Question: Should Cannabis Be Available as a Medical Treatment?

Marijuana Should Not Be Prohibited from Medical Use

Valor has indeed been influenced by the hysteria of "Reefer Madness!" Marinol, the synthetic THC, is not as effective as the whole cannabis plant. Steve Kubby, a man who has lived with a form of cancer for over 25 years, attributes his survival to medical marijuana. Despite the legalization of medical marijuana in California, Kubby and his wife were arrested under unconstitutional anti-drug laws that violated California's sovereignty. Here's how Marinol worked for him: "With Marinol, Steve is only partially protected. Because Marinol uses only the THC component of the cannabis plant, his tumors are now free to grow again. This type of tumor is particularly prone to infiltrate the spinal cord, brain, and organs." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...)

You cite the FDA as if it is an authoritative source. The FDA is a political bureaucracy, like all bureaucracies, that exists to expand its scope, budget, and power. There are thousands of medical doctors who support the use of medical marijuana, and several states have enacted laws to legalize it. Maybe they are right, and maybe they are wrong - why do you think there has to be a one-size-fits-all solution? Do you want to imprison dying AIDS and cancer patients for using the medicine that works best for them? For using a medicine that might be more affordable, particularly if homegrown? You are advocating for the corporate drug companies in the medical-industrial complex (no surprise, the AMA is against legalization!), and you are arguing for continued human suffering, death, and financial poverty brought on by high drug prices. As for the government studies you cite: I could cite non-government counter-studies - anyone can just Google it. There is a difference of opinion and impure motives on both sides. Why does there have to be just one solution? If medical marijuana were legal, then individuals and doctors could choose whether to use or prescribe it. If a doctor thought it was not effective, he could prescribe something else.

You then point out that there are negative side effects to marijuana use - this makes it like every other drug on the planet. Of course, there are negative side effects! Watch TV and you'll see plenty of ads for government-approved drugs that can cause everything from increased blood pressure to an urge to gamble! The negative side effects, as well as the health risks for personal/recreational use, make a great argument for not using it - but no argument for making it

Just a reminder, I can get a little harsh. Since this dumb site doesn't allow curses (yeah, because all the controversial topics about sex & drugs are totally ok for kids to see) Expect quiet a few asterisks. (*)Before I begin, I'd like to state my stance on the weed argument. I don't smoke weed, and don't have the intention to ever smoke weed. I don't think It should be legal, but I'm not a religious wingnut who thinks it's "The devils salad" or any of the stupid things those crazy people say. So, let's begin.1. "Marijuana is not addictive."Look, anything that you take one of and want more of is addictive. Video games are addictive, sports are addictive, & hitting on women at bars is addictive.2. "Marijuana is physically impossible to overdose on"Not an expert on weed, but I'm pretty sure that - like any other substance - yes you can. Weed gives your body an unnatural effect, and smoking too much weed might cause harm. I'm not saying it'll kill you, just that it'll harm you.3. "Marijuana's supposed "negative" effects, whether long term or short, are negligible, and many of which cannot credibly be declared true."So tell me again how getting a sudden urge to eat all the cookie dough, potato chips, cream cheese & marshmellows in your house isn't a negative effect? 4. "The Gateway theory is fundamentally flawed"How is it flawed? People who do drugs tend to take other drugs. Why? Because people who take drugs probably have a rebellious personality. They do one rebellious act against the law, they want to do another, just to get that rush of doing something illegal. Teens drinking alchohol is just as much of a gateway drug as weed, but weed is still a gateway drug.5. "Marijuana's intoxicating effects are not harmful to the users or others within itself (i.e. causing aggressiveness or other adverse changes to mood or perception), and therefore responsibility is placed on the user."It completely does. Alchohol does too, every mood-changing substance does.6. "Youth's access to marijuana will not be increased by legalization but will in fact be decreased"Yeah, and you know what happens then? Weed stops being cool and teens turn to drugs that cause them actual harm such as cocaine.IN RESPONSE TO ALL THE "BENEFITS" LEGALIZING WEED WILL HAVEWeed can be used mecidally,yes. Because it already is. Legalizing it for the public won't be able to change that. In fact, by making weed legal, you're getting rid of it's use as a recreational mood-changer. It'll probably only be available to those who need it for medicinal purposes. And as for the whole "it'll stop a lot of crime" no it won't. Weed is far from the only drug out there, and getting rid of one will not change that at all. And if it isn't only medicinal, if it becomes something like tobacco did, then it doesn't stop people from driving drugged."3. Even if marijuana was a harmful substance it is clearly no more harmful than legal substances (i.e. alcohol, tobacco) which have been perfectly integrated into society and are tolerated. Therefore, it should be treated no differently."Perfectly integrated? Tobacco is seen as the devils drinking buddy by society, and drinking is now known as being desperate. Weed will stop being known as a calming drug, it'll just become a cautionary tale.IN RESPONSE TO #4Since when? Since when has the governments job not been to control us? Oh yeah, let's protect the lives of the US by doing absulutely f***-all about our s*** health care and allow all these terrible massacres to keep happening. Let's protect their liberty by trying to ban the things they love. Let's pursue happiness by going to war with the wrong countries and doing everything wrong in every other countries eyes. As for Canada, well King Prime Minister Stephen Harper banned Count Chocula & Cookie Crisp for being unhealthy, so don't expect us to legalize weed anytime soon.

