Question: Should Cannabis Be Available as a Medicinal Alternative?

Marijuana should not be legalized for medical use. Let me explain why. A) The drug impacts a critical organ—the brain. Studies have demonstrated that marijuana affects cerebral blood flow, possibly explaining the cognitive impairments observed in cannabis users [1] [2]. Researchers examined the brain arteries of 54 marijuana users and 18 non-users. "Participants who used marijuana agreed to take part in an inpatient program and abstained from using marijuana for a month." "At the beginning and end of the study, the blood flow in the brain of marijuana users was analyzed. The study found that marijuana users had significantly higher blood flow than non-users, both initially and after a month of abstinence." This study reveals that marijuana not only negatively affects the brain but also that these effects persist even after a month of abstinence (considering marijuana contains nearly 400 chemicals). After discontinuing marijuana use, altered blood flow can lead to difficulties with thinking and memory. Moreover, cannabis use results in elevated pulsatility index (PI) levels. "Compared to individuals with chronic high blood pressure and diabetes, marijuana users had slightly higher PI values," according to researcher Ronald Herning. B) Marijuana has numerous adverse health effects (both short-term and long-term). This includes delayed reaction time, altered sense of time, anxiety, depression, and decreased sperm count and quality (in men). Other symptoms include weakened immune system, reduced ability to store and retrieve information, damage to memory functions (including math and verbal skills), increased blood pressure and heart attack risk, and loss of motivation and interest in daily activities [3] [4]. These side effects can lead to car accidents (if driving after using marijuana), learning difficulties, poor grades, poor work performance, and potentially a heart attack. Furthermore, marijuana can be psychologically addictive, despite what pot smokers may claim [3]. However, it may also be physically addictive, as withdrawal symptoms may include aggression, anxiety, and depression. C) Cannabis is particularly dangerous for the young population, whose brains are still developing. Research has shown that behaviors like gambling, drinking, fighting, steroid use, and cigarette smoking are all associated with higher risk of marijuana use [5]. Self-harm behaviors are also linked to marijuana use. Legalizing marijuana would expose our young population (including students and children) to this drug more than ever before. D) Marijuana alone is clearly detrimental to health (as shown above), but the situation worsens when combined with other drugs. For instance, if I mixed marijuana with cocaine and

Salutations! I would first like to talk about the line "X is a drug" this line is non-productive, it plays off peoples currently held beliefs on drugs. For many the word have negative conitations, but drugs can have positive or negative effects, and save many lives. Most medicine people take is a form of this drug or that drug. So yes Marijuana is a drug but that does not have any effect on its value to the U.S. of A. You admit that marijuana has certain benefits but say it is not as good as other medications, if it can do the same job as a prescription pain killer with the same effect why should we only use the pain killer. Many people would rather eat a brownie than pop a pill, so the effects being the same why take away that option. You personally do not think that cocaine should legal, that how ever is not a great argument for banning something. Ritalin, is a common drug, it is legal, and it is incredibly similar to cocaine in structure and function. So if Ritalin is fine to give to kids with ADHD I see no reason for cocaine to be off limits in all cases. If people are being helped by the weed why stop them. Even if the reason why someone wants to take it is small, it can still be a valid reason. You said this in your argument "To even have fun and enjoy. That's a little strange if you have a traditional mindset." I fail to see why people wanting to have fun is strange to a "traditional mindset". People drink to have fun, yet doing weed for fun is strange. Also what is "traditional mindset"? People have been taking drugs for a long time to be happier, so wouldn't that be more the traditional mindset. Something' s strangeness also is no reason to ban it. The drug makes people happy, how is that a bad thing? There are plenty of people that take anti-depressants to make them self's happier today. A hedonist (dictonary.com defines as "one who believes the pursuit of pleasure is the most important thing in life") would be all for weed being legal, it can bring them great joy but you would force upon them a less enjoyable life. Where does that right come from? that view on life has no more or less weight than anyone's different view. People should be allowed to make there own choices about what they do to, and with there body. Recreational use does not have to be a "big no no". The reason you give for it being a no no is that it would make it look acceptable to kids, adults can legally drink and have sex, but kids are not told those are not actions they should be doing before they are adults. Once they are adults it is acceptable. What is wrong or right is subjective, and the U.S. is not the world, so the world will not be going down the wrong path if weed is legalised in the states. You go on to say "Marijuana will usually make a user eventually lazy, paranoid, and slow." those effects often are things that make it into stonier movies, but are not actually noticeable symptoms of the drug for a lot of users. You also gave no reason to believe that those are common side effects. One of those symptoms, the paranoia, many people have said is not the effect of the drug but of the fact it is illegal. The paranoia is associated with the drug may very well disappear when the drug is legalised. Weed is already recreationally legal in Colorado, and those effects have not caused the state much trouble so far. People still get there work done and they did not all become slow.You can walk around Denver and not every thing smells like pot. Just as there are different types of drunks there are different types of highs I would not mind eating in a restaurant with a high couple, it is quite possible that I would not even now they are high. I will also call to mind that coming to work high is like coming to work drunk. Being high in many places is grounds for termination, legalization will not change that.The drug is beneficial in some cases, so why not teach kids about its pros and cons its better than them trying it with a friend. I also would like to talk about the idea it is a gateway drug, here is a quote from national institute of drug abuse "people who are more vulnerable to drug-taking are simply more likely to start with readily available substances like marijuana, tobacco, or alcohol, and their subsequent social interactions with other substance users increases their chances of trying other drugs." so this idea is not really weeds fault.There are different choices for pain relief but there are reasons why weed might be the best choice for some people, why limit people's options. I will also like to talk quickly about money, the money made in weed sales is good for the states, the tax revenue is very large.Weed does not need to be illigal.

