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

Permitting pharmaceutical firms to directly market to consumers fosters a culture of sickness. The direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs by pharmaceutical companies can instill an unhealthy focus on medical conditions and treatments, potentially leading to over-medication and misdiagnosis. This practice raises significant concerns about public health and the potential for creating unnecessary demand for medication.

The government should allow the American people the right to decide what they eat, drink, smoke and wear. American people should have the right to put a cross in their yard, the star of David, crescent moon, statue of Buddha, statue of Darwin or whatever they want as long as it is not pornography or violent. The statue of Venus or statue of Apollo is not porn it is nudity and art. Violent would be something depicting murder, rape or torture. Too many of our freedoms have been trampled by the past 2 administrations and it is time the American people had a voice again. I don't believe people should lose insurance for pre-existing conditions but if you are over 100 pounds overweight and are extremely unhealthy then health care should not be available. But if If I want to drink 100 0z of coke at a time and stuff my face with greasy bacon burgers and fries, I should have that right and realize that I would not have insurance and die. If I decide to live longer and have insurance than I will limit my intake of things bad for my health. It should be MY choice!

Pro has provided no argument but has just shared findings that he found on the internet.There is absolutely no presentation of his corroborations. It is imperative for anyone reading to fully realize that not everything you read on the internet is truth. Moreover, the meaning of "drug" has yet to been established by Pro.I will refute all three (3) of Pro's sources, either with a counter source that has concluded on an opposite findings or identity the normative terms used in the presentation of their doctored findings. http://kidshealth.org... This website is designed for kids, and composed in a manner so kids can understand it. Under the heading "Why Are Illegal Drugs Dangerous", the first sentence commits a baseless generalization about drugs. The website posts "illegal drugs aren't good for anyone ... ". If this were true, why under the previous heading - "Illegal Drugs" - would the authors of the website admit that marijuana is used for medicinal purposes? It must be good for some people if it is used as a remedy by the government. http://drugfacts4youngpeople.com... There is no references to their assertions the harms that are intrinsic to drug usage. Baseless assertions. I am disappointed as Pro has not been able to provide any sort of original argument.

