Question: Should Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs Be Permitted?

Advertising of prescription drugs can lead to inappropriate prescribing by doctors. When patients see advertisements for drugs that are not suitable for their condition and request them, it can create pressure on doctors to prescribe these medications. If a doctor refuses to prescribe the advertised drug, the patient may seek multiple opinions until they find a doctor willing to comply. This is particularly prevalent in private healthcare systems where economic incentives can influence doctors to acquiesce to patient demands. In nationalized healthcare systems, doctors have historically given in to patient requests due to the persistence of patients, as seen in the over-prescription of antibiotics for viral infections in the UK. When doctors prescribe alternative drugs, such as cheaper generic versions, patients may experience a reverse placebo effect, perceiving the medication as less effective due to their belief that it is inferior to the advertised brand. This can lead to patients being less inclined to complete their prescription or return to the same doctor, damaging the doctor-patient relationship. Prescription drugs are inherently complex and risky, necessitating the involvement of a qualified medical professional. It is unhelpful for patients to self-diagnose based on advertisements, as they lack the extensive medical training of a GP. [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs: A Review of the Past and Future, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt, accessed 08/07/2011

I already did this debate, but I love doing it and hearing new perspectives...and I did it yesterday and got, nothing short of an illiterate moron who quoted propoganda, so I am instilling new standards, 1.Quote research 2.Don't use propoganda Drugs should be legal, there is no moral or logical reason to make them illegal. 1.They can be taxed, more income that people would be happy to pay. 2.Many of them are harmless in the short term. 3.We've wasted more money on the war on drugs than we would have simply TREATING addicts and ignoring casual users. 4.Most of these drugs are only psychologically addictive (Weed, Shrooms, etc) and are no more dangerous than chocolate. 5.There is actually little conclusive evidence supporting many of the claims made by anti-drug persons. My own father claimed marijuana causes testicular cancer (when most research has actually shown is cures cancer, or prevents it) 6.By taking the illegality away we would destroy the underground drug markets, all of the drug related deaths around the world would CEASE to exist because drug cartels no longer have power since clean industrial production would be created. I'm not saying let's give needles to every 12 year old. I'm saying educate them about the REAL risks. Educate them on the long term affects. Make it impartial. When americans turn 18 they can... vote. join the army. drive a car. own a gun. drink (at 21) buy cigarettes (which are worse than most drugs most doctors would agree) use a prostitute. (where legal) buy explosives buy fire works and do all other kinds of things... many of these things are MORE dangerous than most drugs and can kill you quicker! yet we don't trust ourselves with some recreational drugs. I invite anyone to disprove me. But when it comes down to it, what people do with their bodies is NO ONE's BUSINESS. I'm not defending meth heads, but I'm following along the principle of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall Replace "say" with put drugs inside your body.

I have two main points. They are as follows: 1) Failure of my opponent to define “should” in the title My opponent has made it clear that he opposes users advertising their own websites on this website. My opponent’s title, “Debates on this site that are used to publicize Members own websites should not be deleted,” does not clearly define what he means by should. This is not an arbitrary distinction because 'should' could refer to two things: morality and rules. He would agree that users ought not to advertise their personal websites and thus they “should” be deleted. If debate. org suddenly claimed that no user with black skin could join the website, would he claim that they “should not be allowed to join” in the sense of rules AND morality? I sure hope not. 2) Debate. org clearly states that any unauthorized soliciting is illegal In the terms of service agreement under "Content Posted and Code of Conduct" in section D: "Will not upload, copy, distribute, share, or otherwise use unsolicited or unauthorized advertising or promotional material, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation. To protect our Members from such advertising or solicitation, Juggle reserves the right to restrict the number of emails that a Member may send to other Members in any 24-hour period, to a number that Debate. org deems appropriate in its sole discretion. " Debate. org clearly states that unauthorized soliciting, spam, or any form of advertising is not allowed. This includes all forms: personal and business. If users posted their own website without a direct request from a user, this would qualify as promotional material and soliciting and 'should' be deleted in every sense of the word 'should' i. e. rules and morality.

For the final round, Pro has elected not to add any new points, but to examine some that I have made and refute them. However, I have some conflicting opinions. "The government should be allowed to outlaw something if it harms the body. " I wish you had elaborated on this idea, because that in and of itself would make an interesting debate. As I explained in Round 1, I believe that the government has no business protecting people from themselves. Everyone has a right to make unhealthy decisions that will very likely harm them. It may not be smart to smoke two packs a day, but that is the choice you are free to make in a free, democratic, First World society. Now, you could argue that the government should protect us from ourselves, and many people do believe that. But since Pro failed to explain her logic behind the above, I see no reason to give any further justification for my viewpoint. ". .. my debate is that there should be strict laws against smoking. Notice that I made laws plural. "With this quote, Pro appears to have added an entirely new dimension to this debate. Never before has she mentioned that multiple laws should be passed. Only in this final round has she "made laws plural". Disappointingly, I was unable to hear what laws Pro had in mind, since she brought this up so late in the debate. Pro also tries to refute my environmental argument with a few hasty generalizations and no backing from sources of any kind. She appears to be hinting that cigarette butts ought to be treated as litter, which I agree with, but this has little to do with the argument of whether or not smoking should be legal. Therefore, it is irrelevant.

Thank you for the reply, I would like to apologise for the time it has taken me to get back to you. My opponent has criticised the link I posted on the basis that, "This is not a scientific article, or an article even referenced itself. It is titled "Drug 'doubles mental health risk'" which implies a previous risk already existed not having to do with drugs. It also uses words such as "probably" and refers to smoking a "drug" which is vague. The article is not a valid reference in order to back up my opponents claim for it does not even specific the study using legal or illegal drugs to do it's study." 1: Though I accept it is not in itself a scientific article, it does reference a scientific study. 2: I do understand my opponents point with regards the doubling of mental health risk. 3: The article does not merely state that Cannabis ‘probably' causes mental health problems. But makes several specific and firm claims as to its health effects. 4: The article mentions cannabis 12 times, nearly once a paragraph, and fails to specifically mention any other drug. I do not see how the article can be considered at all vague. However that said I shall provide a proper scientific study into the effects of Cannabis and mental health. http://arno.uvt.nl... I would to draw my opponents attention to, the conclusions on page 28. Though it does supply the caveat that the damage only clear in the case of cannabis abuse (as opposed to infrequent use) it does prove the link and it should also be remembered that this is possibly the most benign of the drugs that my opponents wishes to see legalised (or decriminalised). My opponent replies that, "Next, my opponent argues that drugs do not just affect the user, but the liberties and quality of life of others, and therefore should remain a criminal issue. This claim is baseless on the terms of their already being legal drugs which are exponentially more detrimental to the users health, and society. For example, tobacco is legal and kills more people each year than each scheduled drug combined. Also, the effects of smoking harms surrounding people, and can kill them. " Though this is insightful it is not logically relevant to the debate. Because something that is harmful is legal, it does not follow that all harmful illegal substances should be made legal. My opponent argues with regards drugs and crimes that "correlation does not prove causation, and his argument actually falls onto my side. If drug addicts commit crimes because they're trying to fund their habits," I counter this on the basis that if drug addict is unable to legally fund his addiction due to the debilitation and intoxication his drug causes, he will resort to crime. "Next, my opponent argues legalization of current illegal drugs would increase illegal drug users. This does not make sense, for it would no longer be a criminal act." This is a misunderstanding,, The illegality is a reference to the aforementioned attempts to illegally gain money for what would now be a legal drug. The numbers of such people would logically increase under my opponents suggestion. My opponent argues that, "The United States alone pays over 40 billion dollars a year to maintain it's prohibition of illegal drugs. In fact, that's 40 billion dollars to only maintain the prohibition of one drug; that is cannabis." I would like my opponent to provide a link for this figure, but I do not doubt the overall point that the ‘war on drugs' is very expensive and imperfect. My counter-argument is as follows, Given that cannabis use has been shown by many studies to increase the chances of developing schizophrenia let us imagine for a moment that my opponent is the father of a teenager, You have two choices, you can raise your teenager in a society where he may never be offered cannabis, where he may find difficulty in purchasing it, where he may smoke it sporadically before deciding to grow. This is the current situation. Or you can raise your teenager in a society where it is sold openly and cheaply in the shops and he can smoke as much as he could ever desire without any limits on this personal whims. This would be the ramifications of my opponents choice. Also let us remember that this is not simply about Cannabis, this is about all currently illegal drugs. Cocaine, heroin, examine. Can this substances logically be treated in the same context as say tobacco? With regards my counter-argument/defence of mandatory treatment my opponent states that, "Because you did not define what an abuser is, it is implied all users of illegal drugs are abusers, and therefore should be required to receive treatment, and stay in it. This would mean nearly half the population of the United States should be in treatment," 1: The onus was on my opponent to define such terms, I have been good in not attempting a pedantic or semantic case as I generally do not approve of such tactics. 2: The current system employs mandatory drug treatment, at no point has anyone suggested or come close to achieving the incarceration for treatment of half of the population. My continues with, "I further argue coercion is subjective, and mandatory anything does not encourage participation and is a poor form of coercion. The current recidivism rates for prisons and treatment centres reflects this." But the issue is that legalisation and voluntary treatment would in no way increase the success rate of treatment, decrease the number of drug users/abusers, alter the negative consequences of the drugs themselves and nor ultimately lower the crime rate. My opponent argues that an imperfect system be replaced by one that would be even worse in every conceivable regard. I defence of the current system I stated that, -drug addicts are punished, removed from the society they threaten and often required to face rehabilitation or treatment as part of their sentence is clearly superior, (to my opponents alternative). My opponent stated that following contentions, 1: "They are not removed for society," But that is the definition of a prison, its primary function. 2: "Also, drugs can't even be kept out of prisons." True, but my opponent must demonstrate that this limited supply is worse for society than his proposed unrestricted access. Again my opponent appears to be suggesting replacing an imperfect system with one that would be even worse. 3: "Furthermore, you insinuate receiving treatment is punishment, which if true would be counter-productive for the goal would be for the 'victim' to succeed." I made no such insinuation, treatment is currently required as part of sentencing. This implies that this part of the sentence is not for punishment but for rehabilitation. My opponent requested that, "Please clarify your argument here. Citizens currently pay tax dollars which go towards treatment centres." To clarify my argument Though this is true, my opponent essentially argues that society should go a step further, ignoring the use of these harmful substances, enduring the resultant massive crime wave and yet also spending more money (as the number of centres will need to be increased) so that drug addicts can check in when they feel like it, and receive medical care that other Americans have to actually work for (or go without). This is amoral. With regards the racial disparity in drug enforcement my opponent offers this link, http://www.prohibitioncosts.org...; However the link only references the economic benefits of legalising the Cannabis trade. I refute it because it ignores the true cost in terms of health and crime and because it fails to address the issue of harder drugs. My opponent has not addressed my criticisms of his proposed drug education, nor has defended his flawed analogy with regards the past alcohol prohibition to the modern 'heroin prohibition'.

