How to debunk alleged cannabis harms?

How can you debunk alleged cannabis harms? When people with PhDs say cannabis is harmful, should we accept that? Or are these “public health” concerns more akin to Church proclamations?

Donald Trump signed the 2018 Farm Bill five years ago, which legalized many cannabinoids, including CBD. It’s been a wild west of a market ever since. Some shady manufacturers produce delta-8-THC in not-so-legitimate ways, leading to intoxication and even death.

This has worried the “progressive” zealot public health campaigners about cannabis legalization, prompting conjecture Cannabis harms.

They refer to research that suggests that smoking cannabis is more dangerous than smoking tobacco. Or that legal states mean more kids accidentally ingesting edibles. These laws also mean rising rates of asthma among teenagers and young adults.

Some even go so far as to link cannabis to an increased risk of depression and suicide. And of course we have our obligatory “driving with cannabis will kill you” studies.

We previously outlined ten reasons why most cannabis research is wrong. When public health refers to “evidence-based” approaches and “scientific studies,” rest assured that it means Science™.

What is the difference between Science and Science™? Distinguishing between these two is crucial when learning to debunk alleged cannabis harms.

Alleged cannabis damage debunked

You can learn how to debunk alleged cannabis harms by noting how bad some of the research methods are.

For example, most cannabis research is observational, which is of low quality and fails to establish causality. Observational research essentially confirms the bias of whoever is conducting the research.

As mentioned in the other post, replicating results in other studies is crucial. Take smoking cannabis for example. Public health will fund the It’s Worse Than Tobacco study until her face turns blue.

But what about the recent research suggesting that the risk of cannabis smoke is overstated?

Which study is more accurate? And why? The answer to that question is how we debunk alleged cannabis harms.

In Against Method, philosopher Paul Feyerabend argued that it is a myth to believe that there is a single scientific method by which we can uncover truths in all scientific fields.

Instead, he asserted that science’s success was due to various factors, including experimentation, conjecture, and the influence of cultural, political, and economic factors.

He also claimed that scientific theories are incommensurable, meaning we cannot directly compare them or even evaluate them against one another. That there is no way to determine which view was more accurate.

Feyerabend pleaded for an anarchist approach to scientific knowledge, in which different methods and perspectives are allowed to coexist and interact. In order to debunk the alleged harm of cannabis, we need to examine Feyerabend’s argument more closely.

What would Feyerabend say?

The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at enlightenment – ​​Paul Feyerabend

In Against Method, Feyerabend argues:

1. The idea of ​​a single scientific method applicable to all scientific disciplines is a myth.
2. Scientific theories are incommensurable, which means they cannot be compared or evaluated directly with one another.
3. Scientific theories and methods are influenced by cultural, political, and economic factors, as well as random events.
4. Experimentation is not the only way to validate scientific theories; sometimes it can lead to distortions and errors.
5. Science does not develop through the cumulative accumulation of evidence and knowledge, but through a process of revolutionary change in which new theories replace old ones.
6. There is no way to determine which scientific theory is “more true” since truth is not an absolute value but a matter of convention.
7. The scientific enterprise would benefit from a more anarchistic approach, where different methods and perspectives can coexist and interact.
8. The scientific community tends to suppress alternative and unconventional ideas, resulting in a lack of creativity and scientific advancement.

The scientific method is not a fixed and universal procedure. It is flexible, with a variable set of practices and procedures that differ significantly between different scientific fields. And that even within a field.

No method can be considered the “right” or “correct” way of doing science. Every scientific theory operates within its unique framework of concepts and assumptions; we cannot directly translate these frameworks or compare them to those of other theories.

According to Feyerabend, this incommensurability makes it impossible to determine which theory is “more true” or accurate because there is no standard measure or criteria by which scientists can evaluate.

Feyreabend argues that the choice between theories is a matter of convention. One that is influenced by cultural, political and economic factors.

This idea of ​​incommensurability challenges the very basis of Science™ as practiced by our wise overlords. Heaven forbid, science becomes a fluid and dynamic process in which different theories can compete and coexist.

Money and politics will always influence research

How can you debunk alleged cannabis harms? Each rebuttal is unique to the claim the researcher is making. But in general we can dismiss almost any “study” that proves this or that.

Scientific theories and methods are not purely rational or objective. They are influenced by cultural, political, and economic factors, as well as random events.

We posit that the accumulation of empirical evidence and the application of logical reasoning drives the development of science.

But ignoring the political, social, cultural, philosophical, and historical forces that shape our idea of ​​“science” is naïve—naivety, pure and simple.

According to Feyerabend, we do not choose scientific theories and methods based on empirical or logical values. Factors such as the values ​​and interests of the scientific community, the availability of funding, and the political and economic climate of the time take precedence.

So it’s little surprise that the Science™ community demonizes a non-toxic, unpatented, natural plant that can alleviate so many ailments.

(And it’s not just cannabis. Look how often economists ridicule the “Austrian” school of economics despite its predictive power or outright dogmatism when it comes to climate science. Or the backlash against the alternative archaeological theories of Graham Hancock or Randall Carlson).

If you realize who’s buttering the bread, the “growing evidence” against cannabis is simply an updated version of the chilling craze.

It was stupid then and it’s stupid now.

If you don’t like cannabis, don’t use it. Stop worrying about what other people are doing with their lives.