articles, including, Why Liberals Still Think Like the KKK, Obama as Hitler, Why Liberals Despise American Patriots, and–my personal favorite–Obama: America’s first Gay President?. Yes, this is who Stephen chooses to associate himself with because, as we all know, the answer to “WWJD” is, “Hang out with people who know how to write passionate hate-pieces.”

I will be responding to Stephen and Kevin’s article on a point-for-point basis, per my usual style. I want you to pay attention, however, to the overall condescending, patronizing tone used throughout the article. This is a common technique by prohibitionists as it helps create a more friendly and open “voice” for the reader, which helps to make an emotional connection in hopes of gaining support for beliefs which can not stand on their own merits. In other words, when faced with debating about a topic of which the individual in question has no education or authority, some choose to compensate with charm and quips.

America doesn’t want its pot…American potheads do!

Sure the debate is raging presently, but it’s as fictional in its need as whether pigs can fly or whether Superman was or was not faster than that bullet.

Right out of the gates, the authors waste no time destroying whatever legitimacy their article might have contained with this childish over-simplification of the issue. Gentlemen, by “potheads”, are you are referring to the millions of tax-paying American citizens currently using marijuana, the farmers who would like to be able to grow a crop as versatile as hemp, or even George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who both supported marijuana?

Perhaps the authors are referring to all those “potheads” who were not as blessed as others to be free from various medical conditions which only marijuana seems to treat effectively. Or maybe they just meant all those people who would rather use a safe recreational substance rather than dangerous alternatives.

In the modern trumped up controversy over whether marijuana should be legalized for the masses, the biggest canard of all is the supposed demand that exists. As a team that produces a weekly talk radio show now heard on 195 stations, we can earnestly say one thing is definitively true in the discussions we’ve launched about the revival of the “Should pot be legal?” question: “America doesn’t want its pot…American potheads do!”

While Nadelmann relied on studies and statistics, Stephen and Kevin seem to feel their personal observations stemming from their radio show discussions are more than sufficient enough to draw correlations from. It is also worth remembering that people who listen to their show most likely align themselves with a similar ideology. In other words, any feedback they received regarding marijuana via their listeners is most likely on par with polling PETA members about their feelings towards the beef industry.

Almost to a person, callers to our broadcast who have asserted the need for weed’s legality are also toking up on a regular basis.

Once again as I reach out in an attempt to find logic in this statement, I feel nothing but a warm breeze. Why does it matter whether or not a person uses marijuana? While there are many people who openly support marijuana without using it, there are supporters who owe their passion for marijuana legalization to first-hand experience of just how safe and helpful it is.

Considering that Stephen starred in “Biodome,” one of the more famous marijuana movies of all time, and that he has testified to smoking enough of the substance prior to his conversion to Christianity to fund a third world junta or two, we are able to compare the pleas of the modern marijuana movement and measure them for what they are — cries of economically struggling potheads who want to get high cheaply, next generation be damned.

Nothing could be more foolish and nothing could be more unnecessary.

Yes, Stephen, I know you had a role in a 3.8/10-star movie that included references to marijuana culture. And yes, I know that you admit to being one of millions of Americans who have used marijuana. What I do not know, however, is why you feel any of this constitutes a viable argument against marijuana. All I see is more pathetic attempts at relating to your readers or convincing them that your opinion is relevant, all while providing absolutely nothing of substance or merit (things I like to call “facts”).

We have no desire to prevent doctors from prescribing specified care, or authorizing specific treatments for patients that simply cannot find any more compassionate or effective means.

Again and again I have heard Stephen and other prohibitionists try to make themselves sound more compassionate by attempting to claim that legalization of marijuana and medical marijuana are two completely separate entities. The fact is, however, that medical marijuana is directly hindered by marijuana’s overall stigma (perpetuated by prohibitionists). This, in turn, leads to confusing state laws, conflicting federal laws, and an ever-growing list of legitimate medical users who have fallen victim to the War on Drugs.

We do, however, also recognize that the medical community has expanded its array of treatments in instances for cancer and other diagnoses that might render the need for marijuana completely useless.

