I'm not liking the hostility I'm reading off of certain people. If this keeps up I'm going to have to lock the thread for a day to let people cool off.
Gotcha, I'll try to dial it back. Sorry if it seemed I was acting that way.
-Snip-
Here's my argument in the form of a proof:
Assertions:
1)7% of murderers polled in one study said cannabis use was a factor in them committing homicide.
2)The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration article: “Cannabis/Marijuana”, (which I sadly don't have a viewable link for ATM) states that your chance of wrecking your car while high on cannabis more than doubles
3) The average number of people other than the driver at fault hurt in car wrecks > 0, i.e. "victims"
4) The average number of people other than the murderer hurt in murders > 0, i.e. "victims"
Steps
1) (increased chance of wreck w/ cannabis) > 0 + (increased chance of murder w/ cannabis) > 0 = (increased chance of wreck or murder w/ cannabis > 0),
Therefore using cannabis on average increases your overall chance of getting in a car wreck or committing murder
2) (number of victims of wrecks) > 0 + (number of victims of murder) > 0 = (number of victims for murder and wrecks) > 0,
Therefore the number of other people hurt by both murders and car wrecks is > 0
3) (increased chance of wreck or murder w/ cannabis) > 0 * (number of victims of wrecks or murder) > 0 = (increased number of victims of wrecks or murder w/ cannabis) > 0,
Therefore the number of other people hurt by wrecks or murder is increased through the use of cannabis.
4) Q.E.D
If you have some data that shows how cannabis use decreases the amount of harm or disproves one of my assertions then I'll happily reconsider the proof, but otherwise me looking up more data isn't needed since the burden of proof is on you now. The data I already have is more than enough to prove my point logically (in fact just looking at murders or car wrecks alone would be enough to prove my point logically). Alternatively if you find a logical fallacy I made in there than feel free to point it out.
-Snip-
It seems we have a difference of opinion in what the future outcomes of different paths are then. And since it's impossible to gather hard data on what is going to happen in the future, I guess that particular point will just have to remain in contention. Time won't even tell here, since our suggested paths are mutually exclusive to one another.