I personally know him, and I assure you, this will be a great debate. Contention One: Doctors A. Doctor's simply can't perscribe anti-depressants to whoever walks in the door. Just think about it. Imagine you're infected with the H1N1 influenza and you don't know it yet. You're sick enough to barely keep it together, and your insurance only covers for you to see a doctor at a local place before you can see anyone else. Surprisingly, you walk in, and the place is packed. Why is this scenario possible? This, ladies and gentlemen, is the result in passing my opponent's plan. If the general public knew that doctors will hand out free anti-depressants like free candy to teenagers, anyone could (and would) go seek medical help after a break up of three weeks in middle school. My response? Give me a break. B. Teenagers' Health Do you ever watch a commerical that tells the listener not to take the pill or medicine unless they're over 18 years old? There's a reason for that. My first source comes straight from my family myself. It's happend twice. Someone under 18 years old tried to take an anti-depressant, and she retrogressed into attempted suicide. You just can't give these things to adolescents. My second source is (. http://www.articlesbase.com... #). They might help teenagers, but parents aren't going to want to risk their children killing themselves over them getting over depression. Contention Two: "Solve" A. I'm sorry, but where are these so called "suicide centers". There's the suicide hotline which is (1800-suicide). It's free, so there's your number two. We don't need to hire counselors at the schools. The ones hired are already taught how to deal with this situation anyway. B. Honestly? Who wants to be put on anti-depressants unless you're in dire need? You're not yourself anymore, and when you're not yourself, you've reached a fate worse than death. Thank you everyone. Please vote con. :) -bexxx

. . Round 2: This will be opening statements, values, value criterion, definitions, and the structure of your case Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Closing statements I will take anyone and hope someone challenges. Good luck to all. I will be trying to prove that teenagers should have the right to choose what medicine they take. Thanks to my opponent, commentators, and judges. Good luck and let the debate begin.

I propose that private practitioners should be prohibited from providing over-privileged panic-merchants with prophylactic prescriprions that protect posh patients from porcine pandemics. That's because although drugs like Tamiflu can prevent an individual from contracting swine flu, there aren't enough stocks of this anti-viral medicine to go round and, consequently, paranoid posh people have been purchasing this medicine from private doctors, even though they are not suffering any symptoms of the virus. (1) This costs them a small fortune but the posh know that if Tamiflu is running out, doctors would rather prescribe the drug to innocent little children rather than bloated tycoons or inbred aristocrats. You see, as far as the posh are concerned, the poor to can go to hell in a handcart - make no mistake, these over-privileged toffs and snobs don't care how many orphans die so long as they don't contract the virus themselves and have to suffer the inconvenience of a runny nose and a sore throat. Now, several governments around the world have, quite rightly, prohibited posh people from handing over huge wedges of cash in exchange for a Tamiflu precription and I contend that all governments should adopt this policy forthwith. Thank you. (1) http://www.newsweek.com...

I accept. Resolved: Should doctors be allowed to be allowed to give you vaccines? I'd like to note, of course, that my adversary misspelled "allowed" when crafting this resolution. "Aloud" is not a verb, and clearly we can draw "allowed" from this resolution and his opening remarks contextually. With that said, let's define "allowed": "to permit (something) : to regard or treat (something) as acceptable" [1]. Note that to allow is to permit, NOT to mandate. Simply because a doctor is allowed to administer a vaccine to a patient does not allow him or her to mandate it nor to require it. That is up to the patient. By prohibiting doctors from giving you or recommending vaccines, not only are you denying people the right to self-defense, but you are restricting freedom of choice. People should be able to do as they wish provided that they don't hurt others, so therefore patients should be allowed to accept or request from a doctor a vaccine. Not to mention, vaccines provide a substantive benefit to our lives in preempting harmful, vicious diseases. Con's opening remarks, however, are highly deceptive. First, allowing doctors to give vaccines does not require that patients, kids included, undergo it. Second, it isn't even a regular procedure, but even if it were, you're allowed to deny it. Third, especially in the case of kids, parents are making these decisions, and prohibiting doctors from giving vaccines is undermining parental authority, not to mention casting a blind eye to advancements in medicine. I'll pass back to Con at this moment, as he hasn't offered much substantive argumentation in Round 1, so I don't feel the need to go into more detail at this point. [1] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Drug legalization is a danger to humansI do not refute this point. However, we sell a lot of dangerous things to humans. Cigarettes are dangerous, yet they're still legal. Alcohol as well (as acknowledged by the Government during the Prohibition era). If we were worried about the health of Americans, most of the processed food that we eat would also be illegal. The issue isn't whether or not drug are dangerous. The issue is whether or not the Government should be able to tell you what you can put into your own body.By Pro's logic, the Government should be able to decide that fatty foods are dangerous to humans, and thus decide that Americans can no longer eat hamburgers and fries, or drink soda and juice. Just imagine the outcry that would occur if that were to happen. The government is in their right to tell us what is bad for us. Informing the public is part of the government's duty. However, the final decision should be left up to each citizens on whether or not they want to eat burgers, knowing the risk involved. Likewise, citizens should be able to choose what goes inside of their own bodies.

1. On this first point you say that only 30000 have died because of drugs. First off thats in one year and for a certain drug overdose or something in that line. What my point is including is all deaths relating to drugs including from overdosing to things like driving when under the influence of drugs. At to date millions have died because of the drugs. 2. The point of prisons is to prove that if you do something illegal then you will be punished. To group every other argument you made we shouldn't just make drugs legal because we cant stop them right now. If anything we should tighten our standards against anti drug not just make them legal. Its like making murder legal just because we cant stop it from happening. 3. This point you really never touched except saying it contradicts my next point s which ill get to. But whats the point of banning drugs is to keep people at full health at all times. 4. The point to this point not contradicting point 3 is that if we allow drugs to be legal our whole government will collapse economy and society are examples of that. Once that happens we will be sitting ducks for imperialistic countries that are angered by the US to strike us down. The other example I used was during NAM when soliders were given drugs it hurt them and their families when they returned. Also its not dehumanizing to place drug dealers and druggies with murderers and rapists. It was the choice they made and they should deal with the consequences. Especially if they deal drugs, for the reasons in point 1. 5. This basically ties in with point 4 so just argue it there. Keeping drugs criminalize is the only way to keep our society the great society it is. Do not decriminalize drugs if anything vote for neg to strengthen anti drug programs and strengthening against them. DONT CAVE IN, STAY STRONG Vote Neg


Question: Should Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs be Permitted?

