This list is missing marijuana: anxiolytic, anti-inflammatory, anti-angiogenic, anti-viral, antibacterial, neuroprotective, pro-neurogenisis. Hands down the most important of any drug there is. Plus it increases your IQ by an average of 6 points, decreases your diabetes risk by 66%, and can be used to treat everything from Parkinson's to cancer. There is even some research suggesting that up to 50% of all infant mortality may be the result of marijuana deficiency.
Surprisingly, that last claim about marijuana decreasing infant mortality is correct: see http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/1...
As is the part about increasing IQ, with the caveat that it only applies to light users (<5 joints per week), while heavy users experience an average decrease of about 4 points. See http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/7/887
Marijuana use increases the risk of prostate cancer and cervical cancer, though not significantly for cervical cancer. See http://www.springerlink.com/content/l221477720240752/
It also may increase the risk of adult-onset glioma, head and neck cancers, and possibly lung cancer. Parental use during pregnancy may increase risks of childhood leukemia, astrocytoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma. However, not enough information is available to say whether this is certain, due to issues with previous studies (low sample size, issues with legality, and so forth). See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T40-4GRRJK7-G...
I haven't been able to find a source for reducing diabetes risk by 66%, though.
Also, please note that I'm not going through to figure out how good these studies are, and how accurate their results are; I'm just taking the claims from their abstracts, mostly because I started out trying to figure out how much of what Alex3917 said might actually have citations. Alex, do you have citations for the rest of your claims? Preferably scholarly articles, not just news reports which reference them.
This is the source of the diabetes numbers: http://www.internalmedicinenews.com/single-view/marijuana-sm...
Unfortunately I don't have any access to journal articles right now beyond what's available for free. As for the IQ study, they are defining a joint as .7 grams, which is much larger than a normal joint; I'd speculate that the reason NIDA defines a joint as being .7 grams is that they are attempting to increase the number of studies showing that marijuana is harmful. To put this in context, the average portable vaporizor holds about .1 grams. A recreational user who started as an adult probably vapes on average .05-.1 grams per session, whereas a medical user probably only vapes .02-.05 grams unless they have severe pain. Which means that you could vape 7-14 times per day recreationally or 14-35 times medically and still be considered a light smoker. (The exception on recreational smoking is users who started smoking before age 16, who typically smoke 3-5x as much as those who started later.)
As for all of the other claims, they are readily available via Google. For example, if you search for Marijuana + Anti-angiogenic then the first result is this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiogenesis_inhibitor
This then links to an academic study, which then links to other similar research. I will however point you to this podcast, which is an excellent overview of the medicinal properties of marijuana. The post also has tons of links to medical studies and other sources.
http://www.matrixmasters.net/salon/?p=258#more-258
Also here is a pretty good list of all of the studies that have been done with marijuana on different kinds of cancer:
http://www.mountainmedicals.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/g...
There have literally been over 20,000 studies done to establish the safety and efficacy of marijuana, so it's pretty easy to find whatever you're looking for.
This post is missing: citations.
Is there something in particular that you weren't able to find via Google or Wikipedia?
Is there some reason you expect anyone to try to prove or disprove your bald assertions? This type of reasoning is called argumentum ad ignorantiam, or argument from ignorance. When you boldly assert 'x', then provide no proof, then subsequently expect others to disprove your assertion, you expose the weakness of your own argument.
It is not our responsibility to prove or disprove your assertions. If you have enlightening information to share with the class which you can cite, then please, by all means do. Otherwise, get thee gone.
That makes no sense. I'm not trying to assert or prove anything. It would be wildly irresponsible for anyone to take any drug without doing their own research into its safety and efficacy; I'm just listing some of the benefits that scientists have found, and people can do their own research if they are interested in learning more.
Benefits as shown by whom? If readers are still expected to do their own research, then what purpose does this grossly oversimplified list serve?
It benefits people by letting them know what to look into. E.g. if you have an inflammatory condition like arthritis, and you read my comment that says marijuana is an anti-inflammatory, then you realize that if this is true then maybe marijuana would help. So then you go and do a Google or PubMed search for Marijuana + Arthritis, or Marijuana + Anti-inflammatory, in order to find the relevant scholarly research.
Hmm, no. [http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html]
Had he argued that his points were valid simply because they hadn't been disproven, then it would have been an argument from ignorance.
Just because someone makes an assertion without attaching footnotes does not make it a fallacy.
I stand corrected. In my defense, however, in a reply to another poster he seemed to imply that because someone hadn't researched his point, his points weren't untrue.
Actually, I'm pretty sure what it's missing is (1) a sarcasm marker or (2) anything that's actually funny about the sarcasm. I'm guessing that the underlying point, in so far as there is one, is something like "boo, the OP is just promoting drugs; might as well be pushing marijuana".