I accept. I, however, do not wish to argue that marijuana should be illegal; rather, I would like to contest that alcohol should remain legal with marijuana, which means that I am still, in essense, against the views of Pro.

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.

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.

Hereby I would like to summarize my conclusions in this debate with the theme "Cannabis Legalization" in which I represented to Con side. I will keep this summary short and will not include unnecessary rebuttals, as Pro was not able to provide any evidence as to positive effects of Cannabis legalization nor did pro do a rebuttal of any of my arguments, but left them unchallenged. Thus I would like to summarize, as established in 2 rounds of debate and after several hours of research, using non-biased, statistical evidence that Cannabis legalization does not provide any benefits to Society nor Humanity. 1. ) Apparent Medical Properties. I will not deny that certain cannabinoids, if administered correctly (thus not smoking) could help with certain health issues. Smoking Cannabis, however, which is the most used method of Marijuana use is unhealthy. It is proven to cause cancer. Marijuana use in general is proven to reduce IQ in mature users as well as hinder important brain development in using teenagers, making them dumber than their non using counterparts and is well known to cause mental illness such as Schizophrenia as well as cognition impairment and memory loss. This means that Marijuana should not be given to people for 'health reasons', or any other reasons for that matter. 2. ) Hemp usage and connected economy to Hemp. Hemp is already a well used resource. Demand, and as such supply has decreased drastically in the 60's due to synthetic fiber, but is starting to have a 'comeback'. However, the U. S. would have to fight for the market as it is dominated by China. Also it should be noted that the most used Hemp plants do not contain THC and as such, could be legalized on its own. This however is a different debate. The Cannabis legalization debate has more to do with drug use than economic production of hemp and as such Cannabis should not be legalized. 3. ) Economy from production of Marijuana A well favored argument of all pro legalization supporters. However, when exact numbers are investigated, such as in the case of Colorado, a Medical Marijuana State, the economy is quite different than pro legalization would want. Fees on enforcement, that now would apparently be gone are spent on medical aid, such as hospitals and psychologists, more drug education and the liking, thus creating a possible minus here. Taxes through sale and such are negated by lost labor and in-productiveness, as well as a general 'dumber' population, meaning a decreased economy, most certainly in the minus. This as such means that it would not be economically intelligent to legalize Cannabis as a whole as it would create a minus in the economy, not a plus. 4. ) Marijuana is not harmful A well liked statement of the pro legalization community, though, as stated above already Cannabis can cause severe health issues. I would also like to refer at this point to the 100% increased road fatality rate connected to Marijuana in Colorado post legalization. A shocking increase that is not unrelated, as the number of road fatalities decreased by 14.8% in the same time frame. Furthermore, though unrelated to this, Denver experienced an increase in crime as well as arrestees influenced by Marijuana post legalization. This concludes that Cannabis is not as 'harmless' as many people want it to be. 5. ) Marijuana would be unavailable to teenagers In fact, states that have legalized Marijuana have 40% more teenagers using Marijuana than non Medical Marijuana states. This thus means that legalization actually makes it easier for teenagers to get access to Marijuana, not the opposite, as always stated. 6. ) Free will Though I agree that people should have a free will to do what they want to, the issue here is that with legalization and lost labor people will turn to welfare. If there was no welfare for lazy stoners (and in fact I know quite a few ones on welfare) this would not be such a grand issue. But unfortunately they'd get welfare. And as such I most definitely do not support legalization. Also as to the point of not being controlled by their habit, Marijuana is addictive with a large amount of heavy users having withdrawal symptoms. 7. ) Other drugs are more dangerous What a stupid argument. Does this mean we all have to use Cocaine because some idiots are using Heroin? Why do people need to justify destroying their health because someone else is apparently doing something worse? What a logic is this? When I used to smoke I knew I was an idiot for doing it, which is why I stopped. Instead of trying to justify something that destroys your body just accept that it is stupid and not worth it. Pro did not provide any evidence as to the above claims, but seemed to have simply stated his opinion. Con provided statistics and other evidence. As such I remain with my starting opinion, that Cannabis should most definitely not be legalized, as it creates no benefits.

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.

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...

I can not spell, It is a hit or miss subject for me, if my spell check can fix it then good. My last debates have been more of testing ground for me, so I hope I can do better. legal legalize the plant, should it or should it not be mad legal is the qushtin. I will try to avoid the brick wall layout as most of the voters complained about that. so have fun guys and remember I can not spell to good so if you want clean writhing with out spelling arers then I am not it.

"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?