Thank you Con for building your case. I will now summarize cons main points that he presented and offer rebuttals for each. (1) The state of Oregon along with other states has or may use doctors and physicians as a tool to end a patients life so that they will not have to pay for medication. He believes they will do this by taking advantage of their mental state. Direct quote by con"To me, these stories tell me that the State of Oregon was using something that advocates say will help people die peacefully to really using it so they could not pay for their medicine all three of these cancer patients want"(2) People who want to commit suicide most of the time are suffering from a mental disorder(3) Morality. He believe it is immoral to take a persons life. Direct quote from Con"Personally I think if someone wants to die whether healthy or ill, there is a bigger issue or issues underneath the surface of the plea for death, so instead of allowing that person life we just kill them off instead of helping them through the issues they have"(1)In cons opening points he uses three stories to illustrate how assisted suicide could be taken advantage of. He states that people with cancer and other types of terminal illness are undergoing depression from which they can be treated, and he wishes that they are treated for depression so that they would not wish to die. I will not argue the fact that most people suffering from types of terminal illness are undergoing depression. In fact I will say that there is a high probability they are which Con demonstrated within his sources. Con however completely missed the main issue behind assisted suicide. That is the reason why they are depressed. People suffering from terminal illness are often undergoing intense of amounts of pain. As he pointed out with cancer. You can have cancer of the lungs, breasts, or in most parts of your party. There is heart disease and other types of illnesses that lead to deterioration of the body. It is very easy to see why these people are depressed, and that is because of the amount of pain they are in. While Con is correct when he says they can be treated for depression, they can not be treated for some of the illnesses that plague them. That is why most of them are suffering from "Terminal Illness". Terminal illness is defined as "A medical term popularized in the 20th century to describe an active and malignant disease that cannot be cured". Most of these people have disease that are incurable and are forced to suffer through the pain. Some people can be in such intense pain that they pass out, especially with bone deterioration or cancer of the lungs in their final days. When they are in that type of suffering it is a completely viable option to give them the choice to end their suffering. He then states that doctors can be controlled in order to murder people so they will not have to pay for medical costs. This could possibly happen, but will not happen with controlled regulation. In fact it will decrease it from happening. As con stated there have already been cases in which this occurred. From the intense overview this will receive when it is regulated, it will be almost impossible to commit this. If a doctor even tried to do this and was caught, he would be tried for premeditated murder. At that point he will risk life in prison, death, revocation of his license, and a stain on his character as a person. Just out of the sheer consequences that come from this, a deterrent is already in place without regulations. Regulations will just help build the deterrent even more. (2)The context in which con is making this point is irrelevant to the debate but I will combat it anyway. As I have already tackled previously patients who are suffering from terminal illness are in that state because of pain and other reasons. Con was making this point to show that "most people" who commit suicide are undergoing depression. Where as this will not fall under the guide lines of how this law will be passed it is irrelevant. It is directly relevant to people who are in trauma or are suffering from severe illness. Where as it may extend to more people in a later date. As i have also stated, suicide itself is not a criminal act. So to bring up the point that most people who are not ill and that still see fit to commit suicide are depressed, is irrelevant to this topic. (3)Con questions the morality behind this. Seeing as how this is completely subjective I will argue as so. Con thinks that extended someone the curiosity of living longer is the moral act. He ignores the fact that it is there wish not to suffer because of the vast amounts of pain they are in. Where as morality is dependent upon different a persons viewpoint, I propose that it should be that person right, or the family right to say whether or not it is a moral act to end their suffering.In closing I have previously shown in my R2 argument and continued to show throughout this rounds argument why assisted suicide should be legalized. Suicide is already permitted and not considered a crime, so law is not being broken. It should also be a persons or their families right to determine if it is moral to end their suffering. I have also shown how this is already happening with the option of pulling the plug in some cases. Where as this is a passive cases of assisted suicide and they are not actually ending the persons life, it is still with the intention of kill them to help them ease their pain. The most important point is that everyone should have their right to their own body and be able to choose death or life. If they do not wish to be in pain, we have no right to put them through needless suffering if they so desire. I believe and have shown why this is moral, and helping ease a persons suffering. This is already starting to be pushed and is already in legal in some states, I ask that you take the steps to make it happen in the rest. Thank youhttp://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...http://www.usccb.org...

