Question: Should Cannabis Be Available as a Medicinal Alternative?

Cannabis for Medical Use

Cannabis for medical use has been conclusively shown through numerous research studies to be a safe and non-toxic therapeutic option, effective in treating some of the most debilitating medical conditions we encounter, including AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, and more.

My opponent copied the whole article in without changing anything or even citing. I refuse to rebut such a thing. I extend all arguments and expect rebuttal next round. CONCLUSION:My opponent has failed to prove that Marijuana should be legalized due to the fact that he copied and pasted his article in the second round, and most likely in the first. I have proven it should not be legal due to the health risks and how it can really effect you in the long run. Doing so, I believe I have won this debate.

I don't really believe that marijuana is illegal for health reasons, or addiction! I don't believe that pot is any more dangerous than most products that are readily available! Without going into my argument against the Pharmaceutical companies or the alcohol and tobacco industries, I have to point out the amount of harmful substances that are mainstream and extremely addicting that cause serious health conditions! Sugar is the wolf in sheep's clothing while cannabis is the sheep in wolves clothing! Preservatives are in almost everything and even meat has been known to increase tumor growth! The cotton industry along with the tobacco industry forced out marijuana (competition) with propaganda and dogma surrounding the plant to stir up a malicious campaign against Hemp and Marijuana! If you watch refer madness now its good for a laugh, but back then it manipulated people with racist and ignorant messages! Apparently they were stupid enough to believe it and now we have the biggest contradiction in the history of America, and a prohibition that simply cost the tax payers money with very negative results!

You can point out all you want, but the comparison is valid. Both are considered recreational drugs. Marijuana is all natural, and helps with many ailments. It has been prescribed and freely ingested for hundreds of years or more. Not one death has been fully attributed to it at all. http://freecannabis.net... Prohibition of marijuana is comparable to that of alcohol in the early part of 1900s. People are going to do it, regardless of legality, if marijuana was legally available as an option other than alcohol, you would be essentially saving those lives from liver disease, alcoholism, and other short or long term effects of alcohol, in exchange for some slight memory loss, (which is why smart phones come in handy) good sleep, and a surge in sales at local cookie factories. For those states that have yet to legalize, the marijuana market belongs mainly to drug sellers that sell far worse chemicals along with it. Looking at Colorado, where it has become legal, crime rates have dropped, and jobs have been created. Since the first retail marijuana stores opened on January 1st, 2014, the state of Colorado has benefitted from a decrease in crime rates, a decrease in traffic fatalities, an increase in tax revenue and economic output from retail marijuana sales, and an increase in jobs. http://www.mintpressnews.com... Farmers are finally making a decent living now. Taxation of marijuana has helped build schools, and more. The age requirement helps keep the plant out of underage hands, when drug dealers have no age requirements, and young customers may be tempted to buy more dangerous drugs. The money from these deals usually go to buy guns, etc. Cartels get a lot of business from the black market, which is unavoidable due to the increase in useage, so keeping the sale illegal is ideal to them. The prison industry also gains plenty from prohibition of marijuana, because most people don't want to quit using, regardless of legality, resulting in overcrowded prison populations, most for as little as a single cannabis cigarette. It is for this reason America has the highest percentage of incarcerated people's in the world. Smoking the plant, while far less dangerous than cigarettes, provide the easiest, quickest release of thc, but with legalization, comes more innovative, safer techniques for intake, such as edibles and vaping. http://www.iflscience.com...https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Big pharmacy, which accounts for very serious side effects, will also take a paycut with the legalization of marijuana, which I'd like to point out to our voters you have dropped. Over half of American adults have at least tried marijuana. Over half of Americans at least think it's a good idea to legalize it. It's a creation of nature that has harmless side effects in most people, and to those who feel it dangerous, or decide they would like to keep their short term memory, only need to stay away from the plant. Did you know that the USFG prescribed a few people(and still supply to this day) several marijuana cigarettes every day? They know it has medical significance, even admitting that cannabis cures cancer in question 6 of the q&a section of the .gov link below, which is hypocritical.http://www.cbsnews.com...http://www.cancer.gov...Doctors, lawyers, and business owners like myself smoke cannabis on a daily basis. While it's best done in privacy to unwind. Most of America thinks it's a good thing, it makes most people happy with very little dangers, if any. Notice how many time my opponent uses words like "may" or "could" and saying they don't know the long-term effects. We've been using this God given plant for centuries, is it possible that there are no long term effects? If you are scared of it, don't use it. Simple as that, but prohibition is not working right now, and we should learn from the areas that have legalized it, and move forward. Many states would have already done so I'm my opinion, if it weren't for the USFG. The government has a shortage of hackers, some of the smartest men and women on the planet in my honest opinion, because none of the best ones can pass a urinalysis for cannabis. So much for that whole brain killing argument.http://motherboard.vice.com... http://www.wsj.com...

Inspired by http://www.debate.org... Each person must argue the resolution to the best of their ability. But the catch is, each person must use as many logical fallacies as possible. The arguments vote should be given to the person with the best balance between persuasiveness and fallaciousness. To my opponent, please do not argue semantics or attempt to weasel out of the spirit of the debate. Since sources are irrelevant, the sources vote should be defaulted to the winner of the arguments/fallacies. Now to get on with the arguments. ======== It is vital that we legalize marijuana for the welfare of society. According to this poll (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...), 52% of Americans want to legalize it, while only 37% are opposed. The choice is clear. If we do not begin marijuana on a regular basis, the only alternative is to inflict great suffering on every man, woman and child across the nation. According to my uncle, who is a widely known medical doctor, marijuana has great health benefits. My great uncle, a world-renowned university professor, concurs. He believes that everyone should smoke marijuana in order to enrich their lives. Marijuana is made from the cannabis plant. Plants have evolved side by side with humans; human bodies are designed to be able to use them. So you see, smoking marijuana is a very natural process. Let me give an example. I had a friend named Jill. She was unhappy with her job and had become very depressed. So her doctor prescribed a daily smoking of marijuana. In no time, she felt much better. Marijuana is great. Everyone knows it. The health benefits have been proven in laboratories time and time again. It would be absurd to even try to argue that marijuana is harmful. My opponent must be crazy to accept this debate. Someone who does not smoke marijuana every day is comparable to someone who does not eat every day. It's just not healthy. What kind of person could advocate that sort of lifestyle? Marijuana is great, everyone knows it. That much is undeniable. My opponent is going to have a hard time breaking down my impenetrable arguments based on flawless reasoning.