I will reiterate my comment: that, this debate is geared towards the demographics, not the ideology, of marijuana use. All my previous arguments, in turn are yet to be addressed, and doing so is a prerequisite to this debate. As, disregarding contributed arguments is bigoted, insolent, arrogant and impudent (each), and thus this would no longer be considered a DEBATE. as in a debate, the winner doesn't win based on inconsideration and pompous self-satisfaction, they win only By over-turning the content contributed in one way or another. Regarding the use of Medical Marijuana. Medical marijuana does not conclusively Cure any afflictions. I have never seen any research indicating that, nor any Medical Publications. (I would love for you to provide me with A CREDIBLE publication that is not second, third or fourth hand, But is directly from this Credible source. Please, as it is YOUR argument. ) I personally knew a man who died of Colon + liver cancer who smoked Marijuana routinely. I knew another heavy smoker who died of leukemia. Yet for the terminally ill. Who are we indeed, to deny this pain relief. Yet, despite I have not fought against this right, It should also not be administered or prescribed, as it can cause Great mental strife and physical trauma. As I stated, I have both had my brain bleed, and have had a heart attack. Job creation is not real. As pre-existing establishments would by default inherit this market (example: Monsanto's [actual example, Canada]). The only other people entering this market would be Pre-existing illegal cartels. To remain legal is financially expensive. This is not a job creation sector. IN fact, the rise in Market Distributers would complicate the tax system, and excessive corruption would arise, where a solution had been sought to be installed. Marijuana does in fact have a predisposition to induce psychosis on all Humans. That is a scientific fact. Some people, however, simply, mask their delusion, insolence, selfishness, Perversion and Psychotic symptoms. Ticking-Time-Bombs, Suicides, Crooks, Bigots, Asshols, Sloths, Gluttons, Jackasses. .. That is a fact, that Marijuana does have this disposition to inflict Psychosis, and merely the individual copes uniquely.


Question: Should Cannabis Be Available as a Medicinal Alternative?

The legalization of medical marijuana as a treatment option is contentious, and my counterpart has not provided any credible evidence to substantiate the claim that cannabinoids are a viable alternative for patients with bipolar disorder (BP) who cannot tolerate conventional medications. Even if we were to accept the dubious assertion that up to forty percent of BP patients are unable to withstand standard treatment, there is no logical or empirical basis to suggest that cannabinoids would be an exception. Moreover, the potential benefits of medical marijuana are overshadowed by the presence of over 400 toxins in the substance, and THC has not been scientifically proven as a controlled substance to treat BP disorder. In fact, marijuana has been shown to exacerbate the depressive symptoms of bipolar disorder.

The second argument presented by my counterpart is also flawed, as it equates the use of medical marijuana for "happiness" with the treatment of terminal illnesses. This notion is misguided and potentially harmful, as it sets a negative precedent for society. Happiness is not a medical concept, and the use of medical marijuana as a means to achieve it is not a justifiable reason to legalize the drug. If medical marijuana were to be legalized solely for the purpose of providing "happiness" to those in distress, it would open the door for widespread abuse and could potentially lead to societal harm.

In the final point, my counterpart suggests that marijuana could be used as a method of pain relief. While this may be true, there is no evidence to suggest that medical marijuana would be a preferable option to existing pain relief medications, such as Marinol. The assertion that experts could control the use of the drug ignores the fact that there are already controlled substances on the market that are more effective and less harmful.

Furthermore, the legalization of medical marijuana has been shown to be abused on a widespread basis. For example, a recent report in The New York Times detailed how a 31-year-old marathon runner was able to obtain medical marijuana in San Francisco despite being in peak health. She sought medical marijuana on the grounds that she suffered a migraine headache every month or so, and after her own health plan turned her down, she got a recommendation from a clinic doctor who never asked to see her medical records. This laissez-faire transaction sounds like an easy target for anyone seeking to denigrate the whole program.

In conclusion, the legalization of medical marijuana as a treatment option is not a viable solution. The potential benefits are far outweighed by the risks and harms associated with the drug, and there is no credible evidence to suggest that it is a preferable option

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.

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.

P1; It seems that 'prohibition' of Cannabis has little effect on it's usage. This would suggest that legalisation wouldn't affect that factor at all. [1] P2; The drugs in Cannabis that give that 'high' are also extremely low in toxicity making it impossible to overdose. So that leads us to the long term effects. P3; There's not real evidence for the long term effects. This is because of the illegality of the drug. A lot of the tests done have been proven to be inaccurate and having very bad methods, and a lot of them could have been bias. P4; There is also the argument of personal choice. It's not like you're putting anyone else's life in danger. You could mention 'driving high' but sleep deprivation or just mere reckless driving is a lot more likely to 'cause accidents. Like I mentioned in my earlier point though, it is unlikely to increase usage much if at all. All 'prohibition' does is victimise users and waste police time and money better spent elsewhere. [2] P5; The United States Government, itself, filed for and was awarded a patent (#6,630,507) on cannabinoids as neuroprotectants, useful in the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of diseases including stroke, trauma, auto-immune disorder, HIV dementia, Parkinson's and Alzheimers. P6; Making it illegal means there's a black market for it, meaning it fuels crime, I don't need to point out how that's bad. P7; You can also tax it which would bring in more money for governments. P8; You can also use the hemp from Cannabis for many products including paper. It is a lot more renewable than cutting down the rainforest. I'll leave it at that for now. :) 1. http://healthland.time.com... 2. http://news.bbc.co.uk...