"Only one in 10 have a serious problem"If marijuana was legalized and declared not that dangerous, I think over a million people in the U.S would smoke it. That means 100,000 would have a serious marijuana problem. That is a ton of people who would have to fix it, but can't because marijuana is still somewhat addictive, but you're right, not as addictive as heroin. " Marijuana isn't as harmful as tobacco or alcohol yet it is still illegal."I beg to differ here. My dad drinks alcohol maybe once a month and gets drunk at a ballgame maybe once a year, but doesn't have a problem like all of those cartoon people (Peter Griffin...) Here's a list of what marijuana can do [1]:• Increase risk of cancer.• Weaken your immune system.• Difficulty remembering things• Changes how human brain works• Linked to increase in panic attacksTobacco is addictive and cancerous, that is entirely true, but not as bad as the above. Alcohol is the same."Has a few health risks"...A few? That's an understatement. Please check out this website: [2]. It's from well-known school called HARVARD.We can't stop a ton of people from smoking marijuana. But legalizing it is going to make even more people smoke it. It will become in such high demand that prices will skyrocket. Many people may lose their homes, jobs and other things due to bankruptcy and need for marijuana. There are already many people like that, so just imagine what would happen if we gave ourselves an even larger sample size. Farmers will grow marijuana for money instead of other fruits and vegetables, which would lead to health problems even to people who don't smoke it.People who don't want to smoke marijuana would also be forced to smoke it. If people can openly smoke it in cities, like tobacco, then people passing by have the opportunity to get high. While it would be HEAVEN for people who want to smoke it, the consequences would be too dire. Years of rehabilitation would become undone and addicts would be released from jail. Marijuana can also lead to insanity, and who knows what can happen when you are both high and insane.For my last argument, I turn to age [3] problems. 45% of people under 21 would smoke marijuana, leading to a decrease in schoolwork and more minimum-wage jobs and more homeless people. Surely you can see the hidden dangers of marijuana if it is legalized. On to you![1] http://ades.bc.ca...[2] http://cyber.law.harvard.edu...[3] http://www.narconon.org...

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 subjectto be discussed specifically, and ultimately provide an overall view of thetopic for the voters. It also eliminates the necessity of quoting your opponentas that wastes text space (which I often need). In addition, you do not addressmany of points, and as stated earlier, I will assume you either agree with thatpoint or cannot refute it should you fail to do so. I once again ask that youfollow my format. Finally, when citing sources, please specify the exact portionof the source you would like to use for large sources instead of simply postingan entire article. This allows for clearer communication. The video to theright is my source (3).Point 1a"Back in the 1800s when most drugs were legal, marijuana was clearlyvery addictive." Yet you fail to provide any support for this. One canalso say that in the 1800's the sky was pink. Furthermore, I already saidthat I do not wish to discuss drugs, only marijuana. Therefore any data notspecifying marijuana is not valid in this argument. "Alcohol's addictiverate is 10%, but illicit drug users can get addicted by a rate of 75%."Although this "statistic" includes all illicit drugs and has nosupport, I will respond because the same principles apply regardless of thedrug. Comparing the "addictive rate" of one drug (alcohol) with many(illicit drugs) is not proportional, besides this; there are two reasons forthe supposed results. The first is that while illegal, the general use of adrug is increased (3). Secondly, when an illicit drug user is arrested(marijuana users more so than other illegal drug users), the courts often givethem a choice between a harsh sentence or treatment and a slap on the wrist.Obviously they are going to choose treatment, and they are then labeledaddicts. After all, they are in treatment for drug use right?Point 1f"Then there was the experiment in Alaska." Actually, the lawwas not that anyone under 19 could not consume cannabis, rather, it stated thatthe possession of 1 ounce or less would not receive criminal penalties such asarrest (this is decriminalization not legalization). With regards to youthaccess, it is clearly easier for youth to get marijuana now because all theyhave to do is call a dealer (which isn't hard to find) and have the necessaryfunds. However, once legal, it would be taken out the hands of street dealersand be regulated; both similarly to alcohol (refer to point 2f to argue thisstatement). Then the only access would be in stores that enforce the age restrictionand require identification, which naturally makes it much harder to obtain. Onthe other hand, decriminalization (such as the Alaskan experiment) does notregulate cannabis, it only reduces penalties for use which obviously will notreduce and may even increase youth use. My source comments similarly on this(1). Also, we already have an example of the success of more sensible cannabispolicies with regards to use youth in the Netherlands (2). Point 2aFirstly, there is no evidence or reason to believe that legalization would givea "boom" to the black market. And, in actuality, we already havereason to believe the exact opposite of this claim (3). Also, I address the DUIclaim in a following point. The economic statistics of alcohol and tobacco areirrelevant with regards to marijuana's potential to bring in revenue,especially since we already have studies estimating the financial benefits ofcannabis (6).Point 2c"It also increases the number of DUI's by a wide margin. It rose ashigh as 40% for adults and 70% for juveniles in California and that is clearlya disaster." Yet again, I am discussing marijuana only. However itshould be noted that the statistics my opponent is referring to are resulting fromdecriminalization only and I have already addressed this. "Californiadecriminalized marijuana 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests fordriving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4percent for juveniles." This quote is from my opponent's own source[4]. Also, we have reliable reason to believe the opposite (7).Point 2e"Many studies have shown that half of all violent crime offenders wereunder the influence of drugs, most notably marijuana, when they committed theircrimes." With regards to marijuana, testing for use is FAR fromconclusive. Testing positive for cannabis only proves that the user had used itwithin a certain amount of time, varying time frames existing for the differentmethods. Only blood testing has the potential to detect active THC metabolites,the time frame of which is about 5 hours (4). Blood testing is, however, anexpensive and invasive form of testing that is rarely used. Since it cannot bedetermined that all of the subjects in the "studies" were given bloodtest within the necessary time frame to show active THC metabolites, it followsthat it cannot be determined that the provided statistics are reliable oraccurate. This is mainly because many such studies erroneously consider thepresence of THC metabolites alone (those not active) evidence of intoxication(similarly to the unjust drug testing that plague our nation). Even still,given that there is no conclusive evidence that marijuana causes criminalactivity, assuming that it does is logic parallel with a logical fallacy, (lookit up if you don't know what that is) faulty cause number one (5).Consequently, the implication that legalization of marijuana would increasecrime has no basis. Also, my source further refutes this (3).Point 3a"Murder is illegal too, but that doesn't mean people are still murder." 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. Point 3c"Following the repeal of prohibition, alcohol consumption increased." Your point here is invalid since your source [1] was notfound.Point 4aUsing your quote as a point is a fallacy. Number fourteen appeal to authority (5). And, looking at the facts behind cannabis prohibition, "legislating morality" would coincide with legalizing marijuana.Conclusion ResponseMy opponent has proved nothing. He tries to "morph" my arguments tofit his argumentative goals. Furthermore he attempts to use statistics with allillegal drugs to provide unreliable and inaccurate predictions of the effectmarijuana's legalization would have on the nation. I leave it to my opponent toaddress the points he ignored should he choose to.Sources(1) http://www.opposingviews.com...(2) http://www.erowid.org...(3) http://www.youtube.com...(4)http://www.labmed.yale.edu...(5) http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu...(6) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...(7) http://healthland.time.com...