The first and most basic reason that marijuana should be legal is that there is no good reason for it not to be legal. Some people ask 'why should marijuana be legalized?" but we should ask "Why should marijuana be illegal?" From a philosophical point of view, individuals deserve the right to make choices for themselves. The government only has a right to limit those choices if the individuals actions endanger someone else. This does not apply to marijuana, since the individual who chooses to use marijuana does so according to his or her own free will. The government also may have a right to limit individual actions if the actions pose a significant threat to the individual. But this argument does not logically apply to marijuana because marijuana is far less dangerous than some drugs which are legal, such as alcohol and tobacco The second important reason that marijuana should be legal is that it would save our government lots of money. In the United States, all levels of government (federal, state, and local authorities) participate in the "War on Drugs." We currently spend billions of dollars every year to chase peaceful people who happen to like to get high. These people get locked up in prison and the taxpayers have to foot the bill. We have to pay for food, housing, health care, attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses to lock these people up. This is extremely expensive! We could save billions of dollars every year as a nation if we stop wasting money locking people up for having marijuana. In addition, if marijuana were legal, the government would be able to collect taxes on it, and would have a lot more money to pay for effective drug education programs and other important causes. The third major reason that marijuana should be legal is because prohibition does not help the country in any way, and causes a lot of problems. There is no good evidence that prohibition decreases drug use, and there are several theories that suggest prohibition might actually increase drug use (i.e. the "forbidden fruit" effect, and easier accessibility for youth). One unintended effect of marijuana prohibition is that marijuana is very popular in American high schools. Why? Because it is available. You don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana -- marijuana dealers usually don't care how old you are as long as you have money. It is actually easier for many high school students to obtain marijuana than it is for them to obtain alcohol, because alcohol is legal and therefore regulated to keep it away from kids. If our goal is to reduce drug consumption, then we should focus on open and honest programs to educate youth, regulation to keep drugs away from kids, and treatment programs for people with drug problems. But the current prohibition scheme does not allow such reasonable approaches to marijuana; instead we are stuck with 'DARE' police officers spreading lies about drugs in schools, and policies that result in jail time rather than treatment for people with drug problems. We tried prohibition with alcohol, and that failed miserably. We should be able to learn our lesson and stop repeating the same mistake There are plenty of other reasons why marijuana should be legal. Just to name a few: Medicinal use: Marijuana can be used as medicine because it helps to stimulate appetite and relieve nausea in cancer and AIDS patients. Hemp: The hemp plant is a valuable natural resource. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate the confusion surrounding hemp and allow us to take advantage of hemp's agricultural and industrial uses. Religious Use:Some religions instruct their followers to use marijuana. Just like Christianity and Judaism instruct their followers to drink wine on certain occaisions, some Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, and members of other religions use marijuana as part of their spiritual and religious ceremonies. These people deserve the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the government cannot 'prohibit the free exercise' of religion, and so marijuana should be legal.

I accept. With a normative resolution, we obviously have a shared burden of proof. RebuttalsPro says, "pot can cause problems such as mental health issues." Pro provides zero evidence for this claim, and fails to explain why, even if this were the case, states shouldn't legalize pot. Pro says, "they've done studies on this. this just causes disability and welfare spending to increase a lot more." If they have done studies on this subject, why hasn't Pro provided any? She is doing nothing more than making baseless assertions, and fails to connect her points to why states shouldn't legalize pot. Pro says, "most states should be monitoring colorado and washington to see how much the bad effects arise in those states." Note that she does nothing more than assume that there will be negative effects in Washington and Colorado, but provides no evidence that there is or will be. Monitoring these states is not a bad idea; it would allow states to effectively come to a consensus on the proper implementation of policy and what regulations would be effective at curbing any potential negative impact. But that is far different than maintaining current restrictive laws prohibiting pot. My Case C1) Bodily Autonomy Via Murray Rothbard: "The right to self-ownership asserts the absolute right of each man, by virtue of his (or her) being a human being, to “own” his or her own body; that is, to control that body free of coercive interference. Since each individual must think, learn, value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation" [1].This principle, which asserts a natural right to dominion over our own bodies, is important for several reasons. First, if we rightfully own ourselves, meaning that we are free from the coercion which would result from someone else owning or exercising constraint on us, we have the liberty to choose what goes into our bodies. Second, it treats people as fundamentally, intrinsicly valuable individuals capable of deciding for themselves whether it is best to engage in potentially harmful activites, such as using marijuana. Therefore, the government has no business in prohibiting substances in spite of whether or not it deems them to be dangerous.C2) Black Market The core problem with Pro's proposal, and the primary reason that you should vote negative, is that it only deals with legality. Keeping pot illegal has had much the same effect that illegalizing alcohol did: it drives people to black markets. It doesn't erase the demand for these substances, so necessarily people are going to look for other, more dangerous ways to sell and obtain pot, but it's even more dangerous in this way because the government isn't able to regulate it and prevent whoever sells it from spiking it with more dangerous drugs. C3) Victimless Crime Pro's proposal is, at its core, fundamentally unjust because it seeks to place people in jail for a victimless crime. Smoking marijuana does not in any way harm another person or impinge on their freedom. The government cannot and should not seek to protect people from themselves, as this would be a blatant disregard for the self-ownership principle. C4) Medicinal Value Pro's proposal suggests that states should not at all legalize pot, which fails to account for the fact that pot has medicinal value, particularly for cancer patients or people with severe pain. "Modern research suggests that cannabis is a valuable aid in the treatment of a wide range of clinical applications. These include pain relief -- particularly of a neuropathic pain (pain for nerve damage) -- nausea, spasticity, glaucoma, and movement disorders. Marijuana is also a powerful appetitte stimulant, specifically for patients suffering from HIV, the AIDS wasting syndrome, or dementia. Emerging research suggests that marijuana's medicinal properties may protect the body against some types of malignant tumors and are neuroprotective. Currently, more than 60 U.S. and international health organizations support granting patients immediate legal access to medicinal marijuana under a physician's supervision. [2]." C5) Economic Value of Legalization Dr. Miron from Harvard, in his paper entitled "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition," found the following [3]: -Replacing prohibition of pot with regulation would save a total of $7.7 billion on enforcement costs, $2.4 of which at the federal level and $5.3 at the state and local level. -It would generate a significant amount of revenue -- $2.4 billion if taxed like a regular consumer good, or $6.2 billion if it were taxed like alcohol or tobacco. Sources [1] http://utahliberty.org...;[2] http://norml.org...;[3] http://www.in.gov...;