~~Rebuttal~~My opponent gives no evedence to back up his claims, and it is mostly about the affects of it on the mind. However, this holds little water since Alcohol, Cigerettes, cigars, and some prescription drugs are mind altering. Yet, they are still legal. Therefore, since all of these are legal then Cannibus should also be legalized. ~~My argument~~I will be affirming the resolution that Marijuana/ cannibas should be legalized in the U. S. My argument will consist of five contentions in which I will prove that the U. S. government should legalize marijuana. Contention 1: People deserve the freedomMy first point will be that there is no good reason to not make marijuana legal. Many people ask 'Why should marijuana be made legal? ' but we should ask 'Why should marijuana be illegal? ' Individuals deserve to make their own choices. The government only has the right to put limits on these choices hurt another person. This doesn't apply to marijuana, since the person who chooses to use marijuana only affects the person that uses it. Contention 2: Keeping marijuana illegal is too expensive. The second point is that marijuana legalization would save the U. S. government a great deal of money. In one year alone the U. S. government spends $42 billion trying to get rid of marijuana by chasing down peaceful people who happen to like to get high [1]. These people get locked up in jail and we 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 up these people. This is a extremely expensive method and simply costs too much. Think of how many better uses that money could be put too. Contention 3: It would give the government more funds. If marijuana were to be legalized it could be taxed and the government could get revenue to do its job better, such as paying off our national debt. Contention 4: Marijuana prohibition doesn't help the U. S. The third point I will make for why marijuana should be legalized is because prohibition doesn't help the U. S. in any way at all, and cause a ton of problems. There is not one good piece of good evidence that prohibition decreases marijuana use, and there are quite a few theories that suggest that it might be increasing marijuana use. One of the unintended effects of weed prohibition is it is very popular in high schools. Why is this? Because it is available. People don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana, marijuana dealers usually do not care about the age of their customers as long as they have enough money. It's easier for high schoolers to get their hands on marijuana then it is for them to get alcohol, because alcohol is legal and regulated so it will stay away from kids. We would do better if we just relied on honest open programs to educate the youth and regulated it so it stays out of the hands of kids. But our current prohibition plan does not allow such reasonable approaches to weed. The The programs such as 'DARE' lie about marijuana and also does not even work. We tried and failed miserably in alcohol prohibition, and now it is time that we learn from our past. [2]Contention 5: Marijuana has medical uses. Marijuana should be legalized because it also has certain properties that would be useful to the medical feild. In past years the palnt has treated many different sickenesses and disorders. It has even been used to treat the harsh effects of Kemo Therapy durring cancer treatment. Some of the ailments that marijuana is effective against are Arthritis, Epilepsy, Glaucoma, Eating Disorders, and many more [3]. ConclusionIn conclusion, legalizing marijuana would be better the keeping it illegal. The pros outway the cons when it comes to it. It would save money, and it would even decrease teen marijuana use, and it would make a lot of medical patients feel better. Vote Pro! [1] . http://www.alternet.org.........[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org.........[3] . http://www.medicalmarijuanablog.com.........

Another reason that marijuana should not be legalized because it could cause young children to think that it's ok to do drugs. Legalizing drugs is like telling a teen it's ok to engage in risky behavior, when drugs are involved, there is an increase of possible death or permeant injury. I'll agree that prescribed drugs are just as easily abused, but this drug should be used due to its "safe" use, when actually it could cause serious problems later on in life or cause a serious reaction due to a existing medical condition. Again this can happen with prescribed drugs, but the drug in question is just as dangerous as herion and cocaine.

Drugs Are Illegal Because Drugs Are Dangerous PrintEmail Details Category: Testimonies and SpeechesPublished: 01 May 2001 Canadian Police Association submissions to the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs May 2001 The full text is available in English and French from HNN or at the CPA web site at http://www.cpa-acp.ca... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Drugs Are Illegal Because Drugs Are Dangerous Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; drugs are illegal because drugs are dangerous. There is no such thing as "soft drugs" and "hard drugs", nor bona fide criteria to differentiate between these terms. People who refer to hard or soft drugs generally do not understand the truth about drugs, or are seeking to soften attitudes towards the use of certain illicit drugs. Generally, Marijuana (Cannabis) and its derivative products are described in this context to distance the drug from the recognized harm associated with other illegal drugs. This has been a successful, yet dangerous approach, and contributes to the misinformation, misunderstanding, and increasing tolerance associated with marijuana use. Marijuana is a powerful drug with a variety of effects. Marijuana users are subject to a variety of adverse health consequences: " Respiratory Damage " Physical Coordination " Pregnancy & Post-Natal development " Memory & Cognition " Psychiatric Effects Marijuana use is associated with poor work and school performance, and learning problems for younger users. Marijuana is internationally recognized as the gateway drug for other drug use. Risk factors for marijuana dependence are similar to those for other forms of drug abuse, and much higher than those of alcohol. Driving while intoxicated by drugs impairs judgment and motor coordination. In one study involving aircraft, ten licensed pilots were given one marijuana joint containing 19 mg of THC, a relatively small amount. Twenty-four hours after smoking the jo

First, my opponent says that I neglected his argument but where is the argument in round one? I can not spell, It is a hit or miss subject for me, if my spell check can fix it then good. My last debates have been more of testing ground for me, so I hope I can do better.legal legalize the plant, should it or should it not be mad legal is the qushtin.I will try to avoid the brick wall layout as most of the voters complained about that. so have fun guys and remember I can not spell to good so if you want clean writhing with out spelling arers then I am not it.This is his round one. It has no argument. Also legal legalize the plant makes no sense.I didn't post an argument because he is pro and I usually allow Pro to go first. How am I rude? He is showing rudeness and aggression by saying I am aggressive. I am going to do something different today. I will post my refutations and then my argument. Youtube video- for some reason youtube doesn't work on my computer, so I can't watch it. More or less, you can't post a video, expect people to watch and use it as evidence. You must type out your evidence.My opponent says that it make many people happy, but less use some deductive logic. If money can't bring you happiness and you use money to buy weed, then weed can't bring happiness. Weed only kills brain cells and makes people less reactant to their emotions. Also happy is an opinionated word, and can't be proven by facts. Also just because it makes people happy doesn't mean it should be legal. Killing people makes some people happy but it's illegal. Bigamy makes people happy, but it is illegal.My opponent says that this will keep jails free for the rapist murderers and robbers, but murderers, rapists, and robbers go to prison, not jail. My argument Weed causes health problems- weed can cause many problems, hindering the ability to learn, causes lung problems, and brain damage, making them unable to be productive in society. It also can make people get sick by lowering their immune health.http://www.theantidrug.com... Weed impairs motor usage- when marijuana users drive cars, they lose reaction ability. This could endanger the user and people around. By the way, if you do hit somebody, you could get a manslaughter charge, and that might send you to jail. Weed can cause cancer, birth defects, and hormone problems. These reasons and more are reasons why weed should be kept illegal. http://debatepedia.idebate.org...