The promotion of prescription drugs directly to consumers should be restricted due to the potential for misleading information.

Thank you for sharing your viewpoint. Your opponent argues that people are already aware of the existence of prescription drugs, but this does not address the issue of the persuasive power of advertising. When we look at the current state of advertising, we find that it can significantly influence how individuals perceive and request medications. Children and adolescents, in particular, may be more influenced by advertisements than balanced sources such as healthcare professionals, leaving them more knowledgeable about drug brands than potential health risks associated with their use.

In response to your opponent's claim that prescription drug advertisements have no effect on awareness, consider that exposure to these ads can lead to patients requesting medications they may not need or understand fully. Research suggests that children and teenagers can learn more about prescription drugs from television and pharmaceutical advertising than from their parents or doctors, leading them to have a skewed perception of the benefits and risks of these medications.

Your opponent lists various scenarios where prescription drugs might be necessary, but this does not justify the aggressive promotion of these drugs to the general public. They also claim that the risks associated with prescription drugs are well-known, but advertisements often fail to present the full picture of potential side effects and complications. Instead of providing comprehensive information, these ads can entice viewers to seek out medications without fully understanding the consequences.

Your opponent dismisses your argument as a "Fascinating theory with 0 evidence presented to support it," but there is substantial evidence that prescription drug advertising can lead to overconsumption and misuse. For example, studies have shown that young people who are exposed to more prescription drug advertisements are more likely to consume medications and request them from their doctors. This can have long-lasting effects on their health and well-being.

In conclusion, prescription drug advertising contributes to increased consumption and misuse among consumers, particularly among younger individuals. The evidence supports the need for restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising to ensure that patients receive accurate information and make informed decisions about their healthcare. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160:18-24

CX: 1) I have provided ample evidence to support the argument that prescription drug advertising should be restricted. 2) Potential harms of direct-to-consumer advertising include overconsumption, misuse, and lack of informed decision-making. 3) Evidence above.

CX2: What are the benefits of prescription drug advertising? Do these advertisements affect the public's perception of medications (include evidence)? Can you provide at least

"support my statements with the assistance of others involved in the science in the form of citations as evidence only because I am not a superman"ah Ok then. Now we have established you are not Superman lets continue..."Then after your complaint is satisfied by circumstance"You lost me, what does that even mean?"Your first citation requires membership."No, just click the "Reference" tab & search, you do not need to member up or even sign in, just bother to take the time to look..To balance your comments on side effects, I have already agreed that medications do have side effects, that is a no brainer.The point is that the benefits outway the side effects and people choose to take the medications for this reason.People can always refuse medication except in very limited circumstances.People who suffer cancer know they will have very significant side effects from chemotherapy, the vast majority of people will choose to take the medication however.I really was hoping for a serious debate, however your arguments sound like Scientology. I fear you are not open to any perspective but that of your religion. I will however make a brief rebuttal within the word limit you set. I will not include the writing in the comments and ask voters to do the same. You say I must include it but you are mistaken as you set the agreed word limit. And as you say "hush, hush" take your own advice please."Treatment will be administered under scientific and legal guidelines however the process is of an experimental nature." I fear you just made that up."l considering he is imprisoned, the doctor prescribes a medicine."Being detained on mental health grounds would kind of suggest some treatment would be appropriate? "Science falls away when facing unmeasurable statistics"Sorry, what, is that an attempt at TWS?"For their entire lives patients carry their diagnoses with them".That is just plain stupid, where do you get this from. I have worked with numerous people with mental health problems and only the few with enduring illness have enduring diagnosis (label's as you strangely call them)."This is policy."No it's not. Prove it... You cant because it's complete fiction." It means that once someone is of a mentally ill nature they are always ill."Where do you get this BS?"These persons have skills and qualities that can benefit everyone and they need to be given the opportunity to utilize them."If you had any clue what on Earth you were talking about you would already know that the most part of support these days is support with learning these skills. This is along side medication and therapy where appropriate."I applaud the good emotional drive of these trying persons.""do not know how to help their patients so they wing it."I am sure Doctors around the globe are rejoicing in your words of gratitude. They do not "wing it", judgments are made on what has worked or not and the symptoms V's the medication actions available. "(Dr's)purposely poison customers"Seriously, are you simple or what, sorry but that really is stupid & offensive.You are either a troll or an idiot...Sorry but after accusing GP's of deliberately routinely poisoning their patients an numerous other plainly silly arguments, I do not think there is an intelligent debate to be had here.Please troll elsewhere...

My Argument On Healthcare is Void?If drugs are legalised for recreational use they would also be available for medical experiments (in the same way alcohol is) therefore my argument stands.Drugs and ViolenceWhen Alcohol was legalised in the US violence went down [1]. In fact a large bump in the murder rate can be linked to the prohibition of alcohol in the US. During this time gangs took over the alcohol trade and this increased violence. When alcohol became illegal violence went up and when alcohol became legal violence dropped.This same parallel works for drugs. When drugs are illegal crime goes up because the drug market is taken over by violent criminal gangs.EconomyWhat if we compare the unemployment rate of the US as a whole with the Netherlands? Remembering that the Netherlands has far more Libertarian drug laws than united states. The Netherlands has an unemployment rate of 6.6%, its neighboring country Belgium which has much more authoritarian drug laws has an unemployment rate of 8.5% [2].Human NatureI showed that there were working anarchist communities in the north of Spain before and during the Spanish civil war [3].AddictionIt is considered impossible to overdose on marijuana [4] I can find no record of anyone who has died of marijuana.(Marijuana is illegal in Scotland) I took a survey of 20 people under the age of 16 living in Scotland and this is the result.65% Had been offered alcohol over the last six months.80% Had been offered class B drugs over the last six months.65% Had been offered class A drugs over the last six months.Furthermore remember that the total cost of alcohol in medical bills every year is £6 billion [4], vastly more than marijuana.[1] http://madeinamericathebook.files.wordpress.com...[2] https://www.google.co.uk...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

First I'll go over the arguments he made, then go over the ones he didn't respond to. Con: Pro has to prove legalization promotes, with a corollary link I answered this argument in round 2 and he drops the response. Please extend my "D" key argument, which shows how the link does not have to be direct. This was not responded to, so count it as true. Therefore, I do uphold the burden to show that legalization promotes the object. Con: Goods can be promoted despite illegality I answered all four of his examples of this, and he drops my responses to three of them. He only responded to the interracial marriage example, saying that the purpose is only to show that there isn't a link between its legalization and its promotion. However I showed how this example does not prove his point because tracking an illegal activity like that is difficult, so he cant draw any conclusions from this. Secondly, he still hasn't given a source for this statistic. Con: The point of his debate is to show publicity, not increases in use When he first argued about the legalization of interracial marriage, he argued that its rate of occurrence didn't increase. So he has been arguing about occurrence increases; don't let him change his advocacy in the very last round. Con: Legalizing abortion didn't promote it With abortion legal you can see it publicized in ads, unlike before (1). He agrees that advertisements promote the action, so I prove that legalization has promoted it. Con: Correlation =/= causation, need link I gave the link showing how legalization leads to publicity. Business men find the newly legal product as a business opportunity, market it, and advertise/promote it. Its surprisingly simple. Now lets go over what wasn't responded to. Obviously, my "D" key argument is, well, key. Its lack of response to means that I don't have to prove that legalization directly leads to promotion. If I prove that legalization leads to advertisement which leads to promotion, I win the round. He gave examples of promotion still happening in the California, High Times Magazine, and Prostitution examples. After responding to all of these, he drops all of them. Perhaps most important are my arguments made in the Conclusion section of my last round. In it, I gave two reasons showing why I win automatically. Neither of them were responded to. So at the point where my arguments about why I win were dropped, I don't see any incentive to vote con. I'll repeat those conceded arguments to remind us of why I urge a pro vote. 1. I argue that advertisements cause promotion, and he directly agreed to this in the second round. 2. Advertisements are only possible because of legalization. Therefore, legalization is a direct catalyst to promotion. Please count these conceded arguments as true. For all of these reasons, I urge a con vote. Thanks to my opponent for the good debate, and finishing. 1. http://tinypic.com...