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

I am going against marijuna being legal so I am con, against it. I think marijuna should not be legal because it is a drug. Well it might help if you have cancer. But only for a little. It is like numbing your mouth except its a drug. Marijuna is not going to stop you from dieing . Just from pain.

The Bible is such an old book. It is not to be trusted. Only an utter fool would believe it. Are you a fool? I thought not. No man would refuse to smoke marijuana unless he was too rich to know that it's good for him. If marijuana is made illegal, it will cause a chain reaction leading to the destruction of all life as we know it! Don't you understand? If marijuana is made illegal, freedoms will be restricted. The children of America need their freedoms! Why would you rob such a thing from the poor, helpless children? But on the other hand, if you smoke marijuana every day, you will free the children from their burdens. You will be the most honored person in the world. But if you do not, you will surely die. I said that my opponent believes in a talking snake. Just one. But NO snake can talk, since I've never even seen one. God told me that he does double tests sometimes. Therefore, God only placed marijuana on earth to test the people who think they are being tested. The real test is to smoke it. Sort of like sex. Marijuana is a lot like sex: it's tons of fun and has great practical results. But let's stop talking about God. No one can even DEFINE God, for God's sake. Hitler didn't smoke marijuana. Hitler killed people. It is clear that all murderers also do not smoke marijuana and all people who do not smoke marijuana are murderers. Haven't you seen all those people on the news who murder people and don't smoke marijuana? Global warming stopped in 1998. This is God's way of saying that we should smoke marijuana. 100% of people who do not smoke marijuana eventually DIE. It is a terrible fate that they reach. Only through marijuana can we be liberated. Some drugs have negative consequences, but marijuana is different. Marijuana is great. Everyone knows it. There is no use denying it. If you deny it, that makes you an undead monkey. You don't want to be an undead monkey. Why does happiness exist? Marijuana! What makes the grass green? Marijuana! These are objective observations; my opponent's subjective ramblings should be ignored. Read the proof for Fermat's Last Theorem. It clearly proves that marijuana should be smoked regularly. My opponent must not only negate the resolution, but he must also disprove Fermat's Last Theorem in order for him to receive the vote. Notice that my opponent can be directly quoted to have said "smoke marijuana. " Even he advocates for my case. I ask my opponent: When you rejected all morality, were you smoking marijuana? I didn't think so. I remind the reader of the correlation between marijuana and utter bliss. My opponent has not made any arguments contrary to my position (actually he's helped my case). Since there is no contrary evidence, I am the obvious victor. My opponent advocates suffering and pain. I advocate happiness and glory. The choice is clear.

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.

http://www.cannabisnews.org... Further more, I believe the use of marijuana is, in the majority, for status quo among young people. Should it be legalized, this would be more accesible to younger audiences. Thus creating a dangerous enviroment in whice no one could be 100% sure of their saftey and the safety of their children. Also, while the affects of marijuana are largely unknown, I myself have used marijuana and I know the negative affects it can cause. Mind you I have been clean of any drugs for over a year. In conclusion, I believe leagalizing marijuana is a bad idea for these reasons. Thank you for the opportunity to state my beliefs on such a controversial topic. Good luck to you.

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...

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


Question: Should Cannabis Be Available as a Medical Treatment?

The legalization of medical marijuana should not be an option.

1. Questionable Medical Advantages: While some argue that marijuana offers various medical benefits, it's important to critically assess these claims. It's true that marijuana can help people cope with various health issues, but so can many other substances that are not legal for medical use. For instance, the consumption of substances like cocaine might temporarily alleviate the awareness of one's disease. The mere ability to help people cope is not a strong enough argument for legalizing marijuana for medical purposes. Moreover, medical marijuana is often not the primary treatment option, as it is merely supplementary to established medical practices.