Here's one for the Conservatives ;) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Jefferson once said, "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. " Today, the manufacturing, buying, posession and distribution of psilocybin mushrooms is illegal in all but 2 states: Florida and New Mexico. I support the legalization of this drug for several reasons: 1. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. .. " yet the law disregards one's right to utilize the effects of mushrooms to enhance/practice their religious beliefs. 2. In addition to religious freedoms, individuals in the United States should have the right to ingest anything of their choosing - especially if it is not a narcotic or the chemical composition of the drug is natural. That is to say, mushrooms are grown wild in the enviornment and if people want to pick them and eat them and/or give some to their friends, that should not be a crime. 3. Mushrooms are not addictive either physically or psychologically. If continued mushrooms use is excessive within a short period of time, a tolerance will build giving the drug little to no effect anyway. Additionally, studies show that one's desire to ingest "magic" mushrooms decreases over time. 4. Mushrooms were legal in the U. S. until 1968, and the world was just fine prior to that year while they were still legal. Thus we can assume that there will not be incredibly dramatic, awful consequences for the legalization of mushrooms. 5. Safety: Mushrooms are realtively safe drugs. The toxicity is one and a half times that of caffeine, and the mortality rate as a result of mushroom's toxicity is an incredibly low 0.016%. 6. Researchers from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine conducted a study regarding magic mushrooms. 61% of subjects reported a "complete mystical experience" while being under the mushroom's effects (which lasts 2 - 12 hours; usually between 4 - 8). Two months after using psilocybin mushrooms, 79% of the participants reported moderately to greatly increased life satisfaction and sense of well-being. Further, the "bad trips" that can result from usage were reported to be easily managed by the researchers and did not have a lasting negative effect on the subject's sense of well-being. 7. As with all illegal drugs, legalization of a controlled substance would eliminate the black market buying and selling of drugs which would in turn reduce the number of criminals in this country. I understand why not all drugs can or should be legal, however, mushrooms is not one of them. 8. It is wrong to compare individuals who take magic mushrooms with hardened drug addicts. Not only are the effects of mushrooms much different from other hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin or meth, but mushrooms are also less addictive and less harmful to the body in both the long and short term. 9. Additionally, consider the positive effects mushrooms have on individuals (spiritual enlightenment, euphoria, etc. ). Most people who are 'high' on mushrooms do not feel compelled to put the lives of others in danger or at risk by, say, driving a car while under the influence, or acting violently towards another individual. Rather people who use mushrooms report feeling closer with nature and want to be outdoors. If not, they're enjoying closed or open-eyed visuals and are more concerned/distracted by what they're seeing and feeling internally than the desire to venture out and hurt others. This is not my opinion but rather documented in various studies/reports of individuals who are familiar with the use of entheogens. 10. Finally, of course being under the influence of any drug (including caffeine and cold medicine) has the ability to alter one's actions and reactions. This should not be a factor for several reasons. First, for medical reasons my little brother takes testosterone injections on a daily basis. This greatly affects his mood (he is angered more easily) yet his consumption of the drug is not illegal. If someone were to take magic mushrooms for any reason - spiritual or medical (they have been known to help with cluster headaches) - it should not be against the law. Why? Other legal drugs that are prescribed or not affect our reflexes, chemical imbalances, moods, or ability to complete tasks / reasoning. Rather than outlaw these things, our society has sought to warn (i. e. the warning to not operate automobiles after taking Nyquil) and/or educate, such as via D. A. R. E. programs or groups like M. A. D. D. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). I believe that like alcohol, if people are educated regarding the effects of mushrooms, they can make better decisions that would eliminate or highly prevent consumption from interfering with the lives of others and causing disaster. Similarly, just as it is socially accepted (and promoted) for there to be a 'sober force' with an individual(s) who has been drinking, for example, a similar concept can be attributed to the consumption of shrooms. In conclusion, just one of those arguments is reason enough to support the legalization of mushrooms, however, I have provided 10. For my opponent to win this debate, he or she must argue that mushrooms should not be legal and why. Their reasoning should outnumber and/or outweigh my arguments. Because my points are mostly rooted in fact, Con would have to negate those facts in order for their case to be valid.

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

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.

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...

