Anti-marijuana propoganda

http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/stoners/#

If marijuana actually posed a significant harm to people then the government wouldn't have to make propaganda to justify keeping it illegal.

My answers to the site's quiz:

"Approximately one in ten fatal car accident victims test positive for which drug?"

Obviously, marijuana since it wouldn't surprise me if one in ten people use it. Marijuana stays in your system for a long time, so you could have smoked weeks ago and not be high nor impaired whatsoever and you'll test positive for marijuana. If it significantly impairs driving then ban driving under the influence of marijuana, but don't continue prohibition. By the website's logic, we should reinstate alcohol prohibition because a third of car accident victims are under the influence of alcohol. This is not a strawman or a false dichotomy because both drugs don't usually harm non-users, but both probably impair driving (alcohol definitely does). You even could argue that alcohol hurts non-users in non-driving situations more than marijuana does, since alcohol makes some people aggressive, and others susceptible to sexual assault.

"Which has more cancer-causing chemicals? Marijuana smoke or cigarette smoke?"

I'm not surprised that marijuana smoke does, but it's irrelevant since cigarette smokers inhale more smoke than pot smokers. And even if marijuana's incredibly harmful, you shouldn't go to prison for hurting yourself. Of course, there's second-hand marijuana smoke. If it's harmful enough to non-users then perhaps there should be some legal penalty for smoking marijuana, or at least for smoking it around others without their consent, but there's no evidence to support that. Yes, there are more cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke than cigarette smoke, but there's no evidence to suggest that inhaling second-hand marijuana smoke as much as second-hand inhalers inhale (a lot of inhales ;) ) makes people significantly more likely to get cancer.

"Does marijuana smoke increase the user's chance of a heart attack?"

Probably complete bull. Or, possibly, there's an unrelated factor. I'm making this up out of thin air to illustrate a point, but maybe pot smokers are more likely to be vegetarians, and maybe they have weaker hearts. It's still possible that marijuana causes it, but again, you shouldn't go to prison for hurting yourself.

"Is marijuana addictive?"

Since funding a 1960's Stanford study that showed that marijuana has little adverse effects, the federal government has been reluctant to fund or run on their own accurate marijuana studies. Thus, it's no surprise that federally-funded scientists whose job depends on marijuana staying illegal, find that pot is very addictive. This ad hominem is justified because it shows that the federal government is not a credible source for marijuana information.

However, in my Social Welfare: Propaganda in the Helping Professions class, we learned that around 9% of pot smokers are addicted to it.

"What are the withdrawal symptoms from marijuana addiction?"

Since only 9% of users are addicted, it's likely that most users don't have serious withdrawal symptoms when they quit using marijuana. Plus, the site again references no credible study supporting their claim.