In what seemed like a casual debate, we moved from the harms of marijuana to the politics of science, from testing hypotheses to questioning the very essence of truth. It was not an argument for victory or defeat, but rather an X-ray of thought. Gradually, it became clear: what truly matters is never the “conclusion” itself, but how that conclusion is produced. My stance is not a result—it is a methodology. My conclusion is critique.
Marijuana and Nicotine: Who Defines the Standard of “Harm”?
My friend cited a neuroscientist’s study claiming that marijuana does not cause obvious withdrawal symptoms and is therefore less harmful than nicotine. From this, he reasoned that smoking marijuana might be a “reasonable” choice compared to smoking cigarettes: if one must choose the lesser evil, marijuana would fit the logic. But I was unsatisfied with this neat conclusion. I wanted to trace the complex chain behind it.
What exactly defines “harm”? Physiological dependence? Social function? Legal consequences? From which class or cultural background were the research subjects drawn? Did the researchers adopt traditional nicotine frameworks to study cannabis, and if so, are those frameworks even applicable? How do we assess components not yet fully identified, or uncertainties in potential harms—can we still rely on the same standards? And if a country itself is pushing for cannabis legalization, has its research environment already been set up with a certain expectation?
Ultimately, the conclusion is not the only issue. The real question is: within which institutional structures and cultural discourses was this conclusion manufactured into “common sense”? Harm is not an objective entity; it is a social symbol endowed with meaning by its context. In this sense, the conclusion itself is secondary. What matters is: who has the authority to produce conclusions? The politics, science, society, and culture intersecting beneath it form a far richer terrain of argumentation.
Science and Politics: A Myth of Neutrality, or a Veil of Power?
From marijuana, our discussion shifted to the institutional approaches of different countries, and to the relationship between science and politics. My friend insisted that “science must remain independent of politics,” that scholars and politicians should never be conflated. Ideally, each would perform their own roles. But I cannot separate them so neatly. Research requires funding; who controls the funding? Which results are allowed to be published? Which positions are granted legitimacy by default? When a society legalizes cannabis, is it truly for freedom—or for managing another layer of social sentiment?
“Scientific neutrality” is a structural myth. This does not mean scientists are dishonest, but that scientific practice has never existed outside politics. Institutions, capital, cultural moods, state power—these have long “set the stage” deep within the structures of knowledge, while we mistake it for “nature itself.” Science is not apolitical; it is “political without self-awareness.” To not question neutrality is already to take its side. As Foucault put it: “Discourse is power.”
Hypothesis and Truth: The Edge of Method and Faith
We then turned to the notion of the “hypothesis.” Can a hypothesis ever truly be verified? Can science ultimately confirm truth? Thousands of logical derivations may suggest truth, but does that constitute truth itself? A single counterexample can bring down the edifice. Science does not approach truth by repeated verification—it distances itself from error through constant falsification. Once we mistake the “possible truth” for a “completed truth,” we have already turned method into faith.
Why Still Talk About Truth?—Between Rationality and Nothingness
Finally, my friend pressed: “So what is your conclusion?” I replied: “My conclusion is critique.” Not because I want to negate everything, but because truth may exist, yet it can never be monopolized; science deserves respect, yet it also deserves reflection; language can describe the world, but it can also create illusions. Critique does not mean denial of all—it means refusing to let any “answer” end our thinking. It is a gentle skepticism, the only honest dwelling place between reason and nothingness.
There was no winner in this debate, only reverberations. We were both compelled to realize more clearly: truth does not stand with one side or the other, but with whether we still have the courage to keep asking questions. I am not defending a viewpoint, but safeguarding the state of never-ending inquiry itself. My conclusion should not be about marijuana, nor nicotine, nor politics, nor science. It is critique—that underestimated yet unfailing word.
Of course, life is not about choosing the lesser evil. The responsible choice is to reject both, abide by local laws and regulations, and remain accountable to oneself and society.
