Marijuana issue still hot in Vermont: Diverse perspectives needed?!

Misinformation in the media and the classroom on health issues and pot

As the marijuana decriminalization debate continues in Vermont -- with seemingly no opposition from any state politicians or pundits -- the misinformation campaign about marijuana specifically and all drugs in general continues. A student sent me a link to this news article to support her assertion during a class discussion that there are, indeed lots of studies out there that state unequivocally that using pot causes negative health effects. This article, she suggested, is the evidence she needed to refute my argument that (a) the media misinforms the general public on the health effects of marijuana through vague reference to unspecific "research", (b) that there are studies that show that the negative health effects from long term pot use are not nearly as great as those of alcohol and tobacco, and (c) the mainstream news media are being manipulated by and/or colluding with alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical corporations (which also meddle in government legislation and oversight vis-a-vis lobbyists and the FDA!) in this misinformation campaign, backed by significant dollars, to keep some drugs illegal and other, potentially more harmful drugs, legal.

The context of the discussion was one about the importance of news reporters seeking out alternate perspectives in their reporting, AND that an informed reader (and therefore, a student analyzing media coverage of a public health and/or legislative issue) would also seek out alternate sources of information to be informed on any given issue -- marijuana and the Vermont legalization debate as an example. If you read this article closely, what's wrong with it? There are huge generalizations with no support, which the reporter simply accepts as fact when stated by the interviewee. There is absolutely no data -- and no referenced studies or research of any kind -- supporting the statement that...

This is precisely the type of reporting I rail against -- shoddy and incomplete reporting. In fact, this is exactly what I said in class that mainstream articles say about marijuana (and similarly about all drugs). Though there are two studies discussed early in the article about general/vague social implications of marijuana use and about it potentially increasing the risk for psychotic illness, there are no actual studies cited that support the idea of any physical health effects. It's just the verbatim opinion of one person that there are studies. So, if there are, the reporter is lazy for not citing them. If there aren't, it's an example of "spin" in the news process.

The other issue we discussed in class vis-a-vis the mainstream news media and the marijuana "story" is that they are taken out of the context of the general discussion of drug use and social & health implications. In fact, this sounds like a PR campaign for tobacco companies -- "look, our stuff isn't as bad as pot". Nowhere in this article do we understand the relative potential harm of marijuana. In other words, is it more or less harmful than other drugs (like alcohol? why compare it only to tobacco?). I'm not suggesting that every article can be 100% complete. But this one doesn't look like the author tried.

Even Wikipedia suggests that there is a lot of misinformation on marijuana and its health effects. I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia is a good research tool, per se, but that it is a good place to start in order to find other sources. Clearly, there is a debate on this, some fact and some fiction being promoted by both sides of the issue... so, in order to effectively analyze it, we should all gain the wisdom of more than one perspective, on this and EVERY issue.