I shall begin my case.Contention 1: Marijuana is dangerousMarijuana has negative side effects when individuals are exposed to it for both short term and long term periods of usage. It distorts your senses, can make you panic, give you anxiety, and increase the rate of your heartbeat, which risks a chance of a heart attack, and since heart attacks are lethal, this means that Marijuana can kill you overtime. Marijuana distorts both you both physically and psychologically. It can make you depressed, reduce your sexual capacity, reduce illness resistance in your body, and destroy your lungs fibers which could potentially be permanent. It also can give you psychosis and schizophrenia. Bronchitis and lung infections are also negative effects you can get from this lethal substance. But worst of all, it increases risk of cancer. It increases amount of cell mutations in your body and when the users smoke them, they inhale carcinogens, which have been scientifically proven to give you cancer by either manipulating your dna directly or increasing the rate of cells dividing, which increases chances of cancerous cells forming. The worst part of Marijuana is the simple fact that it contains up to 50-70% more of the cancer causing substances than tobacco does, and it can cause the same amount of damage as FIVE cigarettes being smoked one at a time.All of the above I have stated are negative effects Marijuana can give you, and we shouldn't allow a drug that is dangerous or lethal, as it causes an unnecessary amount of pain to those who are exposed to it, and each single period of time smoking marijuana is much worse than a single period of time of smoking tobacco.Contention 2: In Colorado, pot increased the crime rateFrom 2004 to 2012, crime rate in Colorado decreased by 32%, that is until pot was legalized, because once it was, crime rate was increased by 21% in just 2 years, with an average of 10.5% per year, whereas the crime rate from 2004 to 2012 decreased at a rate of 4% per year. If crime rates are increasing now with marijuana faster than it was decreasing, then Colorado has a problem. The rate could keep increasing of it is not stopped, and the problem is, this is just Colorado. Imagine if every state allowed people to smoke weed. There are only 4 states in the U.S that have 0 restrictions on Marijuana, while there are 22 states where Marijuana is illegal. Would you want to risk increasing crime rates in all of those states, not even counting the states that have heavy restrictions on Marijuana?Marijuana hurts both the users and the people around the users because as I have demonstrated, it has more cancer causing toxins than tobacco, can give you lung infections which destroy them, can make you depressed and anxious, and it can increase the likelihood of you committing a crimes. Marijuana is clearly not a safe substance, and therefore, it should remain illegal.Sources:http://www.americanthinker.com...http://herb.co...http://www.drugfreeworld.org...http://www.drugfreeworld.org...http://www.narconon.org...

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.

Marijuana is addictive even if it only causes addiction in a small proportion of people. The Pro said that Marijuana is not addictive whatsoever, I proved him wrong. Im not implying the government has to tell people how to live, dont be stupid. I am saying how some people really dont give a dam about what they do to their bodies and would thus do harm to themselves if drugs such as heroin or marijuana were legalized. Number of Americans who get medical pot from the government = 4, just 4 http://www.cbsnews.com... Marijuana can treat depression for those who have it but it can also cause depression in those who dont have it, see my previous sources Steve Jobs wasnt a pot head, he smoked it a few times his first semester in college and then never did it again so dont glorify him as an example for how Pot doesnt do harm to society The Pro has conceded that Marijuana is addictive and has many dangerous side effects, and the Pro has conceded that there are over 400 agents in Marijuana that cause cancer. Pro has not offered rebuttels to the negative side effects that Marijuana use has been proven to cause or how millions of teenagers do end up in rehabilitation centers with marijuana addiction. His entire debate on why Marijuana should be legal is because it is safer than Tobacco and Alcohol, substances which kill 8.5 million a year combined..... Just because something isnt as harmful as the two most dangerous substances on Earth does not mean it should be legalized, Marijuana is a drug and should not be legalized.

I'd like to start off by saying I don't support prohibition of any kind, however I will attempt to debate from a pro-prohibition mindset. **NOTHING I SAY IN THIS REPRESENTS MY ACTUAL VIEWS** Marijuana is currently legal in 7 states within the United States of America, and the US's citizens have been pushing for the legalization of marijuana. Many people believe marijuana to be a wonder-drug, with few negative effects, however this is not true. Marijuana can cause hallucinations, delusions, and psychosis when taken in high doses. As well as impaired memory even in low doses. Marijuana also affects brain development. When people begin using marijuana as teenagers, the drug may impair thinking, memory, and learning functions and affect how the brain builds connections between the areas necessary for these functions. Researchers are still studying how long marijuana's effects last and whether some changes may be permanent. For example, a study from New Zealand conducted in part by researchers at Duke University showed that people who started smoking marijuana heavily in their teens and had an ongoing marijuana use disorder lost an average of 8 IQ points between ages 13 and 38. Those who are depended on heroin, and other opiates are disproportionately involved in criminal activity. Here is an excerpt from an article from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... titled "Insights into the link between drug use and criminality: Lifetime offending of criminally-active opiate users" "We test whether the offending trajectory of those who test positive for opiates is greater than test-negative controls and whether the relationship is constant both prior to, and post, opiate initiation. We consider whether these relationships differ according to gender and offence type. The study provides an analysis of historical offending records in adults linked to test results for opiate and cocaine metabolites. Those testing positive for opiates were linked to treatment records to retrieve data on age of opiate initiation. Rate ratios (RR) were calculated to compare opiate positive testers to opiate and cocaine negative controls, separately by gender and adjusting for age and birth cohort. Age of opiate initiation was included in a second model as a time-dependent variable. Within-subject clustering was accounted for using generalized estimating equations. Opiate-positive cases had higher rates of offending than test-negative controls, both prior to, and post, opiate initiation. Initiation of opiate use increased the RR by 16% for males but doubled it for females. The RR increase in non-serious acquisitive crime was greater than that seen in serious crime. For males only, opiate initiation narrowed the difference in violent offending rate between cases and controls. A larger offending increase was associated with opiate initiation in female, compared to male, users. For most crime categories, the difference between groups is exacerbated by opiate initiation. The findings indicate that opiate prevention initiatives might be effective in reducing offending, particularly among females." It is clear that these substances cause crime, and can be quite dangerous. (NOTE: I threw this crap together quite sloppy, so please excuse improper grammar, and overall s**ty-ness of this argument) Sources used: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.drugfreeworld.org...


Question: Should Cannabis Be Available as a Medicinal Option?

Medical Cannabis

Still, there are several points I would like to emphasize: 1: The opposition has failed to counter any of my arguments up to this point, thereby conceding to every single one of my points. 2: The opposition has continuously overlooked the argument that it is the responsibility of the users to decide how to use marijuana. They have only restated the potential harm that marijuana might cause, without addressing the user's autonomy or providing any rebuttals to the propositions made by the proponent (me). 3: Remember the phrase used by the opposition, "damages the brain, respiratory...". This is entirely misleading. The term "respiratory" refers to the breathing system, which is completely unrelated to this debate.

I will add only add one more point in this round. A study found that THC, the main psychoactive substance found within cannabis, may actually strengthen one's nicotine addiction. In essence, if a person tried to wean themselves off of tobacco using marijuana, they would be more inclined to relapse and return back to smoking tobacco, thus defeating the object of using marijuana as an alternative. Source: http://www.hightimes.com...