The authors are correct in their claims that the medical community has indeed expanded and progressed heavily when it comes to treatments for cancer and other diseases. What they fail to mention is that a fair number of these studies revolve around the amazing medicinal value of marijuana and its chemical constituents, such as the recent study regarding killing brain cancer cells with THC. As illustrated by the ever-expanding resource of studies on this site, marijuana continues to prove itself as an efficient, effective, safer treatment for various conditions and diseases.

But what about the authors’ claim that new drugs may soon “render the need for marijuana completely useless”? I have no doubt that science will continue to develop more and more precision-drugs and I completely welcome this! However, this in no way implies that marijuana may somehow become obsolete. First, consider the fact that marijuana is a natural substance, which means it has a diverse genetic and chemical composition. What does this mean? Put simply, your body is fairly smart and has the ability to build tolerances to chemicals it runs into frequently. This means that medicines may come along that synthetically replicate the properties of marijuana, but due to them being less diverse in composition, they can never treat a person in the same way their natural counterparts can. Similarly, claiming that man can somehow replace the need for marijuana is like claiming there is no longer a need for sugar when SPLENDA® brand sweetener is available.

What is so wrong with having choice, especially when one of the choices is natural, cheap, and–based on modern studies–safe?

Further, let’s not forget that professional drug-dealers with degrees (i.e. Doctors) are not a luxury that all Americans are privy to. As I already discussed in a previous article, marijuana is inherently compassionate in that it does not discriminate based on social/economic status. Whether you are Sir Richard Branson or one of the 46-million+ Americans without health insurance, marijuana offers an affordable and effective alternative to the for-profit pharmaceutical industry.

So, Stephen and Kevin, who are you to say that those of us in lesser tax brackets are not deserving of compassion?

What we oppose with ferocity is making it as common for children to obtain as alcohol and cigarettes are now.

Legalizing it across the board creates easier access for children who we suppose would still be legally prevented from “purchasing” it.

When I was in high school, I had ample opportunities to use marijuana. Not because marijuana was simply “popular”, but because it was much easier to obtain than alcohol or cigarettes. The reason is simple: people who sell marijuana, unlike regulated establishments like Liquor stores, are under no pressure to check ID before making a sale.

The irony is that as much as you claim you somehow care about children, you don’t seem too concerned about the many children suffering around the world due to prohibition. You don’t seem to mind that your ignorant assumptions about recreational marijuana use also impede the progressive hemp movement which could help so many. And you definitely don’t seem to care about the many children caught in the middle of your War on Drugs.

Apparently even you do not fully believe your ramblings, as illustrated by your confusing statement, “…who we suppose would still be legally prevented from ‘purchasing’ it.” If you suppose that children would not be able to purchase it, then where is your argument? That is the point. That is why it is safer to regulate marijuana than it is to let the black-market handle things. Regulation creates a safer, cheaper, legal alternative to the black-market, essentially creating an environment in which it can not afford to compete/exist. With regulation, your average child can no longer buy a bag off a friend from class and, instead, must find a way to deceive a licensed facility.

Will some find a way? Of course, but a fraction of children will always find ways to defeat our attempts to control their actions. Some children will try to use marijuana no matter what, so why would you want to make it easier for them by removing regulatory obstacles? The reality is that the vast majority of children who currently have easy access to purchasing marijuana have such access due to prohibition; access that would be removed under a regulated structure.

This doesn’t even preface the fact that cigarettes are now thought of as a greater evil to children than sex offenders.

I have no doubts that cigarettes are a bigger danger to children simply because they have been proven to cause so many diseases. The key fact to remember is that “cigarette” refers to tobacco cigarettes, not marijuana. If the authors wish to contest this point, they should show me the facts.

Marijuana proponents claim that the benefit to society would be enhanced by fewer offenders being sent to prison, tax revenues that would be generated, and the establishment of marijuana farming systems.

You forgot to mention the benefit of placing Americans’ freedoms and independence above the needs and profit margins of the corporations who first lobbied to make marijuana illegal rather than compete with it.

Ladies and gentlemen, please hold tight as we descend into desperation as the authors cowardly attempt to resurrect Reefer Madness-era fear mongering. Young children, pregnant women, and persons with heart conditions may wish to avoid subjecting themselves to the following logic:

A major untruth that they spread is that for every criminal it would prevent from being sent to prison, dealing with the increasingly prevalent use by underage users would be doubled or even tripled.