It is important, in arguing any important topic, that it is presented well. Both my partner and I share serious concerns about the direction that the WoD is taking, and we both hope to see much more intelligent policy be implemented going forward. However, exactly because I agree with my partner on so many points, I would also like for him to present a strong case for this perspective – and so I am bound to offer criticisms that I feel will improve his argument in the future. To that end, I am noting the following items that I feel can be done better: “Drug use was not a problem before the 1960’s. Not much was known about cocaine. All around, there was no significant abuse of drugs. So no, there was no unacceptable level of human misery caused by drug abuse.”Here, my Partner attempts to show that there were no overdoses, accidents in the manufacture of narcotics, accidents involving the operation of automobiles or heavy machinery while under the influence, or any other significant or unacceptable pain caused by the use of dangerous narcotics that predate 1959. I believe that, despite the tepid and unconvincing statistics given, that this is an unsupported assertion. “Drug traffickers have gross profit margins of up to 300%. At least 75% of illicit drug shipments would have to be intercepted before the traffickers' profits were hurt.”I may be required to concede that this point is true. I am in little position to authoritatively second guess this fact. However, it was offered within the context of reassuring me that the rates of usage of dangerous narcotics might increase as a result of ending the WoD, and that there are very likely cases in which the harmful effects of these narcotics was prevented by the WoD. It is therefore somewhat nonsensical as a response. A stronger point is made when he points out that drug use has increased since the WoD has been conducted in earnest. Unfortunately, this is another unsupported assertion; no evidence is given that clearly demonstrates that this increased usage was positively caused by the WoD. In other words, this could be a convincing argument, which would require that I concede the point or lose credibility. First, however, my partner must provide convincing supporting evidence that definitively demonstrates causation. No such evidence is offered. “I can walk outside and obtain a considerable amount of marijuana, MDMA, or LSD within 15 minutes. With this, I feel that discontinuing the War on Drugs would, for the most part, not increase the amount of users.”This is a compelling personal story, but is too small a study to represent a representative sample of the overall population. Again, while I accept that it is my partner’s earned opinion that drug use would not increase as a result of removing preventative drug laws, it is also unsupported by convincing evidence. We require this evidence in order to force a supporter of the WoD to admit that they have made an error. My partner repeats several times that “drug use will not increase if that use is made legal.” This mirrors accurately that assertion that “The WoD is not reducing the use of dangerous narcotics.” However, it is everywhere unsupported by convincing data. Since so many of his key points, critical to building his case, rely on this argument, I am required to examine it a little more closely. “Drug use will not increase if drug laws are eliminated.” Or, “The existence of drug laws do not affect drug use.”This argument requires that we believe that: “Laws do not affect human behavior.” Since, after all, my partner has not explained why drug laws should be seen in any different light than other legal requirements. For his argument to work, then, he will need to also make the case that laws in general do not work – that people are no more, (or less,) likely to stop at busy intersections if there are (or are not,) red lights positioned at those intersections. Or, he would be required to demonstrate how laws regulating the manufacture, sale, or use of narcotics are significantly different than other laws – or perhaps how drug users are less likely to be governable under any circumstances. This is key, so I will elaborate: Many of my partner’s arguments hinge on the fact that “laws do not work” as related to drug users, makers, distributors, etc. This begs the question: Why not? If he is arguing that drugs create an inability for society to govern its members, then the WoD is essential for societal governance. “Criminalizing drugs puts non-violent dealers in a bad position. The government creates negative situations for small-time users and dealers for no good reason. Similarly the War puts cartels in a like position.”This argument reduces to “Criminal penalties harm those who commit criminal acts.” It is understood that penalties for illegal actions will be incurred by those who are found to have committed them. To be convincing, we are required to evaluate why a certain action is harmless. In order to demonstrate that drug use is “harmless,” my partner will be required to do something that is obviously impossible. “I understand that you believe that there is a level of success. But clearly that is not true. Their efforts to intercept drug trafficking makes no difference. Cartels still laugh with their massive profits. Though the DEA may get drug busts every now and then, it is a hopeless effort. In the long run any individual bust is rendered useless. Law enforcement is wasting man hours and lives for no reasonable gain. They could be fighting violent crimes. The cons of the War greatly outweigh the pros.” This is a mixture of hyperbole and unsupported assertions. In order to make this argument, my partner will be required to make the absurd claim that absolutely nothing good has ever, or can ever, result from any attempt to regulate, restrict, control or prohibit the manufacture, sale or use of any ingestible substance. This is in stark contrast to my argument, which is that the WoD should be improved, but all attempts to regulate drug sale, manufacture and use in the US should not be abandoned. Consider his argument, which I reduce to: “There has been no level of success with any drug laws, and no drug laws can ever prove to be a benefit to society under any circumstances. All such laws would increase drug use, and reduce police protections and waste tax dollars.”To demonstrate the wild, undisciplined rhetoric that is being used here, I will point out that my partner has indicated that there has been no level of success in the WoD (“I understand that you believe that there is a level of success. But clearly that is not true. Their efforts to intercept drug trafficking makes no difference.”) Then later, he points out that, “The cons of the War greatly outweigh the pros.” Clearly, if there are any ‘Pros’ at all, then his earlier statement must be untrue. This is evidence of hyperbole, in my opinion. My partner also points out that the penalties for minor drug offenses are too severe, and that these limit the earning potential of persons thereby convicted. Here, he is exactly correct – and he makes a somewhat convincing case for why we should modify our laws that criminalize less dangerous intoxicants. I would like to see him elaborate on this point, as I feel that it is his only strong defense. These rebuttals can be summarized as follows: 1. Laws cannot govern drug users2. The WoD cannot reduce drug use Both of these statements are unsupported by any evidence, and actually argue in favor of the WoD: if “laws cannot govern drug abusers,” then preventing that abuse from occurring in the first place is essential for societal governance. Therefore, good governance requires that we support the modification of the WoD, but not it's complete abandonment. Therefore, the WoD cannot be considered a "failure."