Recreational Marijuana should not be legalized. It is harmful and dangerous, and legalizing it would be no better than legalizing heroin. Addictive substances such as this should not be allowed to harm our citizens. While there is danger in legalizing it, there is no danger in keeping it illegal. Therefore, the logical solution is that recreational marijuana be kept illegal. Also, while people say that it only harms the people who use it, what about those people's friends and families? It is important to protect everyone possible from the effects of recreational marijuana.

Since the early 1900s, weed has been demonized and considered harmful and destructive. Today, several studies have arose to disprove these theories. One study suggests that the only effect of cannabis on humans is the temporary loss of short-term memory. Nobody has ever died, or contracted any health issues caused by using weed. The government and smaller organizations including D.A.R.E. have gone out of their way to demonize this plant in an effort to hide it's many uses from the public. Some examples of common propaganda include the theory of weed acting as a "gateway" drug, the theory of weed causing lung cancer/tumors, and countless others. These are all untrue.

I just want to say that marijuana, while proven to have some negative side effects, are nothing compared to another recreational drug, alcohol. The side effects of marijuana are often temporary, and can be reduced to none when the drug is no longer in the users system. Marijuana as a medicine is often much safer than the legal counterparts, prescription drugs. Side effects from prescription drugs often include death, organ failure, etc.

My RefutationsThe Format"First off, I provided the format I did for a reason. The topic of marijuana'slegalization has many subjects, and my provided format allowed for each subject"At the same times, you have addressed far too many topics at once for anyone to go into possible detail on any of them. I have looked at several of your debates and none of them seem really that serious for any past reference. In fact, you even exploit how bad your format is with this sentence in another debate:"Unfortunately, I must address your last few statements in a following post due to text limitations." [1] This is the major problem with your format. You should not have to address topics from one round in another round. Your given a generous amount of characters to deal with this and you are forced to use more than this limit with the several topics. In no other debate about marijuana have seen this kind of format because debaters no it creates a negative effect. Because of this I will not follow your format and will stay on my own.By generalizing, this helps me because some of the counter arguments I put in overlap. That is why I will not specify what specific argument, as I am countering all arguments. Finally, you asked me to specify the exact portion of the source. This also takes up characters, so my response is no.Negative Effects and Positive Effects"Yet you fail to provide any support for this. One can also say that in the 1800's the sky was pink. Furthermore, I already said that I do not wish to discuss drugs, only marijuana." Marijuana is one of the drugs when they looked into it and they found that it is addictive."The first is that while illegal, the general use of a drug is increased (3)." This is incorrect because the cost of committing the crime creates deterrence from using a drug, specifically marijuana. Without these in place then more people would use the marijuana. [2]Besides being strongly addictive, it is very toxic. As said here:“The scientists found that ammonia levels were 20 times higher in the marijuana smoke than in the tobacco smoke, while hydrogen cyanide, nitric oxide and certain aromatic amines occurred at levels 3-5 times higher in the marijuana smoke, they say. The finding is “important information for public health and communication of the risk related to exposure to such materials.” [3]As for the experiment in Alaska, I am arguing that marijuana must stay criminalized, so because it was decriminalized I must argue the negative effects of that since that is a step toward legalization. My opponent even admitted that it gave individuals the right to own an ounce or less. However, the fact remained that it was regulated and anyone under 19 could not own it. Nevertheless, youths had more access after decriminalization. This justifies why marijuana must remain criminalized.Onto the black market. My opponent here is just simply wrong. Maybe he does not know what taxes is. Say I tax the product by 400%, now what are the chances people are going to purchase it legally? They would prefer to buy it on the black market. It is illogical to say taxation or regulation would make the price the same as its price during prohibition. Look at this:"Amsterdam’s experience is already being duplicated in California under the current medical marijuana statute. In Los Angeles, police report that areas surrounding cannabis clubs have experienced a 200 percent increase in robberies, a 52.2 percent increase in burglaries, a 57.1 percent increase in aggravated assault, and a 130.8 percent increase in burglaries from automobiles. Current law requires a doctor’s prescription to procure marijuana; full legalization would likely spark an even more acute increase in crime." [4]The Netherlands is not as great as people think it is.Also on the DUI's, that was specifically marijuana only, just to clear up the confusion. My opponent seems to think itsw something else. Again, I am defending criminalization like I said before. The fact that the marijuana was decriminalized means that it is a step toward legalization. Marijuana is one of the numerous illegalized drugs. I have already explained the increased toxication as well. In fact, in the Netherlands: "The increasing use of marijuana is responsible for more than increased crime. It has widespread when minor possession of all drugs was social implications as well. The head of Holland’s decriminalized. best-known drug abuse rehabilitation center has described what the new drug culture has created: The strong form of marijuana that most of the young people smoke, he says, produces "a chronically passive individual—someone who is lazy, who doesn’t want to take initiatives, doesn’t want to be active—the kid who’d prefer to lie in bed with a joint in the morning rather than getting up and doing something." [2]Prohibition has Failed"The main difference between murder and marijuana is that murder is an act and marijuana is a good. As my source (3) supports, any illicit good with demand is increased by prohibition because of demand and despite enforcement. While an act has no demand, therefore, it necessarily goes down following prohibition, due to enforcement." Murder and marijuana are still both largely illegal, but people will always break that law. Its irrelevant that one is a good and one is not. Also, drug use has gone down massively: "The facts are to the contrary to such pessimism. On the demand side, the U.S. has reduced casual use, chronic use and addiction, and prevented others from even starting using drugs. Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs." [2]Finally:"Your point here is invalid since your source [1] was not found."I have that source downloaded. I am also a historian and the fact is prohibition was more succesful than you think. Alcohol ownership after prohibition was still down and never reached the levels before the Volstead Act until the 1960s-1970s. It did work to an extent. Today we are more efficient and prohibition of drugs has continued to work. So I can use the source because I have it downloaded. You just simply cannot find it, but that makes no difference.Government's PlaceMy opponent's source is just simply wrong. This is a direct quote from one of the Founding Fathers. Legislating morality is basically legislating right and wrong. Since marijuana is wrong and bad conduct, it must be kept illegal. As put forward by one of DDO's greatest users:"The constitution embodies a code of conduct put forward by the founding fathers and embody their subjective views, and the amendments embody codes of conduct put forward by subsequent Congresses and embody their subjective views, and the amendments were validated by Supreme court justices in various court decisions whenever applicable, and thus embody their subjective views. This code of conduct, this subjective morality, is the law under which we abide, else we face some form of punishment from the state." [5]Sources1. http://www.debate.org...2. "Speaking Out: Against Drug Legalization." Justice.gov. Department of Justice, n.d. Web.3. "Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels Of Certain Toxins Than Tobacco Smoke." ScienceDaily,com. ScienceDaily, 18 Dec. 2007. Web.4. Stimson, Charles. "Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No." Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 2010. Web.5. http://www.debate.org...