This was the authors’ moment to provide a shred of citation or reference to back up their point, but they failed to do so and thus failed entirely. The first question would be whether or not the statement above is true regarding increased use among underage users. The second would be whether or not this correlation would increase underage use by 200-300%.

Logically, it is safe to assume, as I already said, that when you replace black-market drug dealers with regulated facilities you dramatically decrease the opportunity for children to use marijuana. Logic is fun, but data is better so let’s compare ourselves with a country that has decided to regulate drugs, like marijuana, such as the Netherlands. When we compare US marijuana use with Netherlands marijuana use, we see an interesting picture:

Netherlands Marijuana Use compared to United States

Where are the higher rates of consumption? It would appear that increased usage is just another irrational fear, but I would love to see the research the authors’ are referencing (though I do not believe it actually exists).

The other issue worth noting when it comes to the legalization and supposed increased usage among users is whether or not it is even an issue to begin with. Sure, if you allow yourself to view marijuana in the same mindset as you view alcohol or tobacco then you may feel there is an obvious requirement to keep it as restricted as possible. The problem is that there is no evidence to show it is nearly as bad as alcohol or tobacco.

A bar graph based only on the physical harm means of substances. (Click to Enlarge)

What they also will not tell you is that for every ounce of tax revenues raised, a ton of cost is exacted upon society by intoxicated drivers, child addicts, counseling, rehabilitation, etc.

Another bold claim made even more bold by failing to provide any references or citations. First, legalized marijuana would not increase car accidents. Second, marijuana does not cause chemical dependencies and is not addictive. Third, many counseling and rehab centers are a product of prohibition and exist primarily due to people being nearly forced into them after being arrested for marijuana. As I pointed out in my de-filtering of the Miron/Walters debate on CNN, often times a person has the choice of rehab or a comparatively harsher sentence of jail time and/or fines… who wouldn’t choose rehab? It is another desperate attempt to invent evidence by prohibitionists. Thankfully, we could save tax money after legalization and allow only those who truly need rehab to sign up.

And the farming argument is just dumb.

Really? That’s all? One of the biggest reasons to legalize marijuana and you shrug it off as “just dumb”? I wasn’t aware that giving thousands of Americans jobs in the prospective hemp industry was “just dumb”. I had no idea that potentially weening ourselves off our petroleum addiction was “just dumb”. I also had no idea that the plant touted by our own government as an essential crop to win World War II was “just dumb”.

What the rabid dealers and addicts will not admit is that the primary reason they are making this push is multi-purposed. First, they believe having a former user in the White House will give them the cover they need to make this process speedy, efficient, and successful. And second, they are convinced that it will give them easy access to the “high” they want, as well as give the pushers a new line of clientele.

First off, the last three presidents have admitted to using marijuana, yet it was not legalized. Obama has already made it clear he has no intentions of directly legalizing marijuana and, in fact, he laughed at the idea. The current push we are having in the legalization movement was bound to happen sooner or later, as prohibition always fails sooner than later. Second, what is wrong with feeling good? Some people relax with tobacco, others with alcohol or coffee. What is wrong with those individuals who would like to responsibly use a substance without being labeled a criminal?

The pot-heads of America believe that their new day has dawned.

But for the sake of our kids and the generations to come, it is still not too late to “just say no!”

A new day has dawned. People are starting to realize that they were duped by their own governments. Science is finally prevailing and dismantling prohibitionist arguments one by one. So for the sake of our children and the generations to come, for the sake of neighboring countries’ children, for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our liberties, for the sake of the sick, for the sake of the impoverished, for the sake of truth, for the sake of stopping our war against American citizens, and for the sake of respect for the constitution of these United States of America, just say no to ignorance and yes to RE-legalized marijuana.

It was hard to engage fully in the debate due to the quality of the audio (often fading in and out) and the unwillingness of participants to let each other talk (I often found myself having to talk over others, which I do not enjoy).

In the end, before I could refute the various fallacies perpetuated by “Mike” (including the scientifically debunked myth that marijuana causes lung cancer), I was hung up on. I figured I had just been disconnected, so I called back and was informed by the screener that it was intentional due to the “segment being over”. It is a shame that they didn’t feel it prudent to allow me to have any sort of “last comment”, but I suppose this only reflects the casual nature of the show.

