Weed isn't safer because it's natural. It's safer because the things you're comparing it too are (aside from you just being so enormously vague about that no one can really argue) are more dangerous. "Pills"? Yeah, that's not a HUGE group of items...
But the point is that just because you compare two things, decide one is safer than the other, it doesn't then logically follow that a specific difference between the two is the cause of the disparity in safety. Kittens are natural. Handguns are artificial. Therefore natural things are safer than artificial things. But wait, what if we're comparing contact lenses and tsunami?
Yes, marijuana is less likely to kill you than certain "pills". However, ricin, hemlock, and nightshade (just to name a few decidedly unsafe "natural" things) are decidedly more likely to kill you than pretty much any pill you might find.
Some things are more dangerous than others. The degree to which they're "natural" plays very little role in how dangerous they are. I'd rather be in a room with a handgun than a bear.
Cancer is natural. Ebola is 100% organic.
Each side of the coin has a purpose and a place. |