1. IntroductionIn today’s world, medicines have literally become part of our daily lives. Due to the push of supply and the pull of demand, researchers and public health organisation alike classify more and more common conditions as “diseases”, as the population is ready to take any type of medicines for their cure from these conditions. Improvements in the field of medicine are taking place and extensive research being conducted. The topic of the debate is “Medicines Should Be Made Free”, therefore, the burden of Pro is to show that medicines should be made free at any cost, as “should” is a synonym for ‘duty’ or ’ absolute necessity’, whereas, the burden of Con is to show that it is not "absolute necessity” and to highlight the appalling consequences if such actions were to take place. The whole argument is about whether or not customers like you and me should pay for the medicines we get. The argument that "medicines should be given free" is unsustainable and are utopian dreams of a pied piper.2. ResearchThe Pharmaceutical industry is constantly in the search for new and better therapies, and have developed various molecules that has revolutionised modern medicine. The Pharmaceutical industry is one of the most innovative industries in the world today. Pharmaceutical organisations play a pivotal role in promoting the field of research, especially during the outbreaks of deadly epidemics like Ebola, H1N1 etc. One of the major factors that plays an important role in promoting research is money. Money is crucial in this field, as it is in almost any conceivable venture. It is pertinent to note the words of Chancellor of USFC, that the cost of developing new drugs is simply “crazy”; because if a country needs to sell at least one drug in the market, the funds required are upwards of 350-400 million dollars. She says that the “Pharmaceutical industry is not one where anybody can make profits”. It requires major funding, patience and loads of luck to hit upon an efficacious drug.Then where does one expect to fund the pharmaceutical industry? Two common sources are the donors (NGOs) and the customers (pull of demand by the end users). If the pull of demand is cut off by the seemingly ideal plan of doling out medicines free, the research efforts of Pharmaceutical companies is sure to falter. We can’t expect donors to keep paying tons of cash for the Pharmaceutical industry. There is a limit for anything that comes free. Or have'nt we heard the saying "There is nothing called free lunch!!"Therefore, without adequate compensation by the end users, it neither probable for good vaccinations, drugs and other medicines to be created nor improvisations possible. So, making medicines free is suicidal to both the population and the pharmaceutical industry. Sources:http://www.forbes.com...http://phprimer.afmc.ca...

Re: Legalization promotes by means of allowing advertisements This is in no way the same as my initial argument. The question is not “Does legalization lead to promotion” or “Can legislation allow for more promotion,” rather it is “Does legalization promote,” asking for a corollary link between the two. Examples have been given of goods and services that are promoted in spite of their illegality, as well as legal activities which are not promoted – Prostitution, Marijuana use and Interracial Marriage respectively. My opponent has argued that it is hard to measure and track interracial marriage statistics, however the purpose here is simply to show that there is no causal link between publicity and legalization. Since the goal of increasing sales is silly in this context, taking the social climate into mind it is just as silly to envision any sort of publicity for interracial relationships during or after those times. The point of this debate is not to show increases; only that publicity was made with the purpose of increasing public awareness, which has not been shown. Since the validity of the prior legalization is not being accepted by my opponent, hopefully a second more prominent one will – Roe V. Wade (1). The ruling was that anti-abortion legislation is unconstitutional. In no way did this ruling publicize abortions for the purpose of increasing sales or public awareness; it was simply saying that it is a matter of personal fundamental right of choice, and no law could be passed to countermand them. No matter how you spin it, Correlation does not equal Causation. You can surely show that there is a relationship between advertisement and legalization, but you have not shown a link that connects legalization to the publicity, let alone showing that the act of legalization gives publicity and has the goal of increasing sales or public awareness. Just because two things happen in proximity does not mean that they are related, nor does it mean one caused the other. http://en.wikipedia.org...

I personally know him, and I assure you, this will be a great debate. Contention One: Doctors A. Doctor's simply can't perscribe anti-depressants to whoever walks in the door. Just think about it. Imagine you're infected with the H1N1 influenza and you don't know it yet. You're sick enough to barely keep it together, and your insurance only covers for you to see a doctor at a local place before you can see anyone else. Surprisingly, you walk in, and the place is packed. Why is this scenario possible? This, ladies and gentlemen, is the result in passing my opponent's plan. If the general public knew that doctors will hand out free anti-depressants like free candy to teenagers, anyone could (and would) go seek medical help after a break up of three weeks in middle school. My response? Give me a break. B. Teenagers' Health Do you ever watch a commerical that tells the listener not to take the pill or medicine unless they're over 18 years old? There's a reason for that. My first source comes straight from my family myself. It's happend twice. Someone under 18 years old tried to take an anti-depressant, and she retrogressed into attempted suicide. You just can't give these things to adolescents. My second source is (. http://www.articlesbase.com... #). They might help teenagers, but parents aren't going to want to risk their children killing themselves over them getting over depression. Contention Two: "Solve" A. I'm sorry, but where are these so called "suicide centers". There's the suicide hotline which is (1800-suicide). It's free, so there's your number two. We don't need to hire counselors at the schools. The ones hired are already taught how to deal with this situation anyway. B. Honestly? Who wants to be put on anti-depressants unless you're in dire need? You're not yourself anymore, and when you're not yourself, you've reached a fate worse than death. Thank you everyone. Please vote con. :) -bexxx

PROS CASE(A) It is the personal choice of each individual american as to whether or not they smoke marijuana, regardless of the harms (assuming that the persons are informed on the potential harms). Just as is the case with tobacco and alcohol, each US citizen should be allowed to choose for themselves whether or not they want to use marijuana. As long as the citizen is informed by the manufacturer of the potential harms (as is the case with alcohol and especially tobacco products), it should be the choice of theirs, not the governments, as to whether or not they choose to use marijuana. Each adult citizen is responsible for making these decisions for themselves. (B) Marijuana can be used for medicinal uses. Another reason marijuana ought to be legalized in more areas of the US is that marijuana has useful medical employments. Marijuana is used to treat symptoms of cancer and chemotherapy. Marijuana is also used to treat glaucoma. Marijuana ought to be legalized to help treat those afflicted with diseases that can be treated with medicinal marijuana. (C) Legalizing marijuana would reduce drug related crime rates. With Marijuana legalized, the government would no longer need to arrest all marijuana dealers, only the unlicensed ones. Also governments would not have to arrest users of marijuana. Non-violent drug offenders now account for 1/4 of the prison population (1)"The cost to put a single drug dealer in jail is about $450,000, composed of the following:The cost for arrest and conviction is about $150,000. The cost for an additional prison bed is about $50,000 to $150,000, depending upon the jurisdiction. It costs about $30,000 per year to house a prisoner. With an average sentence of 5 years, that adds up to another $150,000. The same $450,000 can provide treatment or education for about 200 people. In addition, putting a person in prison produces about fifteen dollars in related welfare costs, for every dollar spent on incarceration. Every dollar spent on treatment and education saves about five dollars in related welfare costs. " (2). I await my opponents response response eagerly. Sources1. . http://www.cepr.net...2. . http://druglibrary.org...;

My opponent says I should have posted rebuttals in R2, but if that was the case he wouldn't have written that R3 is for rebuttals in his first post. Second of all, I was under the impression that this was a 4 round debate because of what he wrote in R1, so apologies for that.I will avoid defenses to keep the debate fair.1 - Secondhand smokingFirst off, there are some serious issues with the list of premises given by my opponent. He says that because smoking is bad for your health, it should be banned. By that logic, cars should be banned too. He provides a statistic that explains how many non-smokers have died from secondhand smoke since 1964. He doesn't explain how his proposal to ban smoking solves this issue, and doesn't take into account the repercussions of his proposal. In R2, I have explained how the increases in crime are a huge issue to be worried about if a smoking ban takes place. Sure, you're going to save a fraction of the number of people who die from secondhand smoke, but drug-war deaths will increase drastically. 2 - PollutionPro has not given any sources to back up the claim that smoking is the cause of all those things he accused it of doing. He just makes the claim that smoking kills animals, and therefore should be banned. In fact, the amount of CO2 released from cigarette smoke has a negligible impact on climate change.[1] Of course, the process of growing the tobacco has significant effects on the climate, but banning cigarettes is not the solution. Banning cigarettes is just another way of saying "Let the drug cartels handle it.". This means that Government completely loses control of the regulation (such as taxes) on the emissions caused by its production. The increase in business for the drug cartels also results in higher production for lower cost, which completely goes against the point of banning cigarettes in the first place.3 - Harm Principle Points #1 & 2 are just reiterations of the first two arguments, which I have rebutted.Point #3 - Simply saying "Economy Impact" doesn't clearly address the issue of how smoking affects the economy. I'm assuming that he means to point out the 'lost productivity' from smoking. Let me just say that this productivity would not be gained back by the banning of cigarettes. As I mentioned in R3, the way to lower purchases of cigarettes is to simply increase taxes on them. When there is a legal option competing with an illegal one, people tend to avoid the illegal ones at all costs. When you make the illegal option the ONLY option (by banning cigarettes), people have no choice but to provide the drug cartels with business. Point #4 - Pro doesn't take into account the repercussions of the smoking ban. Just like prohibition, billions of taxpayers dollars will be wasted because of the overflowed legal system, and taxpayer dollars would STILL be used to provide healthcare to those who have illegally smoked cigarettes.ConclusionPro's arguments are centred around the fact that cigarettes are bad. That, however, is not the topic of the debate, which is whether or not banning them is a good idea. I have sufficiently rebutted Pro's arguments to conclude that cigarettes should not be banned, and the affects of doing such a thing would have repercussions that defeat the purpose of banning them in the first place.For those reasons, vote Con! Sources[1] http://www.popsci.com...