Rebuttal 1 : "1) Failure of my opponent to define "should" in the title---------------------------------------------------------------To clarify my position: I personally believe using debates as a promotional device for private websites is highly distasteful, but that"s not important; my argument is that such a practice does not breach DDO"s T&C"s. "I never said that your opinion constitutes what people should and shouldn't do, I merely used it as an example of people not in agreement with the rules or lack of them. Just because there is no rule regarding advertising one's website in their terms of service does not mean that these kind of posts shouldn't be deleted. You have already argued against yourself in that these types of posts ought to be deleted by saying that you think they should. You would have to prove that rules trump morality and you have failed to do so. Rebuttal 2:2) "Debate. org clearly states that any unauthorized soliciting is illegal------------------------------------------------------------------------------The clause my opponent refers to relates to spam e-mails (such as the love spam messages most members receive on a regular basis) as the sanction for such an activity is as follows: "Juggle reserves the right to restrict the number of emails that a Member may send to other Members in any 24-hour period, to a number that Debate. org deems appropriate in its sole discretion. "My opponent is using a false dichotomy here by stating that users can either not send spam emailsor they can spam posts which aren't emails but are still spam. This is not the case at all as seen in the terms of service:"Will not upload, copy, distribute, share, or otherwise use unsolicited or unauthorized advertising or promotional material, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation. To protect our Members from such advertising or solicitation. "As you can see, DDO does not even make the distinctions between email spam and other kinds of spam. Posting one's own website on a debate WITHOUT a request WOULD qualify as advertisng, promotion, and "other forms of soliciation". Even if users could post their own websites on DDO, my opponent still has not fulfilled his BOD by not arguing why rules trump morality, BUT THEY CAN'T!


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

Advertising prescription drugs directly to consumers can lead to better-informed patients than under current practices. This form of advertising allows patients to educate themselves about new medications and request them sooner, benefiting from innovations that healthcare providers may not yet be familiar with. It boosts consumer awareness of available drugs, encouraging more people to take appropriate medication. Given the complexity of the pharmaceutical market, advertising can clarify the distinctions between treatments, such as the varying purposes of contraceptive pills. When advertising follows established guidelines, it informs patients about new drugs suitable for their conditions, which doctors might overlook or lack time to consider for all patients. A survey found that 56% of American Medical Association general practitioners agreed that direct-to-consumer advertising led some patients to seek treatment for previously neglected conditions. When patients actively research specific drugs and consult their doctors, regardless of the outcome, they foster a positive relationship with their healthcare provider and are more likely to remain proactive about their health. In regions without direct-to-consumer advertising but with doctor-targeted ads, patients are at a disadvantage since private insurers or national health services might withhold information about expensive new drugs to control costs. In the UK, Primary Care Trusts initially resisted prescribing Herceptin, a drug proven to reduce breast cancer damage, due to cost concerns. The drug's approval was expedited in the US, where manufacturer Roche could advertise Herceptin's benefits to consumers, equipping them with information on par with their doctors and enabling them to advocate for its authorization. [1] Patient View – for improving patient care, Information on prescription medicines: the views of EU-based patient groups, http://www.patient-view.com/projects4.htm, accessed 08/07/2011 [2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002, http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140537, accessed 08/08/2011