2. Detrimental Health Effects: The consumption of marijuana is associated with numerous negative health outcomes. It can lead to dependence, respiratory issues, mental health problems, poor motor skills, and impaired cognitive and immune system functions. The intoxicating effects of marijuana can cause distorted perceptions, difficulties in thinking and problem-solving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has linked chronic marijuana use to increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia. Furthermore, marijuana smoke contains carcinogens and can irritate the lungs, with 50-70% more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. These health risks far outweigh any potential benefits of medical marijuana.

In conclusion, the supposed health benefits of medical marijuana are questionable and do not justify its legalization. The potential for serious health complications, including mental illness and increased risk of cancer, outweigh any potential benefits. Legalizing medical marijuana would likely harm more people than it would help, making it an unwise option.

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

Ok, this'll be interesting. I would like to approach this from a different angle than usual, and will first predict the future; The instigator will speak of how there are no negative effects and how it is less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes. Now, I am aware that cannabis does not kill brain cells, but it does produce a similar effect. Only during the constant use of weed does the effect of slow thinking arrive. Along with the argument that cannabis is not addictive, it could be said that it should be legalized. However, this is the inverse. This is in fact, an argument as to why cigarettes and alcohol should be banned, and the reasons why they have not been is that A; The corporations in charge have influence over the government and would lobby against the ban. B; The users of these products would also protest against the ban, and they outnumber weed users. Now, just because other addictives are already present does not mean any drug can enter. You have proposed an argument as to why other drugs should be banned, but they are already far too widespread to be banned completely (source, the prohibition years) and this does not justify legalizing weed. Now on the topic of addictiveness, it is true that weed is less addictive than alcohol. (not sure how they tested that) However, this is a problem in itself. Since no overdose can occur and it is not addictive, weed users will see no reason to have regulations on weed as there are on alcohol and cigarettes. Their argument will be that since since there is no negative effect, they do not have to limit weed use. It can take weeks to remove cannabis from the system (source www.drugs.ie/) and so if one was even to have some on a Friday or Saturday night, the effects would harm their productivity at work or school. (I have a friend who failed his end of year exams, which could be put down to a mixture of his cannabis use and his lack of study (which is also due to his cannabis use) But any personal stories I give can be ignored by you who will produce someone you know who retains intelligence post weed use. So I will close this speech now. I await your response, Duncan.

Actually, they have not yet proved if marijuana reduces lung cancer or not yet. They tested it, but then found out that the testers might have been too young to develop lung cancer. Also, just because there have been made laws to have smokers stay away from buildings, does not mean that the smoke is still in the air. Anyone can breathe it in and harm their body with the smoke. Now there might be some good things about marijuana that we don't yet know about, but what about the bad things? Your blood pressure dropping? Heavy coughing? Stinging and burning of the mouth and throat? Death? I don't think people want to go through this, just to have a quick high. It doesn't make sense. As I said before, the government is protecting us, and protecting future generations. Now, you can go against it, but there will be consequences. I'm pretty sure some scientists are able to test marijuana because how would they be able to test the lung cancer situation? I do not think marijuana should be legal, because it harms our bodies, for NO apparent reasons. We don't need to be ruining the bodies, that God Himself created for us.

Hello there, we will be debating marijuana legalization in the United States of America. To clarify, I will be arguing that marijuana should be legalized in America, and my opponent will be arguing that marijuana should not be legalized in America. Standard conduct applies, definitions are not needed.