Refutations: Short Term: Again, the short term effects of many over the counter drugs can be much worse.Long Term: "Cancer" Marijuana, smoked is much cleaner than tobacco."Immune System": The source you cited states that "It is not certain whether marijuana damages the immune system of people". "Lungs" Tobacco has the same effects, so it is unclear why tobacco is legal.Suggestions:1. Don't leave all your arguments to websites.2. Leave a conclusion at the end of your argument summarizing your points.3. Number your points.

Burden of proof is on Pro.My RefutationsNegative Effects and Positive EffectsI am morphing my opponent's two arguments for one full refutation."There will be little to no negative effects to the country/society from marijuana's legalization.""There will be a plethora of positive effects resulting from marijuana's legalization."This is completely flat wrong. My opponent divides this into several lettered catergories and I will broadly attack these because some of my refutations attack several of them at once. First, my opponent says that marijuana is not addictive, but lets look at history. Back in the 1800s when most drugs were legal, marijuana was clearly very addictive. Then there was the experiment in Alaska. There law restricted anyone under 19 from not using marijuana. The result was of disastrous proportions. Parents and other relatives simply gave it to their children. Its not that hard for our youth to be under the influence when there very parents or older brothers are using it. [1,2]Alcohol's addictive rate is 10%, but illicit drug users can get addicted by a rate of 75%.Another argument is that legalizing drugs would lower crime, but this has also proven to be false. Many studies have shown that half of all violent crime offenders were under the influence of drugs, most notably marijuana, when they committed their crimes. In some cases there is a far majority of crimes that are committed involving the influence of marijuana. It also increases the number of DUI's by a wide margin. It rose as high as 40% for adults and 70% for juveniles in California and that is clearly a disaster. Taxation also creates a rise in the black market. [3,4]We also have to mention the economic factors. Because the black market will receive a boom from marijuana users, tax revenue will not increase. More DUI's means the possibility of more deaths. More deaths means less population growth which means less economic growth as population growth leads to urbanization and ultimately benefits the world. Current legal drugs actually cost over $100 billion in productivity and alcohol causes $13 billion. Tobacco has similar negative effects. [4]Prohibition has FailedMy opponent's arguments here are strage. Murder is illegal too, but that doesn't mean people are still murder. In fact, some of those people that are murdered might be killed by drug users. You never know. In fact, read this after alcohol was legalized again: "Following the repeal of prohibition, alcohol consumption increased. Prohibition did not end alcohol use, but it did succeed in reducing, by one-third, the consumption of a product that had wide historical and popular sanction." [1] Government's Place "John Adams, who helped draft the Constitution and later became our second president, declared, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly moral considerations. Our elected representatives are therefore bound to legislate morality." [1] ConclusionI have proven that my opponent's points on legalizing marijuana are wrong that it would create a negative effect on society. Crime has decreased from marijuana prohibition and it is government's place to legislative morality.Sources1. "Speaking Out: Against Drug Legalization." Justice.gov. Department of Justice, n.d. Web.2. "The DEA Position on Marijuana." Justice.gov. Department of Justice, Jan. 2011. Web.3. "Interpersonal Violence and Illicit Drugs." WHO.int. World Health Organization, n.d. Web.4. Maginnis, Robert L. "Legalization - Myths and Facts." Sarnia.com. Sarnia Online, n.d. Web.

Well, I agree that there are some dangers in smoking and using marijuana, mainly because there is always a risk that they could get caught with it, and has alot to deal with gang related material. but If Marijuana was legal, most of those dangers would disappear because that fear would no longer be there. Also, did you not read what I posted about how smoking marijuana reduces the chances of getting lung cancer, even more then a normal non-smoking person has. It has been proved that smoking marijuana has its advantages. Yes second hand smoke is dangerous to another persons health, but its not the smokers responsibility to make sure they are away from the smoke, that is why there are laws and such to help prevent second hand smoking, like staying away from certain buildings, and restrictions when it comes to smoking in certain area's its the person who decides to walk or be around the smokes fault they are getting the second hand smoke. I strongly believe that this world would be better if marijuana was legal because it would take so much controversy out of the way for us to focus on other things. If it was legal, mores scientists could be open to studying it.


Question: Should Cannabis Be Available as a Medicinal Alternative?

Drugs should not be an option for medical treatment

We argue that the legalization of drugs, particularly marijuana, for medical purposes should be reconsidered. To win this debate, both sides need to prove whether drugs are harmful or not, and if the state should restrict individual liberties. Our burden of proof is to demonstrate that drugs, including marijuana, are detrimental to health and society, and that the state has a legitimate role in regulating them.