I have 40 minutes. In response to the new link posted, I argue if cannabis can be proven to be a lie in terms of being dangerous in order to maintain it's illegality, so can other drugs. As read here: http://www.naturalnews.com... You can read that marijuana actually protects people from long term mental problems such as Alzheimer's. This contradicts what we're supposed to be afraid of, and is just one example of this contradiction. We're also supposed to be afraid of getting cancer, however modern studies have suggested the complete opposite. THC actually attacks tumors and shrinks them, and not just by smoking. See here: http://www.sfgate.com... To sum up my point, if cannabis can be proven to be completely benign,and actually beneficial to ones health, so could other currently illegal drugs. For instance, psychedelic mushrooms, mescalin, LSD, MDMA, none of these drugs will kill you, and you cannot overdose on them. However they're all illegal, and are not allowed to be studied even though many studies from outside the US and Canada suggest all these drugs could have medicinal value. Shrooms may help with depression, as read here. Note, this is a study done outside the US and Canada: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Next my opponent argues, "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." If these drugs are harmful, then they should be legalized and regulated. Why would you want cocaine to be illegal, when it can be purchased from a drug dealer who does not ask for ID and could sell to minors, who does not know of the potency of the drug, who does not know of the purity of the drug, who does not know of the cleanliness of the drug. I further argue it has been proven everywhere it is easier for underage students to obtain marijuana than alcohol. This is because their drug dealer does not ask for ID. Drugs like Meth and cocaine are very dangerous, and because of this they absolutely should be legal so they can be regulated so people know exactly what they're buying and have to at the very least be of a certain age. This is currently not happening. Next, "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." This is preposterous, you cannot make such a claim. If a drug addict cannot get his "fix" in a legal market, he wouldn't be able to get it in an illegal market anyways. Drugs being in a legal market would make purchasing it more safe, and more reliable. I argue that alcoholics who cannot afford alcohol do not all turn to crime like you suggest, since alcohol is a drug. I see many of them standing outside the liqueur store begging for money. If alcohol was illegal again, they would be drinking an uncertain concentration of moonshine, and how is this any better than we have now? ext, "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." The Netherlands which has cannabis legal, actually has a lower use rate per capita than the US who has it illegal. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... As you can see, the drug being legal did not encourage more use, it actually lowered the amount of users. Next, "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." This is regarding the 40 billion dollars a year spent on maintaining cannabis prohibition alone. You can see here, my statement was a much more conservative one, for many predict the cost of prohibition soars into the hundreds of billions when calculating all it's affects.: http://www.canorml.org... Next, "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." Firstly, I would like to point of tobacco can be purchased legally and would absolutely kill my so, or your son, or any human being. However, our children are now educated, and are intelligent enough to make the right choice to not purchase tobacco, as can be seen by lowered usage rates over the years due to campaigns. Secondly, the link between cannabis and schizophrenia is unproven. However, it is most in favor that it either does not cause, or may only cause it with people predisposed to it. Either way, neither of us can prove this point on either side because it is illegal and difficult to study. Next, "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?" A drug that impairs your ability to think and move properly while being a toxin to your body, harming your brain and liver is currently on the market. A drug that causes the US and Canada billions in health care and kills millions is currently on the market. However if these drugs were illegal, they would kill even more people. We have room to make all drugs legal, and properly educate people on the effects of using them. Them being illegal absolutely does not lower usage rates. ===== I am out of time, what a shame. Unfortunately but not, I was in Cedar Point for a day, and working for other days. I wish I could have participated more thoroughly, though I do feel confident in my arguments. Thank you for the great debate.

Ok here is my argument marijuana is the shiz.... so Vote AFFFFFF...... GO Marijuana

I will be affirming this topic today, because my view (at least for the purposes of this debate) is that laws prohibiting marijuana use are doing more harm than good. Here are my conditions for a successful debate: Round 1 - agreement to debate, introduction Round 2 - definitions, burdens, values, and contention-level arguments Round 3 - refutations to the arguments and conditions created in Round 2 Round 4 - summary and crystallization of the key arguments and voting issue Round 5 - final focus and comments, connection back to the impacts, conclusion Here are a couple of observations hat I have with respect to the previous structure. NEITHER PRO NOR CON MAY DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS. These should be automatic grounds for disqualification: 1. beginning contention-level arguments, definitions, values, burdens, or observations in Round 1 2. doing any refutations of the opponent's arguments in Round 2 (ex: Con cannot spend his/her Round 2 speech refuting my arguments from Round 2) 3. trolling, loitering, or being disrespectful to the opponent And finally, a couple of expectations for the round (so long as my opponent agrees to them): 1. use evidence, statistics, and examples to illustrate arguments 2. follow through with impacts to arguments, clearly defining how each links back to the values and burdens stated at the beginning of the Round 2 speeches 3. sign-post arguments (ex: using contentions or benefits) I will NOT make any definitions or specific arguments until the Con accepts this debate. I look forward to this debate!

"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...

Marijuana is only harmful under circumstances. It is when growers add chemicals to it making it harmful. If the argument you are making is that is it poison then you should be arguing for cigarettes to be made illegal. Cigarettes have many more chemicals added on by manufacturers compared to the minimal amount usually added by cannabis growers. Where have you found that it was harmful and a "poison"? Synthetic marijuana is harmful but naturally grown is very beneficial.


Question: Should Cannabis Be Available as a Medicinal Option?

Resolved: The Federal Government has the authority to legalize medical marijuana and industrialized hemp.

To clarify, the resolution asserts that the Federal Government (US Federal Government) has the capability (not the obligation) to legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp. The "and/or" part of the resolution is included because the DEA groups both under their prohibition of marijuana, without recognizing industrialized hemp, which uses a non-psychoactive strain of cannabis with less than 1% THC, as a separately scheduled substance. The resolution acknowledges that medical marijuana and industrialized hemp can be addressed separately through the DEA and FDA, as they are generally treated as distinct issues with benefits for different societal groups (patients versus farmers).

Addressing my opponent's arguments would deviate from my resolution, which focuses on the Federal Government's power to legalize medical marijuana and industrialized hemp, not the moral or health implications of such legalization. The government has previously legalized substances with potential health risks, such as alcohol, cigarettes, and certain prescription drugs. The contention that marijuana has a high potential for abuse is not unique to marijuana, as many medicines can be abused. Alcohol, for instance, has a much higher potential for abuse and is not widely recognized for medical use compared to marijuana.