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 subjectto be discussed specifically, and ultimately provide an overall view of thetopic for the voters. It also eliminates the necessity of quoting your opponentas that wastes text space (which I often need). In addition, you do not addressmany of points, and as stated earlier, I will assume you either agree with thatpoint or cannot refute it should you fail to do so. I once again ask that youfollow my format. Finally, when citing sources, please specify the exact portionof the source you would like to use for large sources instead of simply postingan entire article. This allows for clearer communication. The video to theright is my source (3).Point 1a"Back in the 1800s when most drugs were legal, marijuana was clearlyvery addictive." Yet you fail to provide any support for this. One canalso say that in the 1800's the sky was pink. Furthermore, I already saidthat I do not wish to discuss drugs, only marijuana. Therefore any data notspecifying marijuana is not valid in this argument. "Alcohol's addictiverate is 10%, but illicit drug users can get addicted by a rate of 75%."Although this "statistic" includes all illicit drugs and has nosupport, I will respond because the same principles apply regardless of thedrug. Comparing the "addictive rate" of one drug (alcohol) with many(illicit drugs) is not proportional, besides this; there are two reasons forthe supposed results. The first is that while illegal, the general use of adrug is increased (3). Secondly, when an illicit drug user is arrested(marijuana users more so than other illegal drug users), the courts often givethem a choice between a harsh sentence or treatment and a slap on the wrist.Obviously they are going to choose treatment, and they are then labeledaddicts. After all, they are in treatment for drug use right?Point 1f"Then there was the experiment in Alaska." Actually, the lawwas not that anyone under 19 could not consume cannabis, rather, it stated thatthe possession of 1 ounce or less would not receive criminal penalties such asarrest (this is decriminalization not legalization). With regards to youthaccess, it is clearly easier for youth to get marijuana now because all theyhave to do is call a dealer (which isn't hard to find) and have the necessaryfunds. However, once legal, it would be taken out the hands of street dealersand be regulated; both similarly to alcohol (refer to point 2f to argue thisstatement). Then the only access would be in stores that enforce the age restrictionand require identification, which naturally makes it much harder to obtain. Onthe other hand, decriminalization (such as the Alaskan experiment) does notregulate cannabis, it only reduces penalties for use which obviously will notreduce and may even increase youth use. My source comments similarly on this(1). Also, we already have an example of the success of more sensible cannabispolicies with regards to use youth in the Netherlands (2). Point 2aFirstly, there is no evidence or reason to believe that legalization would givea "boom" to the black market. And, in actuality, we already havereason to believe the exact opposite of this claim (3). Also, I address the DUIclaim in a following point. The economic statistics of alcohol and tobacco areirrelevant with regards to marijuana's potential to bring in revenue,especially since we already have studies estimating the financial benefits ofcannabis (6).Point 2c"It also increases the number of DUI's by a wide margin. It rose ashigh as 40% for adults and 70% for juveniles in California and that is clearlya disaster." Yet again, I am discussing marijuana only. However itshould be noted that the statistics my opponent is referring to are resulting fromdecriminalization only and I have already addressed this. "Californiadecriminalized marijuana 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests fordriving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4percent for juveniles." This quote is from my opponent's own source[4]. Also, we have reliable reason to believe the opposite (7).Point 2e"Many studies have shown that half of all violent crime offenders wereunder the influence of drugs, most notably marijuana, when they committed theircrimes." With regards to marijuana, testing for use is FAR fromconclusive. Testing positive for cannabis only proves that the user had used itwithin a certain amount of time, varying time frames existing for the differentmethods. Only blood testing has the potential to detect active THC metabolites,the time frame of which is about 5 hours (4). Blood testing is, however, anexpensive and invasive form of testing that is rarely used. Since it cannot bedetermined that all of the subjects in the "studies" were given bloodtest within the necessary time frame to show active THC metabolites, it followsthat it cannot be determined that the provided statistics are reliable oraccurate. This is mainly because many such studies erroneously consider thepresence of THC metabolites alone (those not active) evidence of intoxication(similarly to the unjust drug testing that plague our nation). Even still,given that there is no conclusive evidence that marijuana causes criminalactivity, assuming that it does is logic parallel with a logical fallacy, (lookit up if you don't know what that is) faulty cause number one (5).Consequently, the implication that legalization of marijuana would increasecrime has no basis. Also, my source further refutes this (3).Point 3a"Murder is illegal too, but that doesn't mean people are still murder." 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. Point 3c"Following the repeal of prohibition, alcohol consumption increased." Your point here is invalid since your source [1] was notfound.Point 4aUsing your quote as a point is a fallacy. Number fourteen appeal to authority (5). And, looking at the facts behind cannabis prohibition, "legislating morality" would coincide with legalizing marijuana.Conclusion ResponseMy opponent has proved nothing. He tries to "morph" my arguments tofit his argumentative goals. Furthermore he attempts to use statistics with allillegal drugs to provide unreliable and inaccurate predictions of the effectmarijuana's legalization would have on the nation. I leave it to my opponent toaddress the points he ignored should he choose to.Sources(1) http://www.opposingviews.com...(2) http://www.erowid.org...(3) http://www.youtube.com...(4)http://www.labmed.yale.edu...(5) http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu...(6) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...(7) http://healthland.time.com...

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.

"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?

This is my first debate here and I think this will be an interesting topic. I have not seen it on this site. As Pro I will contend marijuana should indeed be legalized. Con will argue it should NOT be legalized.

Ok i didnt really put that much research into it i was just wanting to debate. This issue is over debated and i do believe everyone should have the same rights so im not really con and the debate doesnt matter because everyone on this site is probably pro for this debate because its a very open subject Marijuana should be legal

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.


Question: Should Cannabis Be Available as a Medical Treatment?

Marijuana should be a legitimate medical choice.

Marijuana, akin to alcohol, has been utilized extensively but often in an abusive manner. Historically, it was recognized for its medicinal properties until its misuse and transformation into a gateway drug. The legality of alcohol doesn't justify its excessive or abusive consumption, much like the situation with marijuana. Therefore, marijuana should be treated with similar caution and not be subjected to widespread abuse, which is why it should be regulated rather than banned outright. I extend my gratitude to lightningbolt50 for the opportunity to engage in this debate, and to you for taking the time to read. Please cast your vote for the debater you find most convincing. Thank you.

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.