Below is my open letter to Mr. Alger:

Mr. Alger,

I enjoyed briefly being able to speak on your show, however, I feel that I, as well as your audience, were not given the respect that this topic deserves. I’m not sure who “Mike” was, as I missed the introductions to your show, however, he is pretty much the epitome of what is wrong with the United States’ policies regarding marijuana.

Studies–released by groups far more versed in this subject than Mike–have concluded that the various fear-mongering myths about marijuana (be it cancer, brain damage, etc.) have shown no correlation, yet alone causation, with marijuana use whatsoever. So to have him sit there and deny their legitimacy while offering nothing more than his personal beliefs regarding the subject is childish at best and malicious at worst.

Are there potential horrible side effects to marijuana? Of course, there is always potential for everything. That fact is, though, that no legitimate study has ever shown the existence of such risks. Of the ones that find something, it is usually a weak correlation that has much to do with the method of the test, rather than the subjects of the test.

If there is science to back up Mike’s claims, I ask him to show it to me. What other substance can you think about that is so hard to find a definitive study to back up a claim of harm? Even water has been proven to be deadly if it lacks sufficient amounts of electrolytes and consumed in large amounts.

We should stop penalizing marijuana based purely on the speculative, irrational fears of people like Mike who are so obsessed with finding fault with things that when they don’t, they latch on to whatever myth promotes their “gut feeling” regardless of its merit.

Marijuana is a safe substance. If you do not agree with this, show me your facts. Otherwise, please stop helping to perpetuate the current demonization of a plant that can literally improve every facet of our lives (be it through clean energy, medicine, or safe recreation) if only it was given the chance.

Sincerely,
Eric
ShowMetheFacts.org

Updates as of 4/28/09 added to bottom of article.

————————————————–

As many of you know, I love keeping a TwitterFall window open to keep track of hashtags that interest me. Usually this helps me find new friends or efficiently retweet information to my followers, etc.

Sometimes, like tonight, however, I see a post/link that leads me to write an article. Here is that post:

Twitter message from @ParentingWithD

The formatting made it a bit difficult to understand what exactly I was about to click, but I decided to go for it and followed through to the article, How does marijuana use affect physical health? (article has been removed)

I wish I could say this was an appreciative post thanking both Denise Witmer and About.com for a wonderful exhibition of journalistic integrity, research, and factual information. Instead, the article is not only highly questionable, it made it pretty hard to find where she got her information since no sources were posted (other than a tip of the hat to the NIDA at the end). It honestly appears as if the author re-packaged NIDA-talking-points in the form of an article.

I will be responding to her article on a point-for-point basis. Ms. Witmer, I invite you to e-mail me with your responses, as I–and my readers–would love to hear them.

Marijuana use has been shown to increase users’ difficulty in trying to quit smoking tobacco. This was recently reported in a study comparing smoking cessation in adults who smoked both marijuana and tobacco with those who smoked only tobacco. The relationship between marijuana use and continued smoking was particularly strong in those who smoked marijuana daily at the time of the initial interview, 13 years prior to the followup interview.

It took a bit of googling, but it appears that the study in question was done by our friends at the NIDA (the creator of much of the misleading propaganda I enjoy debunking here on the site).

Is there a correlation between concurrent marijuana and tobacco and a person being less likely to quit smoking tobacco? It would appear so… but it also appears to be a game of numbers. Let’s take a look at those numbers (from the NIDA study):

Daniel Ford and colleagues interviewed 431 adults who had reported being current tobacco smokers in a study conducted 13 years earlier. In the baseline interview, more than 40 percent of the participants reported having smoked marijuana, with more than 25 percent reporting using it within the previous 30 days (recent use) and nine percent reported daily use for two weeks or more. At the 13-year follow-up, 79 percent of participants who had reported smoking tobacco at baseline were still smoking it.

So let’s take break down these numbers:

• The study’s total sample size = 431
• At the time of the first study, 40% of the 431 people (172.4) reported to have smoked marijuana.
• Of the 172.4 people who smoke marijuana and tobacco, 25% (43.1 people) smoked marijuana “within the previous 30 days” and 9% (15.5 people) reported daily use for two weeks or more.
• After 13 years, the study found that 79% (340.49 people) of the “baseline” (I’m assuming this means the original 431 people) reported to still be smoking tobacco.