Medical agencies have supported the use of marijuana for specific medical indications. The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Medical Student Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Preventive Medical Association, the Belgian Ministry of Health, and the British Medical Association have all issued statements in favor of medical marijuana. These statements highlight marijuana's medical benefits and its safety profile, which is often superior to that of other drugs.

Multiple petitions for rescheduling marijuana have been submitted over the past three decades. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule II would protect patients and physicians from current Federal laws that conflict with state medical marijuana laws. House Resolution 5843, titled the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008, would support a limited number of individuals suffering from chronic pain or illness to use marijuana without legal repercussions.

Legalization involves removing legal prohibitions against something currently illegal, often applied to victimless crimes like drug consumption. It differs from decriminalization, which removes criminal charges but retains associated laws and regulations. Given the Federal Government's power, through various means such as House bills, rescheduling, or Supreme Court rulings, to "eliminate Federal penalties prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana," as stated in House Res. 5843, I affirm that the US Federal Government has

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...

Alright this is my first debate. I know you may not think I am a good debater since no one has seen mine. Marijuana shouldn't be legalized due to the reasons that the high is too powerful for most people to control. I understand it is used for medical purposes as a painkiller, but there are other ways to relieve someone's pain.

It is very tame drug, and has little effects. While it's not without it's problems, it's less harmful than cigarettes and even over-the-counter pills. There has been no recorded deaths in history by over-consumption of marijuana. It is not only less harmful than cigarettes and many other drugs, it's much less addictive. Unlike tabacco, it can be eaten and doesn't have to be smoked, thus reducing it's harm even more. Meanwhile, a number of studies in recent years have demonstrated the medical potential of pot. Purified forms of cannabis can be effective at attacking some forms of agressive cancer [1]. Marijuana use has also been tied to better blood sugar control[2], and may help slow the spread of HIV[3]. Legalization of the plant for medical purposes may even lead to lower suicide rates [4].Decriminalizing it would also drasticly reduce the prison population, about 800,000 people are in jail for marijuana, and 70% of that is just for posession of it. [5][1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2]http://www.reuters.com...[3]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[4]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[5]http://hashexpress.wordpress.com...;

I Don't know how many people are actually aware of the drug Mephedrone ( meow). but it has caused a big riot in England, Two teenagers dying from the legal high which has not yet been banned or classed, I stand Pro that if weed was legal and easier accessible , teenagers would not be looking for alternative legal highs .good luck :)

Marijuana should be legal. It isn't as harmful as many legal things. More people die from the use of alcohol and drive under the influence of it. Marijuana isn't addictive like alcohol and it is impossible to overdose on this "drug".

To start off I have never once smoked pot in my life. So I'm not some stoner complaining. I support the legalization of marajuana because the prohibition of marajuana has failed miserably. Actually, the war on drugs has inadvertently caused more human suffering then it has prevented. But I'm not saying that if people are gonna do something regardless of laws that we should legalize everything. I think that marajuana is not as harmful as we have been led to believe and that it can actually be a great benefit to society.

I will begin my rebuttals now. Rebuttals"I believe my opponent is aware that marijuana is a drug not commonly connected with overdoses. "I am aware. "I do not believe he has ever heard of an overdose of medical marijuana or addiction to it because neither have I or most people on this Earth. "That is right, I have not. My opponent then gave a long quote about how the FDA approves medical marijuana but not recreational marijuana. It is true that they do this, however it does not mean medical marijuana is safe. It simply means medical marijuana is the only known method of treating the certain disease or disorder. "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? "I am aware, yes, however, as I stated in my previous argument, I said nil about addictions. I have been talking about the dangerous side effects of medical marijuana. My opponent seems to be aware of these side effects when he said "I do not deny that marijuana, when used in a large amount, is damaging. ""Marijuana, when abused and overused, will be termination instead of salvation. "I concur. "I argue, however, that medical marijuana can be salvation for victims of epilepsy and other such conditions when used properly. "Is my opponent aware that it doesn't always work and that it had more unfortunate side effects than relief? "However, marijuana can be bred to have a low percentage of chemicals that cause you to be high and a high percentage of chemicals that affect the desired parts of the body in question. Marijuana has two main components: THC and CBD. "I am aware of this, however it is still not the point I am getting at. I am not talking about the dangers of recreational marijuana, I am speaking of the undeniable side effects of medical marijuana, even when bred a certain way. "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. "Indeed, however the percentage makes it more of a 'will' than a 'can'. "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. "Not all will take it long-term, but most will. Things like epilepsy take a long time to cure. "Also, my opponent has chosen to ignore the fact that marijuana does not need to be smoked. "I have not denied this, but have expressed and accepted it clearly. "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. "Minor? Since when are respiratory issues, hunger, and giddiness minor problems? My opponent quoted my statement: "As you can see, it can be used to help people, but . .. is different depending on the person. " He then said this: "This statement and, really, my opponent's entire argument is not sufficient. I urge the viewers and judges to carefully consider this. "How is my statement not sufficient? I am clearly stating the undeniable dangers of medical marijuana use. "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. "Um. .. Why would I not 'ignore this statemtent' when it was not yet time for rebuttals? I was simply following my opponent's rules. I have already refuted this anyway, so there is no reason to do it again. "There is another aspect my opponent has chosen to ignore. I made the following statement: "One can easily be addicted to pills, tablets, serums. .. "Again, it was not time for rebuttals. "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. "I did not ignore it, I simply did not wish to break the rules. Secondly, the only reason we do not use the traditional medicine is because we have not discovered it. Instead, we are using a dangerous alternative. We should focus out research on finding safer alternatives. "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. "Yes, it is the safest, but not safe. It has serious problems. ConclusionIn conclusion, I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments and have proven them incorrect. I patently await my opponent's final rebuttals.

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'.