You are not getting my point. You just keep re-posting what I wrote and you keep doing your best to negate it all. You seem to want to debate the fact that cars are harmful to human beings when in reality, everything is. Automobiles are a necessity in the life of a human, cigarettes are not. My point is that the advertisement of these harmful products are putting a positive image in children's minds.. it's not right. Children are starting to smoke at younger and younger ages, but you usually don't see a 12 year old behind the wheel of a car. Cigarettes are being advertised as a positive product, when in reality there should be pictures of lung cancer and yellow teeth to show the real effects of smoking. And you're probably going to debate that car commercials should have pictures of accidents, but showing a picture of a crash isn't going to stop anyone from driving. It is an essential and necessary part of life. We would be no where without transportation, people would not be able to function in the way they do today and many lives would be hindered by the lack of transportation. Many lives would be different. Showing a picture of lung cancer or yellow teeth, maybe gum disease, might lead someone away from smoking. It might even get someone to consider quitting. Without smoking, life wouldn't be any different and ciilization would be the same exact way it is now. We need cars, we don't need cigarettes. What the debate was actually supposed to be about was the influence that these commercials and ads have on young children. They are sending a positive message about a negative product. You can tell me up, down and sideways that a cigarette can make you feel good but how long does that last? About as long as the cigarette does. There os no need for smoking in our society and there is no need to advertise them in a positive way. These commercials are influencing youn generations in a negative way. There is absolutely no good thing to come of smoking. No parent is proud to say that their child smokes, while others may be proud that their child drives. The outcome of driving is in the hands of the driver. Safe driving is up to the person behind the wheel while the outcome of smoking is not up to the person. People are not going to stop driving because they might get into an accident, they might drive safer or slower in that case but they will not stop driving, but some people may not smoke if they know the dangers involved. Cigarettes are being advertised as a positive product when all they do is kill people, they do nothing else.

