garimavyas wrote:
i dont understand how creepy this can become
Opponents of drug laws that forbid using marijuana argue that in a free country, people have the right to take risks with their bodies as long as the people do not cause harm to befall others as a result of taking the risks. This principle leads them to conclude that each person should have the right to decide for him or herself whether to use marijuana.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above?
(A) The rate of overdose fatalities in countries that do not have drug laws that forbid using marijuana is greater than the rate of fatalities in countries that do have such laws.
(B) Unlike cocaine or heroin, there is little evidence, if any, that marijuana is addictive.
(C) A greater percentage of fatal car accidents are caused by marijuana users than by alcohol users.
(D) There is no evidence to suggest that people suffer medical maladies as a result of second-hand marijuana smoke.
(E) Health insurance rates for all people are higher because of the need to pay for the increased medical care users of marijuana require.
There are two issues with answer C here:
First, C says that a greater percentage of accidents are caused by marijuana *users*, not by marijuana *use*. If you read C and think it establishes that marijuana use leads to more accidents than alcohol use, you're falling into a correlation/causation trap. Marijuana users might cause more accidents, but marijuana may have nothing to do with it. Perhaps people who use alcohol can't afford to buy cars, and people who use marijuana can. Then naturally marijuana users will cause more accidents, since they're the only ones driving.
Second, without any information about how many people use marijuana and how many use alcohol, C is not at all useful. If, say, 99% of people use marijuana and 1% of people use alcohol, you'd expect marijuana users to cause a greater percentage of accidents only because there are so many more of them than alcohol users. Again, marijuana may have nothing to do with it. You might imagine a similar example: if you learned that a greater percentage of accidents were caused by people talking on cell phones than by people falling asleep while driving, you would not, from that alone, conclude that talking on a cell phone is more likely to cause an accident than falling asleep while driving. It's just that talking on cell phones is far more common than falling asleep while driving.