The rise in prescription drug abuse should fall into the hands of the Dr. Considering they force patients to take them exactly as prescribed even if they do not need them everyday, once a patient is obligated after agreeing to the terms of the "Pain Contract" if there are people who suffer from pain, they seek whatever comfort measures they are offered by their Dr, people become tired and emotionally drained due to the pain they suffer from. So, they see their health care provider, after the pain contract is signed by both patient and Dr, and are prescribed many forms of narcotics and I am baffled at how, Dr's cannot figure out why narcotics abuse continues to rise. I never thought to much about the use of narcotics and the damage it can cause the patient and their families until a family member had a total of 6 brain surgeries over the last 17 years. So her Dr had her sign this contract for the pressure and pain she experienced, at any time she could've been called in by the Dr for a surprise pill count and urine test, she never thought becoming addicted until her Dr called her in, the nurse counted the pills and asked for a urine sample, which she did, and was shocked by the Dr's action. Since she had good days as well, there were several times she could go an entire day without needing any,however this Dr informed her that she had violated her pain contract, because she had more in her bottle that she should've had, and because he had her on 2-30mg morphine, 1-15mg morphine and 4-10mg of Vicodin everyday except on days she didn't need all of that, and could get by with only taking 1 Vicodin for a few days here and there. He terminated her contract because her urine did not show any of the morphine in her system, and she had more morphine than she was suppose to have. About 2 or 3 days after her Dr terminated it, she started to become more tired, emotional, her headaches came back in full force and felt she was having flu like symptoms, and that is when we all realized she had become addicted and dependent on them, so she returned to her Dr. who gave an impression of "Just another addict looking for narcotics" and refused to help her even after she said she didn't go in for narcotics, instead she was looking for help to get through the detox she was experiencing. That didn't help and after 4 days of going through hell, she was rushed to the hospital, where she sat for 2 days in ICU, she lost so much weight and looked like she was on her death bed, finally a week later, she was discharged. Now she finds other ways to deal with her pain, and refuses to use prescription narcotics EVER again, all because of the pain she went through. Now what Dr out there can force narcotics on a patient regardless if there is any pain or not what so ever, and terminate the contract because for not taking EXACTLY what the bottle says to take. Can any Dr out there see just how one of the reasons prescription drug abuse on the rise, it starts right in their office for many!

I personally believe that companies such as 23 and me should be able to make your genetic info available due to the fact that the aforementioned company can determine if one will have early onset of Alzheimer and dementia. With this it could allow a new discovery of a new prevention drug it would introduce those who have tested positive for it to be able to test new drugs.


Question: Should the Use of Marijuana for Recreation be Legalized?

Recreational marijuana should be made legal. While numerous individuals consume marijuana for leisure or as a remedy for pain, its usage and legality are contingent upon the context, such as when used by a young adult, say an 18-year-old whose frontal cortex is still developing. This underscores the importance of responsible use and understanding the potential implications of marijuana on different age groups and brain development stages.

Voters, please note that I will be posting a section on improvements, since my opponent is new to DDO. Refutations: 1. "It makes your skin sensitive to cold and heat". Compared to the side effects of many other illegal drugs this is very minor. 2. "Dehydration". Again, a very minor side effect. Contentions: 1. Marijuana has positive health effects. 2. If Alchohol and Cigarettes are legal, why not 'pot'? 3. It would bring lots of much-needed revenue to the state. 1. Marijuana has positive health effects. Marijuana, containing the chemical THC and commonly known as "pot" or "weed", has been known to reduce tumor growth. [1] 2. Alcohol and Tobacco. According to the CDC (Center For Disease Control) Alcohol is one of the leading causes of death in the US, and Tobacco follows not far behind. Marijuana is not even on the list. [2] 3. http://www.businessweek.com... Sources: 1. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 2. Cdc.gov Suggestions: 1. Make your arguments longer and more organized. Avoid run on sentences. 2. Cite sources. 3. Check your spelling before posting Voters Note: Do not vote on this debate. I want this to be a learning experience, and I want to avoid accusations of noob sniping.

The amount of deaths caused by alcohol is irrelevant to the use of marijuana. Although it doesn't directly cause death, it does harm the human body. Smoking anything is obviously not advantageous to your health. The use of marijuana causes distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. In addition, marijuana can become addictive after long-term use. It has been reported that when people have tried to quit they experience withdrawal symptoms such as anxiety, sleeplessness and irritability.

As I have already stated, I agree that marijuana is a good herb that can benefit a lot of people. I also agree that it should be legalized. This is not what my primarily issue is with Pro’s statement: my issue with it is that he wants alcohol to be illegalized. I agree with Pro, in that alcohol can be a very bad drug. I do not think anybody can deny this. However, I would like to point out how outlawing it will cause significant problems in this country, as it did in the 1920s’. The Eighteenth Amendment On December 18th, 1917, Congress in the United States passed the eighteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. This bill’s full text is as followed [1]: “Section 1.After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.” As you can see, alcohol has already been prohibited in the United States. If Pro is aware of United States history, you likely know the consequences brought about by this prohibition. I will submit to the debate several graphs and charts, proving the obvious consequences that came about through the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s': Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Gallons of Pure Alcohol) 1910-1929. [2] http://www.albany.edu...As you can see from this graph, the conception of alcohol was severely stunted for a year. However, afterwards, the consumption of alcohol skyrocketed back to its average levels. The problem with this chart should be obvious: if alcohol was outlawed in 1919, and it was not repealed until 1933, how did alcohol consumption skyrocket back to its normal levels almost immediately after its ban? This graph proves that the prohibition of alcohol did not prevent anybody (but the most law-abiding citizen) from actually drinking alcohol. It was a useless law, and, in other cases, a detrimental law. Inmates at Sing-Sing Prison: 1917-22. [2] http://www.albany.edu... As you can see, the amount of prisoners sharply increased due to this prohibition. This prohibition, as we have already established, not only did not stop alcoholics, but also steeply increased prison population, which costs a lot of money to maintain. This law did not stop alcoholics, it simply made alcoholics criminals, which only hindered our system, but actually increased crimes other than alcohol: Homicide Rates: 1910-44. [2] http://www.albany.edu... Take note of this chart. Murder rates are fairly high before the prohibition. But take note: directly after the 18th ammendment was enforced, murder rates skyrocketed until its peak at 1933; Franklin D. Roosevelt legalized alcohol almost immediately after going into office. Then, crime rates significantly lowered from 1934 on. What does this tell us? It tells us that not only was prohibition uneffective and costly, but it also actually increased crime rates. The reason these crime rates increased was because the American Mafia took over the bootlegging industry after alcohol industries went under. Bootlegging is the act of smuggling in illicit drugs - in this case, alcohol - and selling it on the streets. By doing this, the Mafia became incredibly rich (just as gangs are incredibly rich selling drugs, pornography in the '70s, and illegal firearms, which is why I am against the criminalization of all drugs, and certain firearms today), and incredibly powerful.[3][4]Conclusion:In conclusion, the prohibition of alcohol has never, and will never, work. It will increase murders and other, more horrible crimes; allow criminal organizations to flourish; destroy jobs by shutting down alcohol producing factories; and it never has nor will it ever stop the drinking of alcohol, just as the War on Drugs has not nor will it ever stop the recreational use of illicit drugs.-- [1] Government Archives: 11th - 27th amendments: http://www.archives.gov... [2] "The End of Prohibition: What Happened and What Have We Learned?": http://www.albany.edu... [3] Report on the Enforcement of the Prohibition Laws of the United States. National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement. Dated January 7th 1931. [4] Wikipedia: “Prohibition [of Alcohol] in the United States”: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Me and Con had a small debate on Facebook and in the private messages. This is just to clear that up, incase Pros argument didn't make sense, or seemed random to someone.Why I'm against legalization:1 - It's a harmful drug: Marijuana is not harmless, as many believe. Some studies suggest that smoking 1 joint of Marijuana a day, is equivalent to smoking 20 cigarettes [1]. Another study reports that smoking 1 joint of Marijuana a year increases the users risk of lung cancer by 8%, versus 7% for a pack of cigarettes [2].Other health risks include Trouble thinking and remembering Bloodshot eyes Dry mouth (cotton mouth) Fast heart rate Slowed coordination Harmed blood flow in the brain Less attention span Stifled brain development Anxiety Depression Suicidal thoughts Increased chance of heart attacks [3]2 - It's addictive: Many legalization proponents claim Marijuana is not addictive. It, however, is addictive. The addiction rate is thought to be 9% [4]. I would argue that if something is harmful, and addictive, it should not be legal.3 - Legalization increases use: The current legal status of Marijuana as a schedule 1 drug has caused prices to stay high. Legalization would cause the prices to plummet [6] Legalizing Marijuana in Colorado has had consequences. The Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area published a report, highlighting some of the consequences. "The majority of DUI drug arrests were marijuana related and 25 to 40 percent were marijuana alone... the percent of hospitalizations related to marijuana have increased 82% since 2008… In 2012, 10.47 percent of youth ages 12 to 17 were considered current marijuana users compared to 7.55 percent nationally." [5]. If Marijuana were to be legalized, the prices of Marijuana would drop [6]. A decrease in the price of Marijuana encourages more people to use the drug. More users means more abusers. Cigarettes and Alcohol both cost the U.S. 100x more in damages than they will ever generate in tax revenue. With 1 joint of Marijuana equalling 7 cigarettes, the cost of Marijuana abuse would likely have the same effect (if not, worse) as cigarettes on the economy.Rebuttals: "I believe in freedom for all."I also believe in freedom for all, but your rights end, where other peoples rights begin. If you were to smoke Marijuana in a public area, it could affect other people. Second hand smoke from cigarettes kills 45,000 non-smokers a year, and as I've shown above, Marijuana may be more harmful. We can assume the effects of Marijuana second hand smoke would be the same, if not more deadly than cigarettes second hand smoke."If you really are afraid of getting addicted to marijuana from others second hand smoke"Here, Pro is referring to something I said in a private message. Unfortunately, he misunderstood me. I made the argument that because the second hand smoke can effect other people without their consent, your right is use the drug is outweighed by their right not to not be effected by Marijuana's second hand smoke. I also made the argument, that if you become addicted, you lose the right to say no. Your right to say no, is more important than your right to say yes, in my opinion. If you become addicted to Marijuana, you lose your right to say no, otherwise you are forced to go through withdrawal."my advice is to avoid such places"Why should I have to give up my freedom to move? If I have to stay away from places, in fear of second hand smoke, that is infringing on my right to move. This is another reason you do not have the "right" to use the drug."I don't think your medieval thinking would go over that well."That's a bit rude. Since I didn't post any rules for this debate, I guess it's okay, but I would like to ask Pro to stop being hostile towards me. I would like a civil debate.Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...