There are a lot of numbers being thrown aroud in here, and I’m not completely sure where they all come from or how they correlate with one another from only the information given (and I can’t seem to find the raw numbers online). So let’s look at this at face-value… it was a study that showed how out of 431 people who smoked tobacco (including 172.4 of them who used marijuana in one way or another), 340.49 remained tobacco smokers after 13 years.

What this study doesn’t seem to answer (among many things) is:

• Were these people trying to quit using tobacco? I mean… that seems like a fair question, doesn’t it?
• Similar to the question above, does this study prove that it was directly marijuana’s fault that people continued to keep smoking? Or does it have anything to do with the fact that nicotine is one of the most addictive substances on Earth, which, consequently, makes it really hard to quit?

Well, as it turns out, according to the American Heart Association, even with the use of “good smoking cessation programs”, only about 20 to 40 percent of participcants end up qutting (for at least one year). That means that even when a person has dedicated themselves consciously to a smoking cessation program, they still have a 60 to 80 percent chance of failing to quit smoking at all (and, again, only a 20-40% chance at quitting for at least a single year).

So let’s see here… NIDA’s study showed that 79% of 431 smokers (who we aren’t even sure if they wanted to quit or if they were enrolled in a quit-smoking program) continued to smoke 13 years after their study. And, According to the AHA, 60-80% failure is normal amongst people who use “good” stop-smoking programs. I am no scientist, but based on this it would appear that the only thing NIDA has found was that their group was about average at worst.

Back to the article…

A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers do. Many of the extra sick days used by the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

First off, let’s remember that marijuana is a plant and it does not grow pre-made joints (no matter how many enthusiasts may throw wishful pennies into fountains). There are indeed some adverse health affects that are associated with inhaling combusted material (such as marijuana), but that is due to combustion and not the plant itself. Even inhaling smoke from burning chicken on the grill should be shied away from.

I’m not going to attempt to verify the numbers in this case because I don’t feel it needs to be argued. Personally, I do believe that a person who does not inhale combusted organic matter would tend to be–on average–less likely to get a respiratory infection and miss work when compared with someone who does.

However, this is why you upgrade your method of consumption to something healthier like a vaporizer, which creates a near toxin-less vapor from plant matter.

I’m not saying that NIDA is correct either, however, as all this study seems to prove is that people shouldn’t smoke in general; beyond that it proves nothing specifically against marijuana.

Even infrequent marijuana use can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, often accompanied by a heavy cough. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illnesses, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency toward obstructed airways.

As much as I google, the only support I can find for this claim is the NIDA (which provides no actual science to back up these individual claims). It would appear these symptoms are greatly attributed to smoking, not uniquely to marijuana smoking. All I can say, again, is if you experience these symptoms… consider vaporization rather than combustion.

Cancer of the respiratory tract and lungs may also be promoted by marijuana smoke. A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that smoking marijuana increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck, and that the more marijuana smoked, the greater the increase. A statistical analysis of the data suggested that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.

Marijuana has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form, levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco does.

Really, Ms. Witmer? These days it is hard to claim inability to fact-check when I am willing to wager there is a built-in search option in the same browser you used to load the NIDA’s website as you copied and pasted parts of your research.

A simple search of “marijuana cancer“, for me, pulled up numerous headlines which include an article about a study that shows marijuana potentially cutting cancer tumor growth in half, as well as a link to a very well publicized article about the largest study of its kind finding no link between marijuana use and cancer.

As it turns out, cannabinoids appear to have a lot of potential use in fighting cancer, which may help explain why the study found you are no more likely to get lung cancer from smoking marijuana than you would from smoking nothing at all.

So what is your excuse, Ms. Witmer? Does About.com approve of this type of writing?

Some adverse health effects caused by marijuana may occur because THC impairs the immune system’s ability to fight off infectious diseases and cancer. In laboratory experiments that exposed animal and human cells to THC or other marijuana ingredients, the normal disease-preventing reactions of many of the key types of immune cells were inhibited. In other studies, mice exposed to THC or related substances were more likely than unexposed mice to develop bacterial infections and tumors.

While marijuana does indeed act to suppress the immune system, there are no studies that I am familiar with which show a significant correlation between marijuana use and increased susceptibility to infection/disease.