1. Negative effects on health

a. Marijuana: Despite claims that marijuana is harmless, evidence suggests otherwise. Immediate effects of marijuana use include increased heart rate, leading to potential heart problems. Chronic use can cause dullness, slow movement, inattention, and harm memory, concentration, swift reaction, coordination, and time perception. Studies have shown that marijuana use during pregnancy or breastfeeding can harm the fetus. Moreover, marijuana use often leads to the use of other, more harmful drugs. Under the plan to legalize all drugs, there will be no deterrent to prevent people from moving from less harmful drugs to more harmful ones.

b. Heroin: Heroin use is associated with serious health problems, including infections like endocarditis, cellulitis, and abscesses. It also causes mental disorders like anxiety and personality disorders. Heroin addicts have a higher rate of suicides and non-deliberate deaths from overdose.

c. Cocaine: Cocaine damages the brain, increases blood pressure and heart rate, and can cause strokes, brain seizures, respiratory failure, heart attack, convulsions, and death. It also leads to malnutrition, weight loss, and negative effects on various organs. Cocaine use causes mental disorders like increased irritability, anxiety, panic attacks, confusion, depression, non-stop babbling, sleeplessness, chronic fatigue, short tempers, bizarre, aggressive, violent, suicidal behavior, delusions, paranoia, and hallucinations.

2. Harms to society

a. Criminal behavior of drug users: The usage of drugs often leads to criminal behavior, as drug users act in "another reality" and cannot behave adequately in the real world. The Office of National Drug Control Policy states that drug tests of arrested individuals show a positive correlation between drug use and crime.

b. Economic loss: The social costs of drug use are estimated at 0.2% of Gross National Product in the US. This includes costs of lost productivity, crime, and medical treatment.

In conclusion, the legalization of drugs, including marijuana, for medical purposes should be reconsidered due to their harmful effects on health

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...

Greetings be again to my fellow opponent. I would like to warn my opponent not to compare places where legalization and decriminalization strategies have been implemented in the past, to the places where its not subject matter is not legalized. Now my opponent might say its okay to compare a "country" to a "country", but doing this would be like comparing an apple to a pear since they both "fruits," something I find it tedious. Noting with satisfaction that my opponent talks about what he has achieved under the influence of marijuana in order to prove my point wrong. This is totally unacceptable because I would have done the same thing if I was proposing the motion at hand, and this clearly proves that my opponent is sucking all that he mentioned out his thumb. And furthermore I see my opponent is spending to much time on denying the imminent danger of smoking marijuana and focuses on the same story of the industry marijuana would give birth to, take note general public the same industry that poses a threat to society. I also acknowledge my opponents statement on the fact that "we will never prevent an entire country from using drugs", but by not legalizing marijuana prevents at least many from using it, who could've fell under the "entire" my opponent fondly speaks of. However, my opponent fails to recognize that the greatest costs of marijuana are not related to its prohibition; they are the costs resulting from marijuana use itself. General public, we need to realise that the consequences of smoking marijuana are bad, as it poses a threat to society, and it out weighs the pros of smoking marijuana. Furthermore, the use of Marijuana can cause a condition called drug-induced psychosis. This usually passes after a few days. However, if someone has a predisposition to a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia, marijuana may trigger the first episode of an ongoing condition such as schizophrenia. There is increasing evidence that regular marijuana use precedes and even causes higher rates of psychotic illness. At the same time, many people with schizophrenia have not used marijuana. But "How does Marijuana affect someone with a psychotic illness?" Marijuana generally makes psychotic symptoms worse and lowers the chances of recovery from a psychotic episode. People with a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia, who use it experience more hallucinations, delusions and other symptoms; they have a higher rate of hospitalisation for psychosis, treatment is generally less effective and recovery more difficult. And the consequences can be so serious for the person"s health that it is best to avoid drugs such as Marijuana completely. People at higher risk of developing a psychotic illness " if they have other family members with the illness, for example " should also avoid using marijuana It can be helpful to look at other, healthier ways of relaxing and socialising as an alternative. And the above-mentioned is one of the many consequences of smoking marijuana, thus proving that by not legalizing it we are saving the lives of many.

I can not spell, It is a hit or miss subject for me, if my spell check can fix it then good. My last debates have been more of testing ground for me, so I hope I can do better. legal legalize the plant, should it or should it not be mad legal is the qushtin. I will try to avoid the brick wall layout as most of the voters complained about that. so have fun guys and remember I can not spell to good so if you want clean writhing with out spelling arers then I am not it.

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.

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...;

Thank you for your response. In pro's argument she says: "Plus, it would be unrealistic and unproductive to criminalize anything that could be potentially harmful." It can be harmful in more ways than you think. We now have aproblem with drinking and driving. Can you imagine adding driving high and drunk to the list of problems. According to the National Institute of Drug Abuse: "According to the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 10 million people aged 12 or older reported driving under the influence of illicit drugs during the year prior to being surveyed.4 NSDUH findings also show that men are more likely than women to drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol. And a higher percentage of young adults aged 18 to 25 drive after taking drugs or drinking than do adults 26 or older.4" The institute also says: After alcohol, marijuana is the drug most often found in the blood of drivers involved in crashes. Tests for detecting marijuana in drivers measure the level of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana"s mind-altering ingredient, in the blood. But the role that marijuana plays in crashes is often unclear. THC can be detected in body fluids for days or even weeks after use, and it is often combined with alcohol. The risk associated with marijuana in combination with alcohol, cocaine, or benzodiazepines appears to be greater than that for either drug by itself.3," The National Institute of Drug abuse is obviosly a credible source. Another problem is second hand smoke. Second hand smoke from cigarettes is bad but second hand smoke from marijuana can be equally or more damaging to others. The Canadian Cancer society says: "People who smoke marijuana tend to inhale more smoke per puff and hold it in their lungs for as much as 4 times longer than people who smoke tobacco cigarettes. This means that smoking 2"3 marijuana cigarettes can expose you to roughly the same amount of smoke as 20 tobacco cigarettes." This is also a very credible source. People have a right to do what they want but when it harms them and others it can not and should not be easily accessible. Pro argues that the country can profit off people harming there bodies. Cigarettes, alchol abuse, sugar, chemicals etc are already a problem. I don't think adding marijuana is a very smart desicion.