Scientist have proved that the THC in Cannabis can reduce the risk of breast cancer in women as well as promote healthy brain functions as well as reducing chronic pain. So with that being said I believe that Cannabis should at least be legalized on the medicinal level if not the recreational level.

Thank you, Con.REBUTTALS:"It is a common fact that Marijuana has less harmful effects than alcohol, cigarettes, and guns."This statement has been proven false. Marijuana can affect your lungs just as much as tobacco. In fact, Marijuana can cause lung cancer and can blacken the lungs just like tobacco. In fact, Marijuana causes even more health risks to the lungs than tobacco. So saying it is tobacco are more harmful is false, and it can been proven by the picture below. You can see the difference between the two.My opponent also states that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but alcohol and marijuana do basically the same things in different ways. They make you sometimes hallucinate, but one makes you "high" and the other does it in a "drunk" form that both affect the brain. My opponent states that guns are less deadly than Marijuana, but there's a difference, they aren't used for the same purpose. You don't use a gun to get "high." In fact, shooting yourself in the chest would kill you faster than over dosing on Marijuana.My opponent then goes on to say how people will still smoke it if it is illegal. Same thing happened with alcohol, and deaths from alcohol have gotten worse since it was legalized, so if they both are legalized, Marijuana will do the same, most likely."Marijuana is NOT addictive."This statement is bewildering. Not only is this false, it has facts to prove it is. About 9% of users who try Marijuana the first time will be dependent on it. [1] This raises to 17% among teens, and for daily users they will become dependent 25-50%. These rates are not only shocking but they prove this statement is false.Crime has increased with Marijuana, yes, but however only 12% of crime in the USA is linked to drug possession, so it is not that bad."Marijuana is NOT illegal to smoke."I'm pretty sure it is."It's also true that Marijuana can also benefit someone who's facing a mental illness." Now, I never said I was against medical Marijuana, so this argument does not matter. Marijuana can be used for medical purposes. This doesn't mean it is necessarily legal, however.ARGUMENTS:Marijuana can affect your mental health immenselyAccording to the American Medical Association: "Heavy cannabis use in adolescence causes persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and IQ, and use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood and psychotic thought disorders." It causes you to lose focus on what you are doing, and can raise any other thoughts besides schoolwork. In fact, cigarettes don't do this as much as cannabis does. According to WebMD it can cause a number of other symptoms when smoked like [2]:-Random thinking-A distorted sense of time-Paranoia-Anxiety-Forgetfulness-DEPRESSIONMany Marijuana legalists believe it does not cause depression, in fact, it does. Marijuana does lower depression WHEN SMOKED. After smoked, however, withdraw can cause serious side-effects that can make the user crave it so much that they will actually commit to suicide. [3]Marijuana can affect your physical health immenselyMarijuana has been proven to affect your nerve system critically to the point where it could be shattered. [4] Your heart rate will go up two times than before. It can affect your blood pressure and blood sugar, which can lead to heart-attacks, which can lead to death. Marijuana can irritate your lungs to the point where they blacken, like the picture above, and cause bronchitis and coughing. According to WebMD it can cause a number of other physical symptoms like:-Dizziness-Shallow breathing-Red eyes-Drymouth-Increased appetite (munchies)-Slow reaction time (can lead to numbers of accidents)In fact, your chance of have a car accident doubles when you smoke Marijuana.Marijuana can affect your fetus babyA study has been shown that the brain of a pregnant women's baby can be affected from smoking Marijuana. The study highlights that consuming Marijuana during pregnancy clearly results in defective development of nerve cells of the cerebral cortex, the part of the brain that orchestrates higher cognitive functions and drives memory formation. It can also cut off key protein supplements to the baby, which can affect the baby hugely. It will eventually affect the body if the mother overdoses, or uses too much.ConclusionI believe I have proven that Marijuana should not be legalized, there should be no exception due to the physical and mental affects that it does to the human body. Not only this, but it can actually affect the fetus of a baby, shown by a study. Next I will cover economics, in the next round. I believe I have rebutted Con very well.Your turn, Con.Cites:[1]- http://www.drugabuse.gov...[2]- http://www.webmd.com...[3]- http://adai.uw.edu...[4]- http://www.sciencedaily.com...

This is a debate for A341 to finially finish his debate on this topic and I took him up on this. I thank him ahead of time for accepting this challenge. Rules Round 1 is for definitions by Con while Pro will make his opening arguments. Round 2 Con will make contentions and rebuttles, while Pro Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Con and Pro makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Con makes rebuttles and conclusion, Pro will states, "No round as argeed upon." If Pro says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearing No trolling. All- every (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Legalized- to make legal (http://dictionary.reference.com...) recreationial (drug)- (of a drug or medication) used for recreation and enjoyment rather than to treat a medical condition: ( http://dictionary.reference.com...) *Note- this debate is about legalizing drugs for recreationial purposes not medicinial.

I personally have no problem with the legalization of marijuana, I accepted this debate just for fun. I am aware my opponent picked con despite arguing pro, I was aware when i accepted and knew I would be arguing con. Best of luck to my opponent. 1. Marijuana is a gateway drug. Many say that it's legalization will remove to title "gateway drug" because they will no longer need to go to illegal means to get the drug. However, since many will now be able to get the legal drug and become addicted to the euphoria it causes, they may then resort to illegal means to get hard drugs for a more intense euphoria, after all in their mind, they may not see the big difference between weed and a hard drug, like heroin. Sorry for short start as I did not have much time, I'll work to make it longer round 2

Again, marijuana is a drug. Yes, it can be used for medicinal purposes and has proven to be a rather affective form of physical stilumation. But the harsh reality remains. People use drugs to acquire money. AND when this drug of choice is used for monetary gain, familes have to suffer the consequences of people who make bad decisions. Marijuana is also a lifestyle. And this lifestyle consists of cultural debauchery, drunkeness, rogue capitalism, and illegal trade. This is a business that will never die. So the truth remains, drugs affect our lives and our state of mind. Marijuana. although not as mild as others, yet highly addictive, is no different.

