What are the myths and misconceptions surrounding the use and sale of medical marijuana, and how do they relate to recreational marijuana use? I have personal interest in this research question because I have family members (that lived in states where marijuana is legal) who used medical marijuana to treat terrible and fatal medical conditions, and saw how it improved their quality of life above what it would have been without the use of medical marijuana. Personally, I am an advocate for marijuana legalization, recreationally and medically, especially after seeing story after story of people whose poor health was vastly improved through its use; I am obviously not looking to change my own view on the subject, but instead find reasons or ways to change other people's minds. I want to find out what the people who oppose medical marijuana believe about it that make them believe it is a bad idea, and if anything can be done to change their views on the subject. I do not really think that there is anything that makes me particularly qualified to write about this topic, but I am very interested in learning about this issue, and am more than willing to spend time researching and educating myself on the subject. 


My first source was "Systematic review: Efficacy and safety of medical marijuana in selected neurologic disorders," which was a 2014 study performed by 7 researchers looking to see how effective medical marijuana was at treating multiple sclerosis,, epilepsy, and some movement disorders. The study found that cannabis was indeed useful in treating these disorders. This article, an objective, scientific study, provides support for marijuana's use as a medication, and, while the authors' goals were to enhance scientific knowledge and find effective treatments for sick patients, it does provide a piece of evidence that those who are pro-legalization can use to support their views. The authors' are very credible, each holding an MD and one also holding a PhD. This source is a peer-reviewed, academic journal, so there is not really any bias, as it is an objective study, designed to add to the pool of knowledge that exists on this subject. Since this article was published in a reputable scientific journal on Neurology, it is very credible. 


My second article was "Marijuana's Dangers Make It a Poor Candidate for Medicine," published by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. It argues that marijuana is unfit to be used as a medicine due to its psychoactive effects when consumed recreationally, the dependency and addiction that can occur in recreational users, and the fact that the FDA hasn't approved it. The article was title in a way that would have the reader believe that they were going to provide reasons why medical marijuana is a bad choice, but their arguments barely addressed medical marijuana and instead used negative effects of recreational marijuana to say medical marijuana is bad. This article is obviously against legalization and medical use, so those who would seek to prevent national legalization would use it to support their claims. It focuses almost solely on the possible negative effects of recreational use, and barely discusses medical use at all. The author is obviously biased against marijuana, and attempts to use unrelated information to back up their argument that cannabis is not a good option to treat illnesses. The source was published by a government institute, so the information it contains is reliable, just not related to what the article's title would have you believe it's about. 


My third article was "The Time Is Right to Abolish Federal Prohibition of Marijuana," a 2011 editorial. It argues that marijuana prohibition should be ended, and that legalizing the plant would have several benefits for the country, including billions of dollars in tax revenue and a reduced crime rate, particularly in relation to cartels. It also states that more Americans are for legalization than have been in decades. This article uses logical arguments for legalization that are not related to the plant itself, but are positive consequences of its legalization, which could appeal to those who are against the recreational (or medical) use of cannabis, but might be willing to have a discussion on the matter. The author is a credible journalist who works for Healthcare IT News, meaning he is probably knowledgeable on many healthcare issues, and deals with medical marijuana-related news a lot; however, the article was published in a biased source that fights for the legalization of marijuana. He does use many statistics and facts to back up his arguments, which does boost the credibility of what he says. 

 Many people could argue over this research question, as it revolves around a massive debate in our country. Some people would argue that marijuana is a harmful, terrible drug that should never be legalized, whereas others would argue that it is a miracle medicine. The disagreements that come from the sources I have found so far arise from this debate, as one of the articles is biased towards the anti-pot side, another towards the pro-legalization side, and the third being unbiased and objective. The source that is anti-legalization has only strengthened my opinions that marijuana should be legalized, as I saw the flimsy way in which the author tried to argue against medical cannabis, or rather, did not actually argue against it, but instead argued against recreational use. I might not be able to find out how or why misconceptions are related to recreational use, or I may need to change the focus of my research entirely, and look for something other than misconceptions.  