Just a reminder, I can get a little harsh. Since this dumb site doesn't allow curses (yeah, because all the controversial topics about sex & drugs are totally ok for kids to see) Expect quiet a few asterisks. (*)Before I begin, I'd like to state my stance on the weed argument. I don't smoke weed, and don't have the intention to ever smoke weed. I don't think It should be legal, but I'm not a religious wingnut who thinks it's "The devils salad" or any of the stupid things those crazy people say. So, let's begin.1. "Marijuana is not addictive."Look, anything that you take one of and want more of is addictive. Video games are addictive, sports are addictive, & hitting on women at bars is addictive.2. "Marijuana is physically impossible to overdose on"Not an expert on weed, but I'm pretty sure that - like any other substance - yes you can. Weed gives your body an unnatural effect, and smoking too much weed might cause harm. I'm not saying it'll kill you, just that it'll harm you.3. "Marijuana's supposed "negative" effects, whether long term or short, are negligible, and many of which cannot credibly be declared true."So tell me again how getting a sudden urge to eat all the cookie dough, potato chips, cream cheese & marshmellows in your house isn't a negative effect? 4. "The Gateway theory is fundamentally flawed"How is it flawed? People who do drugs tend to take other drugs. Why? Because people who take drugs probably have a rebellious personality. They do one rebellious act against the law, they want to do another, just to get that rush of doing something illegal. Teens drinking alchohol is just as much of a gateway drug as weed, but weed is still a gateway drug.5. "Marijuana's intoxicating effects are not harmful to the users or others within itself (i.e. causing aggressiveness or other adverse changes to mood or perception), and therefore responsibility is placed on the user."It completely does. Alchohol does too, every mood-changing substance does.6. "Youth's access to marijuana will not be increased by legalization but will in fact be decreased"Yeah, and you know what happens then? Weed stops being cool and teens turn to drugs that cause them actual harm such as cocaine.IN RESPONSE TO ALL THE "BENEFITS" LEGALIZING WEED WILL HAVEWeed can be used mecidally,yes. Because it already is. Legalizing it for the public won't be able to change that. In fact, by making weed legal, you're getting rid of it's use as a recreational mood-changer. It'll probably only be available to those who need it for medicinal purposes. And as for the whole "it'll stop a lot of crime" no it won't. Weed is far from the only drug out there, and getting rid of one will not change that at all. And if it isn't only medicinal, if it becomes something like tobacco did, then it doesn't stop people from driving drugged."3. Even if marijuana was a harmful substance it is clearly no more harmful than legal substances (i.e. alcohol, tobacco) which have been perfectly integrated into society and are tolerated. Therefore, it should be treated no differently."Perfectly integrated? Tobacco is seen as the devils drinking buddy by society, and drinking is now known as being desperate. Weed will stop being known as a calming drug, it'll just become a cautionary tale.IN RESPONSE TO #4Since when? Since when has the governments job not been to control us? Oh yeah, let's protect the lives of the US by doing absulutely f***-all about our s*** health care and allow all these terrible massacres to keep happening. Let's protect their liberty by trying to ban the things they love. Let's pursue happiness by going to war with the wrong countries and doing everything wrong in every other countries eyes. As for Canada, well King Prime Minister Stephen Harper banned Count Chocula & Cookie Crisp for being unhealthy, so don't expect us to legalize weed anytime soon.

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.

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...

My opponent graces with his presence, briefly.His ground-breaking argument:"marijuana is the shiz"Shiz: slang term for excrement.According to my opponent, M is waste digestive byproducts excreted anally. Even if we are to accept this definition, which seems to lack a factual basis, I hardly see how this strengthens his case. If anything, it gives credence to my arguments on the health hazards of M.He ignores my arguments, and does not attempt to defend his own. Resolution negated.

Marijuana's legalization would simplify the development of hemp as a valuable and diverse agricultural crop in the United States, including its development as a new bio-fuel to reduce carbon emissions. Canada and European countries have managed to support legal hemp cultivation without legalizing marijuana, but in the United States opposition to legal marijuana remains the biggest obstacle to development of industrial hemp as a valuable agricultural commodity. As US energy policy continues to embrace and promote the development of bio-fuels as an alternative to oil dependency and a way to reduce carbon emissions, it is all the more important to develop industrial hemp as a bio-fuel source - especially since use of hemp stalks as a fuel source will not increase demand and prices for food, such as corn. Legalization of marijuana will greatly simplify the regulatory burden on prospective hemp cultivation in the United States. Prohibition is based on lies and disinformation. Justification of marijuana's illegality increasingly requires distortions and selective uses of the scientific record, causing harm to the credibility of teachers, law enforcement officials, and scientists throughout the country. The dangers of marijuana use have been exaggerated for almost a century and the modern scientific record does not support the reefer madness predictions of the past and present. Many claims of marijuana's danger are based on old 20th century prejudices that originated in a time when science was uncertain how marijuana produced its characteristic effects. Since the cannabinoid receptor system was discovered in the late 1980s these hysterical concerns about marijuana's dangerousness have not been confirmed with modern research. Everyone agrees that marijuana, or any other drug use such as alcohol or tobacco use, is not for children. Nonetheless, adults have demonstrated over the last several decades that marijuana can be used moderately without harmful impacts to the individual or society. Marijuana is not a lethal drug and is safer than alcohol. It is established scientific fact that marijuana is not toxic to humans; marijuana overdoses are nearly impossible, and marijuana is not nearly as addictive as alcohol or tobacco. It is unfair and unjust to treat marijuana users more harshly under the law than the users of alcohol or tobacco.

I'm for Marijuana Legalization so I will take the side of Pro, I think Marijuana being a drug is a terrible excuse, Caffeine is a drug, so is Tylenol, Ibuprofen, Alcohol, and Aspirin. In addition, "Well it might help if you have cancer. But only for a little." is incorrect grammar, because these aren't 2 sentences.

Marijuana is a WEED which means it steals water from other plants. Those who grow it are actually destroying hundreds of ecosystems around the world. For example, in Brasil, they have a problem with losing their rainforest. This is actually because many drug dealers around there grow their plants in the secrecy within the forest. All of the marijuana plants are actually killing trees that are hundreds of thousands of years old. Besides the environment, marijuana is terrible for you. When smoked, the smoke goes to your brain and kills billions of brain cells. Although they can grow back, these new brain cells don't have the same information, making your iq lower by on average 54 points, according to a study by Harvard University. Additionally, even though people use it "medically" (It DOES make you hungry, which is true) people just smoke it in hospitals and die from cancer. For the argument on why it would help the economy, well it would actually HURT it. The more it's legalized, the more people die. With less people to trade stocks, start businesses and take jobs, the legalization of marijuana would send us into another great depression.