It is clear that my opponent is making an all out attack on users of marijuana. Therefore, I will do that same for my case. My opponent has made the statement that "this debate is geared toward demographics, not the ideology, of marijuana use". However, my opponent uses words such as "bigot", womanizers, drug addicts, lazy spouses and depressed people, which in turn I will pose the question : how is your argument not geared towards the ideology of marijuana usage when you use the above terms to describe it's users? My opponent has also made the statement that "medical marijuana does not conclusively cure any afflictions". I completely agree with this statement. However, many drugs are in use today that do not cure afflictions, especially afflictions of the mind. Some examples of drugs that do not cure but "mask" the problem (and I will use my own experience with mental illness as example) are antipsychotics, anti-depressants, and nerve medication. Also, my opponent has not provided any scientific arguments but insists that his argument is scientific in nature, when in fact, it is completely ideological. I will provide scientific arguments for my position. In an article by npr.org, the author does state that marijuana does cause psychotic symptoms, however, it does not cause a complete psychosis, much like that found in disorders of the mind such as schizophrenia. The author makes the following statement: "Drugs like marijuana or methamphetamine can make someone experience symptoms like paranoia, hostility and disorganized thinking. But that's very different from a chronic, persistent psychotic disorder like schizophrenia." Notice that the author says it "can" cause some psychotic thinking, but not a total psychosis of the mind ( I am schizophrenic and have never used marijuana in my life, so I have experience with this issue). The amount of THC content in a strain of marijuana also contributes to the factor of psychotic thinking. A THC content of 15 percent or more would definitely cause a psychotic break, albeit temporarily. However, I am not advocating for high potency marijuana. I am arguing for a low potency, moreover a medically acceptable form of cannabis. My opponent also makes the statement that job creation is not real. In turn I will ask this question: where are the facts to back this up? An article from the reputable economic website forbes.com states that by 2020, the cannabis industry will create more than 250,000 jobs in the LEGAL cannabis market, talking about the legal cannabis market for medical purposes. The author of the article also makes this statement : "The legal cannabis market was worth an estimated $7.2 billion in 2016 and is projected to grow at a compound annual rate of 17%. Medical marijuana sales are projected to grow from $4.7 billion in 2016 to $13.3 billion in 2020. Adult recreational sales are estimated to jump from $2.6 billion in 2016 to $11.2 billion by 2020." The numbers posed by the author in terms of economic growth are astronomical. Why deprive the American economy of such a thriving industry that has the potential to create the amount of jobs described. The manufacturing job market is expected to decline with operations moving overseas, so why not replenish the job market with jobs in the cannabis industry? In conclusion, my opponent has made harsh statement that essentially cannot be backed with scientific and economic research. It seems as if my opponent is making an ad hominem attack on the cannabis industry in general, a common fallacy used in making a weak argument. I am simply stating the facts and research. I do not have a personal agenda concerning the cannabis industry. I am only providing what experts say. I feel that the cannabis industry is an answer to many problems we as Americans face on a daily basis. Sources http://www.npr.org... https://www.forbes.com...


Question: Should the Use of Marijuana for Recreation be Legalized?

The legalization of both medical and recreational marijuana should be implemented across all U.S. states. The debate over legalizing medical marijuana is significant, given that 23 states have already taken steps to legalize it, albeit with varying degrees of restriction. This is a positive development, but I argue that all states should emulate the examples set by Alaska, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon, by legalizing marijuana not only for medicinal purposes but also for recreational use. Before delving into the reasons, let's clarify the definitions of marijuana, medical marijuana, and recreational marijuana to avoid any confusion. Marijuana, also known as cannabis, hemp, or weed, is a drug made from the dried leaves of the hemp plant. Medical marijuana refers to the use of marijuana for medical purposes, while recreational marijuana is any other recreational drug that is used without medical justification for its psychoactive effects.

First, the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, defined by the Drug Enforcement Administration as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, is illogical. It is well-known that marijuana has been used for centuries for medical purposes with positive effects, as acknowledged by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The reasons for its classification are debatable and beyond the scope of this debate, but it is clear that this classification is misleading.

Second, legalizing marijuana would have significant economic benefits for America. The country spends a vast amount of money on dealing with and prohibiting crime related to illegal marijuana sales and consumption. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate these expenses and generate revenue from the marijuana business, which currently operates illegally. Each state could implement its own laws to suit their specific needs, as demonstrated by Oregon, Alaska, Washington, and Colorado.

Lastly, I support the legalization of marijuana for recreational use because I believe in individual autonomy in deciding what is best for one's health. When it comes to smoking for pleasure, whether it's tobacco or marijuana, individuals should have the right to make their own choices. It is hypocritical that tobacco smoking, which is the leading cause of preventable death in America, has no legal restrictions, while marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug and illegal in most states. Marijuana should be legalized for both medical and recreational use, with sales regulated to ensure safety. This will still allow for some illegal sales but will reduce it significantly compared to the current situation. The laws making marijuana illegal are illogical, and I am surprised that this can happen in a well-educated country in the 21st century.

Again, marijuana is a drug. Yes, it can be used for medicinal purposes and has proven to be a rather affective form of physical stilumation. But the harsh reality remains. People use drugs to acquire money. AND when this drug of choice is used for monetary gain, familes have to suffer the consequences of people who make bad decisions. Marijuana is also a lifestyle. And this lifestyle consists of cultural debauchery, drunkeness, rogue capitalism, and illegal trade. This is a business that will never die. So the truth remains, drugs affect our lives and our state of mind. Marijuana. although not as mild as others, yet highly addictive, is no different.

I believe Cannabis should be legalised. Con can make any argument against this they like.

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking my opponent for his argument. I personally believe his case was weak. I intend to prove that in my rebuttals below. I hope the judges consider all of this information when choosing the winner. RebuttalsMy opponent begins by stating what medical marijuana can be used for, as I did. He quoted webmd.com, which said "cannabinoids in marijuana can weaken the immune system." The key word here is 'can'. It does not necessarily mean it will. Next, the source says, "long-term use of marijuana can make lung problems worse." Again, there is a key word that must be acknowledged: 'long-term'. Not all patients will take medical cannabis for the long-term. I do not believe this to be a sufficient argument against medical marijuana. Also, my opponent has chosen to ignore the fact that marijuana does not need to be smoked. It can be consumed by drinking, eating, injecting, et cetera. I hope my opponent acknowledges this and addresses this in his rebuttals. He also states potential side effects medical marijuana may cause. They are, according to his source, "[d]rowsiness, dry mouth, giddiness, hunger, insomnia, red eyes, respiratory issues, short-term memory loss, and uneasiness or anxiety." These side effects, when you truly think about it, are minor. I urge my opponent, the viewers, and the judges to compare the potential side effects of medical marijuana to its potential and highl likely benefits. My opponent states, "[a]s you can see, it can be used to help people, but the effects are not always the same. For some people, medical marijuana can cure seizures, while it may make the disorder worse for other people. Currently, marijuana has not been fully tested, which means it should not be used. Unstable drugs should not be used in people. One could argue that it is human experimentation, which is not legal. Doctors are not always aware of the side effects medicinal marijuana could have on people. It is different depending on the person." This statement and, really, my opponent's entire argument is not sufficient. I urge the viewers and judges to carefully consider this. My opponent makes arguments that are proven false by mine. I would like to point out an aspect of this debate he ignored fully. I said and sourced, "[m]arijuana has two main components: THC and CBD. CBD (cannabidiol) will reduce brain activity and will lower the occurances of seizures.THC is what causes one to be high. Breeding marijuana to have low THC and high CBD will be effective. This, along with other genetic modifications, will make marijuana a safe treatment. " My opponent fully ignored this statement. He has ignored the fact that marijuana can be bred to have certain traits. He is arguing about traditional marijuana while I am arguing about marijuana in general, whether it is traditional or bred. This one fact refutes his entire argument. I hope he and the judges acknowledge that. There is another aspect my opponent has chosen to ignore. I made the following statement: "One can easily be addicted to pills, tablets, serums, and other forms of medications, but medical marijuana is rarely a substance that is addicted to. I do not deny that marijuana, when used in a large amount, is damaging, but you are aware that medical marijuana overdoses and addictions are virtually unheard of, yes?" This means that traditional medicine may not be the best choice. This means that marijuana is a very, very safe alternative drug to treat certain conditions and diseases. This has been fully ignored by my opponent. I want him to address this in his refutations. My opponent states, "[i]n conclusion, medical marijuana is dangerous and has more bad side effects than good. This is why I do not support it. I hope my opponent can see that there are better ways to cure things than with cannabis." My opponent, again, ignored key aspects of my argument. For certain conditions, there are no successful treatments yet. Now, I adore science and I know a lot about it, so I do know that safer treatments will be found in the future. However, for now, marijuana is the safest alternative to addictive pills and tablets. ConclusionIn my opponent's rebuttals, I hope to see a sufficient defense of his arguments as well as relevant, factual refutations of my argument, which I do not believe he or anyone else can do. I do wish him good luck, but he will have to work hard in order to win this debate. Jamccartney is a very close friend of mine and I know him very well. He is a determined, intelligent individual. However, I do not believe he has shown this in this debate. I hope this changes. BibliographyI have no sources for this particular round. I believe my sources already are more reliable than my opponent's and I want the judges to consider this. Sources are not required here. Common sense and logic is one of the many weapons in my arsenal. I have facts - solid facts, which I have presented efficiently - that prove marijuana for medical purposes is beneficial. I do not require sources now.