Marijuana should NOT be legalized due to it's effects although it helps relax you it is also bad for you like for instance it makes your skin sensitive to cold and heat. It also makes your mouth dry which makes you drink more water, juice, soda etc. which can cause you to over hydrate. Back to you pro

The brain scans that were done were done in the 70's were done on monkeys who were strapped to a gas mask and pumped with 63 joints, no oxygen was passed through, they were losing brain cells not because of the chemicals but because of lac of oxygen, they were passing out. And yes lung damage may occur over the years but its only from breathing in the heated smoke, and is nothing compared to the damages caused by tobacco, and addiction is non exsistant, sure it might suck without it for a wile but look at the withdraws from tabacco and liq, its no where close to them. the reason so many people are in rehab because of it is because the process is out of this world, if your caught with it, you go to court and have two choices, jail, or rehab, the answer is very obvious. And what you described as a burnout is not right, a burnout is almost like a hang over, it lasts for maybe a half a day and your just tiered, making it seem like your un-attentive and un- caring. But there is no way it lasts you in the long run, look at all the very successful people who smoked since they were 10 and became something big, they didn't get there by chance. And are you aware of hemp? Hemp is a all in one amazing cheap product that will nearly save our economy. Hemp can be grown anywhere, and has thousands of uses. It is the strongest rope, it can be easly turned into fuel, and can be made into paper, the first document of the deceleration of Independence was made on hemp paper, its just stupid to keep cannabis illleagle. And cannabis, i do not consider a drug, its a herb. And by people saying people do stupid stuff when their high on pot is completely true, but not to the existent of injury, when people are high on pot they are not on high speed chases or running around with guns like drunks or hard drugs do to you, when your high on pot, you just want to relax, people dont get angry when they are high and they dont get sad, they just relax and let it take its curse, its almost impossible to explain. No one can ever give the country a straight answer on why it is illeagle, in the early 19th century it was illeagle because it was said that all the tribal people and African Americans smoked it making them violent, then during Vietnam it was made illeagle for the complete opposite reason, it was said to make people nicer and that our enemies will use it against us. I mean its proven to be non threatening to your life, there is little to no withdraw, thousands of things we can do with it other then getting high. I dont have to get into the medical uses of it cause those are already in use and not one problem has occurred yet. Im not a hippie, im a 26 year old collage graduate making 114,000 a year with a beautiful wife and 2 kids i love to death.............and i smoke pot. I just dont see why we keep on pushing this law, we spend millions in law enforcement to stop a drug that has caused no problems to people but the law against it, in my opinion we just drop it and go after the real drugs, like crack PCP ect, and maybe start thinking what people are doing, keeping the two most toxic addicting substances (tobacco, liq) leagle, and the most effective, non threatning herb on the other side of the law. The only thing that makes scence is that it makes no scene at all. And P.S. I typed this high


Question: Should Cannabis Be Available as a Medical Treatment?

The legalization of marijuana is a contentious issue that has sparked heated debates among policymakers, healthcare professionals, and the public. Here are some arguments against legalizing marijuana:

1. **Marijuana as a Gateway Drug**: Studies have shown a correlation between marijuana use and the subsequent use of harder drugs. According to research by the Yale University School of Medicine, marijuana use can lead to an increased likelihood of prescription drug abuse. [1] The US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration also reports that among lifetime marijuana users who started after age 20, a small percentage have used heroin, cocaine, and psychotherapeutics nonmedically. [2] This suggests that marijuana may act as a gateway to more potent substances.

2. **Negative Health Effects**: Marijuana use can have immediate effects such as distorted perception, impaired coordination, cognitive difficulties, and increased heart rate. [4] These effects can lead to increased accidents, posing a risk to public safety. Long-term use can cause lung problems, cancer, weaken the immune system, and lead to birth complications. [4] It is important to consider these health risks when evaluating the legalization of marijuana.

3. **Ethical Considerations**: From a utilitarian perspective, legalizing marijuana may not maximize happiness for the greatest number of people, considering the potential societal and health impacts. [9] From a Kantian ethics standpoint, if everyone were to use marijuana regularly, it could lead to a society in which no one would want to live. [11] Both ethical frameworks suggest that legalizing marijuana may be morally questionable.

4. **Increased Access for Children**: Legalization could potentially increase the availability of marijuana to children and teenagers, whose developing brains are more susceptible to the drug's effects. [12] While marijuana is currently less accessible to minors than substances like alcohol, legalization could change this dynamic.

5. **Benefits of Arrests**: Arrests for drug-related offenses can prevent further crimes by removing individuals who have shown a propensity to break the law from society. [15] While rehabilitation is an important consideration, incarceration can address the source of the problem and lead to a safer society.

6. **Slippery Slope to Harder Drugs**: Arguments for marijuana legalization could be extended to justify the legalization of more harmful substances like heroin. [17] The principle of personal choice, often cited in marijuana debates, could be similarly applied to other drugs, raising concerns about broader drug policy implications.

These points illustrate some of the concerns associated with legalizing marijuana. It is crucial to weigh

This is a debate involving the legalization of cannabis/marijuana.I wish to challenge this person to a debate.7,000 characters72 hours to argue3 rounds (short debate)DEFINITIONS:Cannabis: any of the preparations (as marijuana or hashish) or chemicals (as THC) that are derived from the hemp and are psychoactive. [1]Legalization:to make (something) legal : to allow (something) by law [2]Good luck.Cites: [1]- http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]- http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I'm fairly new to this site and to debating but this is a controversial issue that I have opinions on. I accept this debate but I would like to state that I'm not against medical marijuana if it is approved by a doctor.

Marijuana has altering affects on a humans mind that cause cancer and many other diseases. Marijuana has some benefits to it, but not enough to balance it's cons, let alone succeed them.

(Dont worry about the delayed response, no harm done :) ) Ok lets get to it then 1) "Prohibition does not stop consumers from consuming it." Prohibition of Marijuana does control consumption of it because it severely limits ACCESS to it. People who are addicted to Marijuana will go to extreme costs and pay even more to have access to the drug, but legalizing it would mean everyone would have constant access to it and then millions of more people would increase the number of those addicted to the drug and the side effects it causes..... 2) "If used correctly Marijuana can be an alternative to many medicines". Now let me state that this is very true but there are 2 problems. The first is that it must be used correctly, If Marijuana were to be used for medical purposes it would have to be prescribed by a licensed doctor to only one individual who has a disease or ailment that Marijuana can alleviate. After that the prescription only can allow that single person access to a very limited amount of Marijuana so that it could improve his/her health without triggering an addiction. legalizing marijuana for all would cause many many people to abuse it and become addicted to it which would cause more health problems then it would solve since Marijuana only causes ailments to subside by causing a euphoria in the person using it. The second is that this argument is a good argument for the legalization of MEDICAL Marijuana (which i do support) but this debate is about the legalization of Marijuana as a drug. Legalizing it as a drug would make it available to millions of Americans who would most likely abuse the drug or suffer side effects from using it..... Marijuana is safer than tobacco and alcohol, this is true but your comparing it to two of the most harmful substances in the world. Marijuana is less dangerous than tobacco but Marijuana contains hundreds of chemicals that have been proven to be carcinogenic (cause cancer) http://www.abovetheinfluence.com... Marijuana also causes an enormous number of teenage addictions, in fact addictions to Marijuana are greater than addictions to all the other illegal narcotics COMBINED The dangerous aspect about Marijuana is that it directly causes very few deaths compared to other substances (both legal and illegal) but it causes many many other problems that could lead directly to death Marijuana plays a role in 15% of teenage car deaths, 1 in 6 teenage marijuana users become addicted, Marijuana deteriorates memory, attention, and learning skills which can cause people still in school to flunk People who have used the drug feel less physically and mentally healthy It can worsen psychotic symptoms in people which may cause extreme paranoia http://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.abovetheinfluence.com... http://www.well.com... http://www.teengrowth.com... I agree that Marijuana is not as lethal (keyword lethal) as tobacco or alcohol, but i do believe that Marijuana should still remain illegal because it causes many harmful side effects that can harm people and play a factor (just a factor) in their deaths as well..... As of 2012 guess how many deaths in the US involved Marijuana, almost 64,000 deaths and well over 300,000 serious injuries for 2010 ALONE. roughly 370,000 deaths and 2.3 million serious injuries since 2001 http://drugwarfacts.org... Marijuana is a very harmful drug and it should not be legalized as a marketable product