Of course there's risk with weed as with any other drug. This however does not justify the Government's morality being shoved down in law.The distribution of weed and how it is dangerously used is none of the Government's business. People choose their own fates and if they want to use weed regardless of the risks, such as the use of alcohol and cigarettes, than they should use it.The Government can try to stop abuse through education and therapy, but prohibition invades civil liberties. Prohibition never successfully stops drug abusers from abusing drugs. So all prohibition does is waste billions of dollars to jail weed smokers instead of using that money for something useful. Marijuana, with all it's risks, is not nearly as harmful as cigarettes, which is basically poison in a stick, or alcohol. Kids and teens already use Marijuana. Teens especially. Weed runs rampant in high school and teenagers are already pressured to smoke weed. Legalization would change absolutely nothing. The only thing legalization would probably change is saving billions of dollars on the "War on Drugs"Yes kids don't know much about consequences. An effective way to stop drug abuse would be to educate kids and teens about the risks of marijuana abuse. Money that is used for education on weed would be much more well spent, than money that is used to lock up weed smokers.(Who btw will not just "stop" smoking weed) Any drug can be potentially addictive. Weed is no different and shouldn't be treated differently from cigarettes and alcohol.Legalizing marijuana will definitely solve the problem of frequent imprisonment. "Many drug users would still end up in jail, not merely just for smoking weed, but for what they do because they are high on the drug. Legalizing marijuana would not solve that problem."Not NEARLY, not even close, to as much people are jailed now just for smoking weed. People while high aren't that dangerous especially compared to when a person is drunk."Someone who is high on marijuana and in need of more could and would do a lot to get it, and that could involve injuring an innocent victim, or worse."Con is acting as if Marijuana is the equivalent of cocaine. Things shouldn't be disporportionalized here. This would happen in a very rare case since any high person is generally peaceful and harmless and this would only happen in a very extreme case of a long-term marijuana user as opposed to the casual user. "Parents also want their kids safe from pressure to do drugs and from having the availability of a drug like marijuana in the first place."Marijuana is going to available whether or not parents appreciate it. There will always be pressure and legality will not change a thing. The only thing that legality will change is the fact that taxpayers will no longer have to pay up billions of dollars for the imprisonment of weed smokers (which is not proven in any statistic as a deterrent), and it would no longer have the authorities infringe on civil rights. "Few public policies pose as great a threat to our fundamental civil liberties as the war on drugs. Since the 1970s, the U.S. judicial system has created a “drug exception” to the Constitution by permitting the erosion of our constitutional rights in the name of drug prohibition. Misguided drug policies have allowed extensive discrimination against drug users, women, people of color and the formerly incarcerated. The Drug Policy Alliance is a leading voice in the movement to reclaim the rights and freedoms infringed upon by the war on drugs. We believe that drug users should not be punished for what they put in their bodies, absent harm to others. We are working to eliminate drug policies that abuse the civil liberties of certain groups and individuals, as well as those that prevent people with drug convictions from rebuilding their lives. A war on drugs is simply a misnomer for a war on drug users." http://www.drugpolicy.org...Money will also be saved for use in education of drug abuse and much more effective educational remedies for the decrease in drug abuse.The Government shouldn't shove down it's morals in the law and jail people, for something they choose to do to their own bodies.The Government shouldn't invade civil libertiesThe Government shouldn't waste billions of dollars on jailing people for personal choiceThe Government should leave the people alone to make their own choices

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".

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...;

P1; It seems that 'prohibition' of Cannabis has little effect on it's usage. This would suggest that legalisation wouldn't affect that factor at all. [1] P2; The drugs in Cannabis that give that 'high' are also extremely low in toxicity making it impossible to overdose. So that leads us to the long term effects. P3; There's not real evidence for the long term effects. This is because of the illegality of the drug. A lot of the tests done have been proven to be inaccurate and having very bad methods, and a lot of them could have been bias. P4; There is also the argument of personal choice. It's not like you're putting anyone else's life in danger. You could mention 'driving high' but sleep deprivation or just mere reckless driving is a lot more likely to 'cause accidents. Like I mentioned in my earlier point though, it is unlikely to increase usage much if at all. All 'prohibition' does is victimise users and waste police time and money better spent elsewhere. [2] P5; The United States Government, itself, filed for and was awarded a patent (#6,630,507) on cannabinoids as neuroprotectants, useful in the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of diseases including stroke, trauma, auto-immune disorder, HIV dementia, Parkinson's and Alzheimers. P6; Making it illegal means there's a black market for it, meaning it fuels crime, I don't need to point out how that's bad. P7; You can also tax it which would bring in more money for governments. P8; You can also use the hemp from Cannabis for many products including paper. It is a lot more renewable than cutting down the rainforest. I'll leave it at that for now. :) 1. http://healthland.time.com... 2. http://news.bbc.co.uk...


Question: Should Cannabis Be Available as a Medical Treatment?