Many people have not tried marijuana since it is an illegal drug. Legalizing it will eliminate the fear of certain people trying it. And from there, it will collect more users. Obviously, your knowledge on marijuana possession is limited, if you are caught with a minimal amount of it, it will not lead to doing time in jail. Most people in jail for marijuana are those who carried enough to be suspected of selling it. Also, those who sell marijuana are more likely to go on to sell other drugs if marijuana is legalized. Many drug dealers begin by selling marijuana, become addicted to the easy money and from there move on to selling more expensive drugs such as cocaine and pills. Legalizing it will not give drug dealers a sudden epiphany to stop selling drugs, it becomes a way of life for them which can be hard to break. Legalizing marijuana would do more damage to our country than people may realize. Think of all of the students who go to school high, all the parents who smoke in front of their children and those who smoke on a daily basis, they will all worsen. Marijuana has been illegal for numerous reasons and making it legal will certainly worsen society and make more people seek to use it.

I see you think it makes people more creative, but if your watching TV and eating from a ice cream tub, your "creativity" isn't going to come in good use. I laughed at the end when you said "useful product and ideas," because I imagined a boss walking in to a meeting, and seeing a bunch of 70's style hippies smoking weed trying to come up with a weird product such as a quadricycle with a jet engine. (That's just my humor). Anyways, usually people smoke it because they are influenced by someone else, and they think they won't be on their own. Eventually, it gets to them, and they want to stop. The fact that it isn't addictive, sounds wrong to me, and I found proof on this trusty online article, "Yes, marijuana can be addictive. Over time, overstimulation of the endocannabinoid system by marijuana use can cause changes in the brain that lead to addiction, a condition in which a person cannot stop using a drug even though it interferes with many aspects of his or her life. It is estimated that 9 percent of people who use marijuana will become dependent on it. The number goes up to about 17 percent in those who start using young (in their teens) and to 25 to 50 percent among daily users. According to the 2013 NSDUH, marijuana accounted for 4.2 million of the estimated 6.9 million Americans dependent on or abusing illicit drugs. Marijuana addiction is linked to a mild withdrawal syndrome. Frequent marijuana users often report irritability, mood and sleep difficulties, decreased appetite, cravings, restlessness, and/or various forms of physical discomfort that peak within the first week after quitting and last up to 2 weeks." (http://www.drugabuse.gov...). The article also contains other good points about the drugs affects (I won't site all of them, you'll have to read them yourself). The article uses the word "dependent" and this usually refers to an addiction. It also causes permanent damage to the brain during adolescence, and if we legalize it, than it will allow more adolescents to obtain it more easily. And a concern I have been thinking of is how parents won't be able to stop their children from smoking marijuana when their children grow up. It will be perfectly legal, so the poor parents have to watch their child become an esteemless wreck, and they can't do anything but weep. Is that so great for society? We need to at least consider that. And make sure you read the article, because it has some good points that work great for evidence. (At least for ME!)

Ii will be arguing that the U.S. should legalise marijuana (both recreational and medical) for 18 year olds and up.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening statementsRound 3: Refutation Round 4: Closing statements.There will be 24 hrs to argue.You will have a character limit of 8,000.There will be a 3 day voting period.Votes must include a comment.The voting style is open voting wth no Elo minimum or maximum.

Last time I tried to debate this, my opponent forfeited before finishing the debate. Please only accept this debate if you are going to finish it. My position is that all illegal drugs should be legalized. I'll post arguments supporting this in the next three posts. Definitions: Illegal- Currently banned under US law. Drugs- There are too many illegal recreational drugs for me to mention them all, but specifically, I will discuss heroin, cocaine/crack, meth, ecstasy, and PCP, and any other drugs my opponent wishes to mention. Legalized- Currently illegal drugs would be given the same legal status as tobacco or alcohol.

"To start off, there are many reasons it should be illegal. Here are just a few of them. "Listed as 'addictive'" [1]Marmarijuana should be illegal for a few reasons. One is that it is addictive and can ruin your life. I would be somewhat for the legalization of marijuana if it was not so addictive. Marijuana can ruin your looks, relationship, and can get you arrested. It would be like smoking, and it would be very bad for your health. It can cure diseases, but using of much of it can DESTROY YOU. It has also been listed to other drugs, such as heroin. If you can barely stop smoking, it wouldn't be hard to understand that you could literally never stop marijuana until you die. For example, many people have been on the run for marijuana use all over the world. It is truly a bad drug, like heroin. "It is associated with unfashionable lifestyles. " [1]This is not a solid argument, but stick with me here. Marijuana is usually thought of by hippies and losers, While this is not exactly true, this may cause a bigger war on drugs to illegalize them. "Marijuana can cause health problems. " [2]Health problems are serious, the worst cancer. Cancer is already a very big problem throughout the whole world and marijuana doesn't help a single thing about that. Marijuana has been linked to damaged brain cells. There are many other incurable things, like acute memory loss. This is just the beginning of many arguments to come. Marijuana should not be legalized at any costs. [1] . http://civilliberty.about.com...[2] . http://www.nytimes.com...

Given that con has not stated for which country, we can assume that this is discussing the law in a general sense. Therefore, as some country's have legalized marijuana whilst others haven't, the burden of proof is shared, as neither of us are arguing for the status quo. I will be arguing that on balance it is beneficial for a country to not have a law preventing the ownership or use of marijuana, whilst my opponent will be arguing that on balance having the law would be beneficial. I shall first provide my arguments and then address my opponents. In this first round I shall be brief in outlining my arguments. 1. Prohibition increases crime rates By prohibiting marijuana it eliminates legal supply without affecting demand, thus creating a black market. This means that criminal activity can be funded by the sale of marijuana, thus allowing for the expansion of drug cartels into other areas, increasing crime. "If you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true." —Milton Friedman By making marijuana illegal, we make smuggling profitable. Making marijuana illegal also leads to police corruption [http://www.ichrp.org...] and causes people to commit crime in order to aquire the finances to illegally purchase the drugs [Duke, Steven B (21 Dec 1993). How Legalization Would Cut Crime.] [Trebach, Arnold S.; Kevin B. Zeese, Milton Friedman (1992). Friedman and Szasz on Liberty and Drugs: Essays on the Free Market and Prohibition] 2. Prohibition is incredibly expensive The cost of enforcing such a law is very expensive. As an example the US has spends 44 billion dollars on enforceing this law. Furthermore the oportunity cost of being unable to tax the drugs is costing somewhere around 7 billion more. [http://blogs.reuters.com...] 3. It is not the role of government to prevent someone from harming oneself through marijuana use The government's role is not to make us make healthy choices, otherwise they would ban fast-food, which is far more ruinous to one's health. The use of law in government is to protect individuals being harmed by others. Given that the only one harmed by the useage of marijuana used sensibly (the government can't legalize against stupidity - just because I can endanger other road users by wearing a tv on my head whilst driving doesn't mean the govt. should make tvs illegal) is one's self, a law restricting use is unjustified. 4. Marijuana is actually a very safe drug comparitively Many studies have shown that the risks of marijuana are very low, even when compared to legal drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, or caffiene [http://www.guardian.co.uk...] Con's arguments. 1. The high is too powerful for most people to control. This is an assertion without warrent. As I have already demonstrated [argument 4] the harm to one's self is minimal. However, even granting that the harm was severe, so what? Does that mean governments should interfere with civil liberties? Why should a government prevent one from harming one's self if it does not harm others? 2. Medical alternatives It is true there are other ways to relieve pain, though seeing as I support non-medical usuage of marijuana, this is irrelevent. I await your response.

Cannabis should be legalized completely and not just for its medicinal properties, but because it can be used for many things such as rope, plastic, paper ,clothes ,and many other uses. I can see a high probability that cannabis will also help the economy.