I believe in freedom for all. If you really are afraid of getting addicted to marijuana from others second hand smoke (LOL) my advice is to avoid such places. Especially cool cities such as Vancouver and Denver. I don't think your medieval thinking would go over that well. One would think if we truly did live in a democratic society the majority would have a say on the subject and we both fully understand that the overwhelming majority can think of better ways the police and courts could use their tax money. The law truly is as laughable as the rule of thumb law that was one day actually in writing. Do you believe marijuana to be a gateway DRUG ? (Lol)

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.


Question: Should Cannabis Be Available as a Medicinal Option?

Marijuana Legalization: A Detrimental Path

Introduction: Despite the growing trend of support for marijuana legalization, I maintain that this drug should remain illegal. In this discussion, I will present several reasons why legalizing marijuana is both morally and pragmatically unsound.

C1) Marijuana is a Harmful Substance: Regardless of its various disguises, marijuana is fundamentally a drug with harmful effects. The University of Washington highlights its respiratory risks, stating that long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of respiratory issues, similar to tobacco smoking (Howden & Naughton, 2011). Moreover, marijuana smokers often also smoke tobacco, compounding the respiratory problems (Wu et al, 1988). Additionally, marijuana smoke contains more carcinogens than cigarettes, increasing the risk of cancer (Tashkin, 2013). The potency of marijuana has also increased over time, from less than 1% in 1972 to nearly 13% today (Live Science, 2022). This heightened potency exacerbates its harmful effects.

C2) Legalization Increases Marijuana Use: Legalizing marijuana, even for medical purposes, leads to higher usage. The Office of National Drug Control Policy notes that legalization would cause the price of marijuana to drop, leading to increased consumption (RAND Corporation, 2022). Lower prices encourage more people to use the drug, increasing the likelihood of abuse and health complications. Alcohol use far exceeds marijuana use, but legalization would narrow this gap. Attempts to legalize other drugs have also proven unsuccessful, even with control measures in place.

C3) Legalization Reverses Moral Values: Medical benefits of marijuana are not well-supported by research (Buffalo News, 2022). If marijuana is ineffective for medical treatment, its legalization promotes harm over assistance. Legalizing marijuana for economic gain devalues humanity in favor of economics, which is morally unsound. Any economic benefits from legalization are negated by the harm to society.

C4) Adverse Effects of Previous Legalizations: Colorado's legalization of marijuana has resulted in negative consequences, such as a majority of DUI drug arrests being marijuana-related and a significant increase in hospitalizations related to marijuana use (Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, 2022). The governor of Colorado has expressed regret over the decision to legalize marijuana (Daily Mail, 2022).

Rebuttals: My opponent's reliance on Colorado's success is unf

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...

Weed can help A LOT with getting off debt from other countries; Weed is very useful with helping people who may always be in pain and relaxe those from doing thins stupid; and can just have a good laugh with your peers. For gods sake weed is just a PLANT ! And there is nothing wrong with doing it with your family or friends as long as u can really trust them; enough to not lace it with something more dangerous. LEGALIZE MARY-J !!!!!!!!!! :D

Being that alcohol is legal and contributes to 4% of deaths world wide and marijuana has never been a cause of a single recorded death. This goes to show the inconsistency in the governments effort to try and protect its citizens. Not only does alcohol contribute to more deaths cigarettes do as well. Both of these are far more potent and addictive then marijuana. Marijuana even serves medicinal purposes for cancer patients and can temporarily relieve certain aches and pains.

Contention 1: Healthcare I have stated at the begining of the debate and as it states in the resolution that they should be used for recreationial use, not medicinial. Major difference and thus the argument is null and void. Contention 2: Drugs and violence. Here is a murder rate in the US History from the begining of last century to present. The murder doesn't start to drop off until the late 1930's were WW II is starting to pick up steam and FDR's New Deal Policy is getting Americans back to work. (. http://thepublicintellectual.org...) We can see that the crime rate drop that we've seen isn't due to the Prohibition, but it is due to unemployment. (. http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com...) So with that my argument stands as my opponent has no link to the impact for the debate and thus my argument stands. Contention 3: Economy Actually, if my opponent wants to get specific the United States has an unemployment rate of 5.9%. (. http://data.bls.gov...) Compared to Pro's numbers we can see that the US has less unemployment and thus my argument stands. Contention 4: Human Nature My opponent's own link states that support for anarchy was at it's highest in Spain. Anarchy never occured and any support for it was crushed in the Spanish Civil War. Contention 5: Addiction Though it may be concidered impossible I have sourced that there are deaths from it and massive hospitalizations in my last round. On my opponent's survey we can see that it is just a mear survey of randon people as my opponent could have targetted a select number of people and, because of this the survey is invalid. I also extend across last rounds massive hospitalizations numbers and economic harm. Contention 6: Strange Drugs. My opponent dropped this argument so I extend it across.