The decriminalization of marijuana
Decriminalizing marijuana may inadvertently invite a domestic drug epidemic, akin to the one we've been battling with Mexico. Do we truly wish to confront another drug war, this time on our own soil? I can confidently say I do not. Until the CDC and the FDA provide concrete evidence that marijuana can effectively treat medical conditions, the nation will remain divided on this issue. Legalizing marijuana could potentially result in a surge of drug-related crimes and arrests. California, for instance, is already grappling with prison overcrowding and is forced to release inmates. Legalizing marijuana would likely exacerbate this issue as the drug's abuse would lead to an increase in prison populations. Given the widespread abuse of various substances among millions of teenagers and adults today, can we even fathom the consequences of legalizing marijuana? Please consider these points before forming your opinion.

I know that this topic is very well discussed throughout the United States, so i thought i would let my opinion be out there. I believe that Marijuana should be legalized because it would help put a fire into our economy. Think about it, really honestly, this economy would have an amazing bounce back if we legalized it, and put a tax on it. Think about how many people smoke Weed. If we taxed weed, and sold it in per-say Weed store, in similarity to a liquor store, more people would go and buy it legally instead of risking going to jail. The construction industry would boom back, because we would need people to make the Weed stores. The housing industry would come back maybe not as strong, but there would be plenty of investors, investing in Marijuana. The crime rate would seemingly go down, because we wouldn't be throwing people who didn't commit a "real" crime into jail, and we could focus more on the people who are actually hurting this world. More jobs would come into effect due to the legalization of marijuana, think of how many brand new stores, and businesses would open if it was legal, jobs would be abundant everywhere in the United States. Another strong point, Marijuana has so many things in it that scientists have yet to study, and it has been proven that there are chemicals in Marijuana that can help prevent certain sickness's. "Data in Dr. Tashkin's study suggest that people who smoke marijuana are less likely to develop lung cancer than people who do not smoke anything at all. Since marijuana smoke contains the same cancer-causing agents as tobacco and the only difference between the nonsmokers and the marijuana smokers was their use of cannabis, then it is not an unreasonable hypothesis that marijuana can prevent the development of cancer."(Swerdlow). If Marijuana was legalized we could study the chemicals in Marijuana in more depth and maybe find cures for such "UN-curable" diseases. Swerdlow, Lanny. "MARIJUANA CAN PREVENT CANCER, NOT CAUSE IT ." (2010): n. pag. Web. 26 Oct 2010. <http://cannazine.co.uk...;.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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...

I will just go over some quick points. I would like to talk about the stigma around smoking. Many people agree that smoking is bad for human lungs, and that is used to make arguments against legalising weed. Those arguments should fall flat on the grounds that smoking is one of many forms of to benefit from weed's effects. Some alternative methods include edibles and pills. With more methods are being studied the smoking is bad argument becomes less important. There is also a common argument about it being addictive. Caffeine is vary addictive, and many people have more of it than they should in a day. There is caffeine in a lot of drinks, but there are not many people fighting to ban coffee. http://www.fda.gov...

Smoking marijuana harms the smoker's body. Round one is for acceptance; Ill post the first argument.

First, my opponent says that I neglected his argument but where is the argument in round one? I can not spell, It is a hit or miss subject for me, if my spell check can fix it then good. My last debates have been more of testing ground for me, so I hope I can do better.legal legalize the plant, should it or should it not be mad legal is the qushtin.I will try to avoid the brick wall layout as most of the voters complained about that. so have fun guys and remember I can not spell to good so if you want clean writhing with out spelling arers then I am not it.This is his round one. It has no argument. Also legal legalize the plant makes no sense.I didn't post an argument because he is pro and I usually allow Pro to go first. How am I rude? He is showing rudeness and aggression by saying I am aggressive. I am going to do something different today. I will post my refutations and then my argument. Youtube video- for some reason youtube doesn't work on my computer, so I can't watch it. More or less, you can't post a video, expect people to watch and use it as evidence. You must type out your evidence.My opponent says that it make many people happy, but less use some deductive logic. If money can't bring you happiness and you use money to buy weed, then weed can't bring happiness. Weed only kills brain cells and makes people less reactant to their emotions. Also happy is an opinionated word, and can't be proven by facts. Also just because it makes people happy doesn't mean it should be legal. Killing people makes some people happy but it's illegal. Bigamy makes people happy, but it is illegal.My opponent says that this will keep jails free for the rapist murderers and robbers, but murderers, rapists, and robbers go to prison, not jail. My argument Weed causes health problems- weed can cause many problems, hindering the ability to learn, causes lung problems, and brain damage, making them unable to be productive in society. It also can make people get sick by lowering their immune health.http://www.theantidrug.com... Weed impairs motor usage- when marijuana users drive cars, they lose reaction ability. This could endanger the user and people around. By the way, if you do hit somebody, you could get a manslaughter charge, and that might send you to jail. Weed can cause cancer, birth defects, and hormone problems. These reasons and more are reasons why weed should be kept illegal. http://debatepedia.idebate.org...

I'm gonna rap and apply logic, to every little bit. The idea that this plant should be legal is bullsh*t. Marijuana can kill people too, you freaking liar. It can damage people's brains, and make the injured rate higher. It's worse for people's lungs than a cancer machine. Selling a murderous super drug is really cruel and mean. Weed will dumb down our generation, make our kids less smart. Next thing you know, they'll be selling those dang plants at Walmart. A dangerous drug needs to be illegal, that's because they're overly lethal. It's bad for your breathing and stings like an eel, then you'll regret the drug and start to just feel... How bad it is, it's literally the worst around. A terrible drug like this, could wipe out a whole town. So it's not the money or the sales, it's not the popularity. It's just that it's dangerous, and will kill people, guaranteed.