To address your list of "Short-term Hazards", all of these things are also associated with using other legal drugs or even just being highly fatigued and should be of no concern to the general public or government. The only one that could involve others is "Poor Driving Skills". I would say decreased reaction time, and I agree this is bad, but your argument implies that more people would drive under the influence of marijuana if it became legal. In places around the world where legalization and decriminalization strategies have been implemented in the past, consumption rates have actually decreased. To address the "Long-Term Hazards": "Respiratory problems", "Heightened risk of infections, especially the lungs", and "An increased risk of developing lung, head and neck cancers" - That's not what the research says. The only long-term, respiratory consequence of smoking marijuana is an increased lung capacity. Medical professionals are learning more every day that THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) can be used to treat various medical conditions. Some studies show that certain cannabinoids retard the growth of cancer. "Poor short-term recall" and "Inability to shift attention normally" - I'm not sure what you mean by this. There is absolutely no long term, irreversible cognitive damage done by smoking marijuana. "Inability to understand complex information" and "Lack of motivation" - I am offended. I am a senior Industrial Engineer major / Mathematics minor at Texas A&M University with a 3.3 GPR. I was salutatorian of my high school. I am not graduating until May but I signed a job offer at the beginning of this school year at the multi-national corporation I interned at last summer (I'm not saying the name of the company as I don't want to offend anyone associated). I promise you that smoking marijuana since high school has not negatively impacted my ability to "understand complex information" or given me a "Lack of motivation" "Decreased sperm count in men" and "Irregular menstruation in women" - The only research on this I've seen is in a documentary called "Super High Me" and the man's sperm count actually increased during a period of heavy usage following a period of abstinence. "many school children would have access to it." - I challenge you to actually research or think logically about this point because I think it is important to realize why you are wrong. Ask any middle or high school student whether it is easier for them to get marijuana or alcohol. Invariably, the answer will be marijuana. The reason? Drug dealers don't ID. Just as alcohol was easier for minors to get under the prohibition of alcohol, marijuana is easier for children to get under this prohibition of marijuana. "Furthermore, my opponent speaks about job creation if marijuana is legalized. This is simply tedious to mention" - I think you are vastly underestimating the profit margins these corporations will be making and the number of people they will have to employ to become successful. Look at the thousands of jobs that have already been created and the millions of dollars of tax revenue generated in the states who have legalized just medical marijuana. If marijuana were to be legalized nationwide for everyone, these benefits could grow exponentially. "After all, "prevention" is better then "cure"." - Even if this true, I think we can agree, we will never prevent an entire country from using drugs. The failed war on drugs has been pretty strong proof of this. The best way to handle this issue is to get the drug that generates the most profit in the world out of the hands of criminals and into safe, FDA regulated shops. As you can see, I have done a staggering amount of research on this topic and I believe all signs point to legalization. It has been a great success in the places it has been implemented and it is about time America realizes this. Just as prohibition of alcohol failed by every measure, so is the prohibition of marijuana.

"Should video games be illegal? What about sports or talking to women?"Say what you will, I've heard it before. Quite frankly, I've never heard a case of a f***ing mexican cartel geting in a shootout over the latest copy of Call of Duty or some s*** like that.You made a good point about the harmful affects, so I'll give you that one."a gross overexageration of the munchies"I don't think so. It may seem like an exaterattion to you, but some of my friends are potheads. I can tell you from personal experience of being around someone who's high but not high myself that they ate every bag of lays in my house. Maybe I took it too far, but as I said I'm a bit of a d*** about the way I argue.And as for the gateway drug thing that you wrote an entire f***ing seminar on, if weed becomes legal then how does it stop being a gateway drug? People take pharmacudicals all the time illegally, so making it legal might make it worse, because teenagers can get in a whole lot more trouble, and now someone who actually needs that weed for cancer or something can't get it because some idiot names Brody needed to get his weed."I am not trying to be rude but "it completely does" is not an arguement."Okay, fair enough. What I was trying to say is that weed, like any other mood changing substance, causes crazy psychadelic affects. These things can cause certain people to do reckless and impulsive things, mainly because they're just so calm about everything. Alchohol does this too, but instead of calmness, drunks get pissed about everything. I'm not trying to say weed's a bad thing, I'm just trying to get people to drop the subject. It's not like it's hard to find or anything. Are you too lazy to visit a nearby park that you'd rather wait in a line to get some more pot?

Weed, while it is by definition addictive. But it's not unhealthy. If it was, why would it be legal medically? If it's unhealthy, why does it serve as both a method for cancer patients AND as a form of painkiller? (Don't answer that, it was rhetorical.)And why does it piss YOU off? What has weed ever done to you? And what's a weed agenda? Do you actually think that exists? I'm going to let you reply, because I really want to know what a weed agenda is.

This should be brief so I'll jump right in. My first argument can be summarized with this quote from the American Lung Association's website, "We caution the public against smoking marijuana because of the risks it poses to lung health. "[1] Marijuana contains 33 chemicals and cigarettes contain more than 7000. [2] While cigarettes are obviously worse, inhaling any chemicals will still harms your lungs. When the same amount of marijuana and tobacco are smoked, marijuana inhalation brings four times as much tar as tobacco into the lungs. [3] Also, people who smoke only marijuana, have more healthcare visits for respiratory conditions compared to nonsmokers. [4] I may put more arguments in later rounds, but I'll leave it at that for now. 1) . http://www.lung.org... 2) . http://www.lung.org... 3) . http://www.snopes.com... via the ALA 4) Polen MR, Sidney S, Tekawa IS, Sadler M, Friedman GD. Health Care Use by Frequent Marijuana Smokers Who Do Not Smoke Tobacco. West J Med. 1993;158(6):596-601.

Weed at this point is being used a lot. All attempts by the government to stop people smoking weed has only made things worse. We should legalise it so we can regulate it, this way crime families don't make money off of it and the government can make sure it's safe to use.

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...