| Banning JWH-018 is a hot topic for users, sellers | | | | Rebuttal #3.a: Regarding the federal law, the |
| and law enforcers in the US. Because of its | | | | conditions are quite ambiguous so interpretations |
| speculated health risks, they are totally pursuing | | | | are subject to controversy. Since there is no |
| its banning for good. As of today, JWH018 is still | | | | presence of "or" / "and," it cannot be conclusively |
| legal under the federal law of United States. | | | | decided that JWH-018 must meet all the |
| However, some State officials already took legal | | | | expectations to become a controlled substance. |
| actions of banning JWH-018 and other herbal | | | | Argument #4: There is no restriction on sale. |
| smoke ingredients in their respective jurisdictions. | | | | Anybody can purchase it even minors or the |
| Arguments For and Against Banning JWH-018 in | | | | underage. Those who are in favor of banning it |
| United States | | | | believe it would put a stop to the epidemic spread |
| To make a sound judgment, it is indeed vital to | | | | of JWH-018 in the market. |
| fully weigh the pros & cons of banning a | | | | Rebuttal #4: Banning JWH-018 is too harsh |
| substance in the country. Since this is certainly a | | | | without further investigation. Rather, restricting it |
| delicate issue, careful examination of the problem | | | | to adults over 18 is a better option. |
| is of utmost importance. Here are a few | | | | Rebuttal #4.a: If restricting it for minors only, the |
| arguments on banning JWH-018 in the US. | | | | drug would just become like a beer. Underage, |
| Consider both sides and learn from different | | | | minors or teenagers can always ask their adult |
| points of view. Being open-minded to gain a new | | | | friends to buy it for them. |
| perspective of things is good in asserting beliefs. | | | | Argument #6: If banned, conviction of a person |
| Argument #1: JWH-018 is dangerous because it | | | | due to use of JWH-018 would be difficult. Drug |
| creates psychotropic effects when smoked, | | | | does not show up in drug tests. |
| which can threaten the health of users. | | | | Rebuttal #6: They can always develop a drug |
| Rebuttal #1: It may have shown some undesirable | | | | test that will detect JWH-018 in some ways. |
| effects but nobody died from it. In addition, there | | | | Banning it will hasten the creation of one. |
| are no clinical studies to support these claims. It is | | | | Until now, debates of banning JWH-018 in United |
| also most likely that other ingredients combined | | | | States are still on discussion. Surprisingly, plenty of |
| with it may have caused the side effect. Also, if | | | | people are actually entirely against banning it. |
| the dangers pose by a substance would be the | | | | Mainly due to the future effects and problems |
| only reason for banning; we should also include | | | | that may arise. They anticipate that banning |
| those chemicals found at home with potentials of | | | | JWH-018 will create a black market. It will just |
| abuse such as pain thinners and bathroom | | | | eventually go underground. Some will just turn to |
| cleaners. | | | | the Internet to purchase. Well, this is likely to be |
| Argument #2: No recognized medical use. | | | | true since that is what is happening to most |
| Rebuttal #2: It cannot be medically applied yet | | | | banned substances today. Some even say, do not |
| since there are no studies to prove its health | | | | ban it but rather regulate it. That may be a better |
| benefits. In fact, one of the reasons against | | | | idea instead. |
| banning JWH-018 is it would create a massive | | | | Anyway, whether to ban or not, the main point is |
| downturn to medical science. Banning it may pose | | | | people lack sufficient information and |
| difficulty to further studies and discoveries. | | | | understanding about JWH-018. It might actually be |
| Argument #3: It is branded as ‘synthetic | | | | thoughtless to ban a substance without clear |
| marijuana'. Not controlling it would be entirely | | | | evidence of its effects, harmful or not. And why |
| wrong. Also, it is already recognized by the DEA | | | | use a substance without knowing its potential |
| (Drug Enforcement Administrations) as a drug and | | | | adverse effects? So, do you still think banning |
| chemical of concern. | | | | JWH-018 is a better solution or not? It is totally |
| Rebuttal #3: It is labeled as synthetic marijuana | | | | up to you. Whether you are in favor of banning it |
| because it resembles cannabis-like effects. | | | | or entirely against it, remember that being |
| However, even the Federal Analog Act conditions | | | | responsible towards your own actions and |
| do not seem to apply to JWH-018. | | | | decisions is the most significant thing to do. |