In fact, immune system suppression is one of the reasons that marijuana appears to be such a viable treatment for people with autoimmune diseases, like multiple sclerosis.

As usual, the only support I can find for the claims above is from the NIDA and sites which have basically just copied and pasted NIDA’s claims.

Keep in mind–as I pointed out above–that marijuana actually has been shown to aid in hindering tumor growth. On top of that, marijuana has many anti-bacterial properties, including the ability to fight super-bugs like MRSA. With that said, I would love to see a study which shows a siginificant correlation to the alternative.

One study has indicated that a person’s risk of heart attack during the first hour after smoking marijuana is four times his or her usual risk. The researchers suggest that a heart attack might occur, in part, because marijuana raises blood pressure and heart rate and reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.

The really curious thing about this section of Ms. Witmer’s article is the fact that the study mentioned above was a caution towards middle-aged and elderly people from the baby-boom who would be more likely to have heart disease and, thus, may be more likely to have a heart attack triggered by marijuana use.

So what does this have to do with raising a teenager? Oh, that’s right… nothing. But I suppose it makes for great filler, doesn’t it?

For what it’s worth, let’s take a look at some more details of this study:

The Boston group studied 3,882 patients who had survived heart attacks and found that 124 reported using marijuana regularly. Of those, 37 said they had used it within 24 hours of their heart attacks and 9 within the hour of their attacks. The relative risk of heart attack increased 4.8 times within the first hour but dropped to 1.7 times higher in the second hour, suggesting a rapid decline in the acute cardiac effects, the researchers said.

The study only found a correlation between marijuana use and heart attacks. Out of 3,882 heart attack survivors, 124 (3.2%) reported to use marijuana regularly. Out of that 124, 37 patients (.95% of the sample) claimed to use marijuana within 24 hours of their heart attacks and 9 patients (.23% of the sample) claimed to have used marijuana within an hour of their attack. If I may interject, I am willing to bet that more than 3.2% of them had a diet/lifestyle which may have also contributed to their conditions.

I would love more research into these various concerns to really see if there is a legitimate reason for concern. Marijuana may indeed increase one’s risk for heart attack if the individual in question has heart disease/a weakened heart, however, there are studies that show marijuana actually helps the heart. For example, one study shows marijuana may be a viable treatment for hardened arteries, another shows that cannabinoids may offer cardioprotection. Medical Marijuana and the heart is an upcoming section on this site as well.

In conclusion…

Personally, I used to enjoy reading articles on About.com. Not only did they usually answer my question, but due to the popularity of the site, they showed up first/near the top on the search engines.

When it comes to marijuana, however, this is not the first time I have been absolutely disgusted with the lack of factual information provided. While this is my first response to an About.com article, it will surely not be my last until About.com puts in the initiative to check their submitters’ work prior to making it go live.

So, Ms. Witmer, I welcome you to consider these facts and reconsider your article. Do you know what is more harmful to children than marijuana? Being lied to/misinformed by their parents. Ignorance is more destructive than any strain of marijuana, yet you seem to have no problem dealing it in your article. Please, reconsider.

For those of you interested in contacting Denise Witmer, you can e-mail her at parentingteens.guide@about.com or contact her on twitter @ParentingWithD.

I also suggest you contact About.com and let them know how you feel about the content they promote on their website.

——————————-

Update (4/28/09):

As of the time of this post, the article has been taken down and now forwards to the main “parenting teens” page.

While I would have preferred some sort of changed/updated article with facts… I guess deleting it is still a win.

Thanks About.com and anyone who helped spread this along.

———————————

Update (4/27/09 4:00pm EST):

Maureen Ryan, an editor at About.com, left this message in the comments:

Thank you for your post. As the editor for About.com’s Parenting Channel (which includes the Parenting Teens site) I wanted to let you know that we take readers’ feedback seriously.

This article is part of a series we are currently updating. Any need to update sources and information will be addressed.

-Maureen Ryan
Editor About.com

Thank you for the comment, Maureen! It is very good to know that you guys have an active and functioning system to contest an article’s validity. I am very appreciative for your time.

As of this edit, the article in question still remains active on About.com’s website, but it looks like they are looking into it. I will let you guys know when/if the article is changed or taken down.