"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 begin this debate by defining Terminal Illness. A Terminal illness is a disease that cannot be cured or treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient ( most terminal patients have about 6 months to live ). With that definition you can see that there is no treatment for a patient who is considered terminal. The only thing they can do is sit and wait to die. In that time there pain will worsen. There are few things that doctors can do to help the patient. They could place them on a respirator to help them breath or they can give them drugs to ease the pain. However as the disease progresses the drugs will no longer help the pain. That is why assisted death should be an option. Imagine you had a loved one with terminal cancer. The doctors told you they had six months to live, and they are now in there 5 month of being diagnosed. They are in so much pain it hurts them to even move an inch, and the drugs the doctors have them on are no longer working. They want to die. What would you do? To not let them die because you want to spend more time with them would be selfish and inhumane. They are in pain. They are no longer the person you once knew. If they where given the option of assisted death and they wanted it, you should respect that. http://www.lonestar.edu... https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

My opponent should’ve elaborated a bit more on his opening statement. What kind of drugs? Some drugs are legal and others are illegal.Prescription drugs are medicine supplied by your doctors under strict conditions. These drugs are given to their patients with specific instructions, and therefore, you must not overdose. - Any medicine can be classed as a ‘drug’, which eliminates the idea for it to get ’banned’ or terminated from supplying. A drug which isn’t a medicine, such as: Cocaine, cannabis, heroin etc, must be banned regardless of someone’s freedom to excessively use them. These drugs are of course illegal & must stay that way for a number of reason. Thinking independently for your own sake is a huge mistake on the issue of ‘drugs’. Your idea is to legalise drugs, so that everyone can freely use it in order to taste ‘freedom’, which could eventually kill them. Well, here’s the problem:People, on a national stage would cause chaos all over the globe. It would make the riots that recently occurred in London, look like a friendly playground. Students would be behaving in a disrespectful manner, causing teacher’s freedom to diminish, and their will to teach. The markets would collapse, bringing the economy down by 60 - 80 percent as people would start looting. Most drugs reduces a person’s ability to think & remember things due to brain cell damage. As a result, we would not be able progress in the near future educationally, technologically, mentally or physically.

The problem with the prohibition of marijuana is that it is a double standard. When you measure the danger of substances available on the market you are basically drawing a line in the sand saying this one is good and this one is bad. The problem is that the people who decide this do it with an agenda that has nothing to do with the "danger" of using marijuana. Why else would so many terrible things cross the line and be considered "safe". What it comes down to is that typically pot smokers are your average people who live normal lives. Other than children smoking it, I really don't see what everyone is so afraid of. Dogma perhaps? I'm an idealist that can envision a world free of red bull, McDonald, and "happy hour"! It is free of religion, government, racism, sexism, homophobia, class systems, money, apathy, malice, Terrorism, war, cancer... etc! What I am proposing is that if you can give me a solution to the horrific monster under the bed, then I will lobby to stop people from smoking! You see where I am going. The problem with idealism is that it is personal. It will be opposed by many. Heck I think the NFL, and Nascar is the biggest waste of resources on the planet and would love to see Justin Beiber live in a 600 a month apartment. But I'm not trying to stand in the way of the fans. There are so many contradictions involved it has to be something other than its affect on people. Do you have any information in regards to why so many terrible things become mainstream and something as harmless as marijuana. (Moderation is key to almost everything in life: too much water and you will drown) Your argument about marijuana affecting students in an interesting point. My solution is let the schools handle it. Let the Universities regulate and educate about moderation. The main issue is that most of the people who want marijuana to be legal already smoke it regardless... bringing up the financial aspect. Do I even need to go into this. A gazillion U.S. Dollars have went to the black market fueling larger more dangerous enterprises. Instead of going back into the schools and law enforcement! Instead A Gazillion dollars is being siphoned into making sure people can drink themselves to death while bullying the lives of innocent people! Alcohol is addictive in ever sense of the word. Smoke weed everyday for 30 years and quit. It will probably suck but in short time you will wonder what the big deal was. Now try drinking everyday for 30 years and quit.. You should probably go to the hospital so you don't die! That is something that will haunt you the rest of your life. I'm going to say something extremely bold. I actually believe this statement. There are a lot of people that need to smoke that do not, Now I will counter that statement with there are a lot of people that shouldn't smoke but do. (The world is crazy like that) I guarantee you if a suicide bomber lit up a joint there is no way he would go through with it. That is not my strongest argument I will admit but you can see how everything is distorted and doesn't really add up? You are absolutely right many people can smoke and do great things. Some just shut down and become introverted. Which is still better than drunk and obnoxious! I agree that in your perfect world where all drugs and alcohol including cigarettes are illegal, marijuana should follow. But like I said until I see that I have a hard time telling people what to do. Especially If I have no idea what I'm talking about. In closing, I will need a little more from you to keep this going. So do some research and find out the REAL reason why marijuana is illegal, and convince me that it should be!

Okay yeah you make a valid argument saying that we should restrict most substances that can be abused. But the thing is... marijuana is still being abused no matter what we do. Even if we take extreme measures against marijuana use, people will still continue to use it. Also marijuana isn't addictive so it doesn't really affect our decisions when we aren't high. Also another common misconception that is made is that when people smoke weed they go out of the house and get into trouble and put other people in danger. But that's not the case. When someone smokes weed the only thing they want to do is sit at home, eat a lot of food, and watch movies. Yeah that also intrigues the argument that people are much less productive when they're high. When someone's high they are much more creative. They come up with come with some very useful product and ideas.

The resolution: The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Public Consumption. This means for non-medical use as well as medical. Marijuana (cannabis): http://en.wikipedia.org... Please use the first round to accept the terms. You have 72 hrs to argue after you accept the challenge.