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, Pro's response couldn't have been more fallacious.Smoking and HealthRecall that I said that to ban smoking just because it is dangerous and harmful, would mean that we would have to ban just about nearly everything else too. In answering to this, Pro said "It is true that they have certain risks, but most of them don't cause danger to other, to your beauty, and to the environment. Smoking has all those things and more." This is really a bad response. Pro agrees that these things have certain risks, but claims that most of them don't cause danger to others, to your beauty, and to the environment. However, even if this is true, that still doesn't change the fact that these things are dangerous and harmful. Thus, again, if we are to follow Pro's logic, then all these things should be banned because they are dangerous and harmful.Pro also said that some illegal drugs are considered less dangerous than smoking, like for example cannabis and ecstasy. Pro claims that since those illegal drugs are considered less dangerous than smoking and are illegal, smoking should therefore also be illegal. This is a non-sequitor. Just because A is illegal and is considered less dangerous than B, that doesn't therefore follow that B should be illegal too. You cannot say that smoking should be completely banned just because there are other things which are considered less dangerous than smoking and are illegal. That's just bad common sense.Moreover, I contend that these illegal drugs shouldn't be illegal too, because (1) To ban something just because it is dangerous and harmful, would mean that we would have to ban just about nearly everything else too, and (2) We should allow people to make their own decisions, even decisions that may be harmful to them, because the US value personal freedom of choice. These two points have not successfully been refuted by my opponent. In fact, Pro even agrees that we have freedom of choice, something which means that people should be allowed to choice for themselves as to what they want to use.Smoking and BeautyPro said that he didn't say that coffee should be banned just because it costs your beauty. This is true, but Pro did say that smoking costs your beauty. I then responded by saying that coffee can cost your beauty too. Thus, if we are to follow Pro's logic, then coffee should also be banned because it may cost your beauty. Pro didn't give any response to this.Smoking and MoneyObviously, Pro agrees that there are a lot of things that costs a lot of money. After agreeing to this, he simply just said that smoking costs a huge amount of money; basically the same thing which he said in his previous round. Recall that I said that thousands of things costs a lot of money, but that this doesn't mean that we should ban it. I also said that if the individual wants to use his own money on things that costs a lot, then that's his choice. These two points goes completely unanswered by Pro.Smoking and IQThe only thing which Pro said in this category is that those things (the examples I gave which are also bad for your IQ) are just bad for your IQ, but doesn't costs your beauty or money. However, this category is about IQ; beauty and money is therefore irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there are several other things which can lower your IQ and thus, if we are to ban smoking just because it can lower your IQ, then these things should be banned too. This goes completely unanswered by Pro.Also, remember that I said that the site in which Pro referenced his claim that smoking can lower your IQ, doesn't even know for sure if it is smoking itself which lowers IQ or whether less intelligent people are simply just more inclined to smoke. This also goes completely unanswered by Pro.Smoking and FiresRecall that in my previous round, I said that if we are going to ban smoking just because it can create fires, then thousands of other things which can create fires should be banned as well. The fact that something can create fires only means that we must be careful with these things, not completely banning them. Pro doesn't give any good response to this, instead he just said that these things doesn't costs you your money and other bad things. However, this doesn't in any way refute the fact that there are still several other things which can create fires and thus, if we are to follow Pro's logic and completely ban smoking just because it can create fires, then numerous other things should be banned as well.Smoking and BabiesPro said that it is very hard for a pregnant woman to stop smoking and thus, to stop her from smoking, smoking should be banned. Again, this may be true in regards to pregnant women, but this argument cannot show that smoking should be completely banned. What about women who are not pregnant? Should smoking be banned for them too?Pro said that men also take part, because smoking near a pregnant woman can cause harm to the baby. However, this only means that men shouldn't smoke near a pregnant woman - it doesn't, however, mean that smoking should be completely banned.Smoking and ChildrenPro said that people can influence children to smoke in the future; basically the same thing which he also said in his previous round. It doesn't matter if children can be influenced to smoke in the future, as long as it is their own choice to smoke in the first place. Moreover, recall that I said that if we should ban something just because it may influence children, then numerous other things should be banned as well. Eating a lot of fatty foods, parachuting, motorcycles, and surfing are just some examples. Pro completely ignores this point.Smoking and DeathPro said that automobiles and surfing have a positive impact on us. However, smoking does also have some positive impacts on us.[1] The fact of the matter is that there is great risk for you to die in regards to automobiles and surfing; does that therefore mean that automobiles and surfing should be banned? Pro gives no answer to this question.Smoking and EnvironmentPro said that paper and other things I mentioned have a positive impact on us, but that smoking does not. First of all, as I said above, smoking does have some positive impacts on us. Secondly, even if it didn't, this wouldn't change the fact that a lot of trees are used and wasted in order to create papers. So again, since a lot of trees are used and wasted in order to create papers, should therefore papers be banned? Just like numerous other things, this goes completely unanswered by Pro.Also, recall that I said that banning something like smoking would only lead to crime, just like it did when certain drugs were banned - and not to mention the prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s. This argument goes completely unrefuted. In fact, it seems like Pro himself agrees to this very important fact.Smoking and EconomyPro made a new argument saying that the costs of smoking are far higher than the income from cigarette sales. But is it really true that the costs of smoking are far higher than the income from cigarette sales? Well, it may be true in an indirectly way. However, nonsmokers cost the society and the government more in the long run.Why? Because nonsmokers live a longer life and thus, cost the government a lot more money in medical bills, pension plans, subsidized housing, and other programs. It is therefore not necessarily true that a smoker's health problems cost the society and the government more, because nonsmokers will live longer and thus, incur more expenses that the government would have to cover.[2]ConclusionPro's fallacious arguments have once again been refuted. Pro has ignored and dropped several points which I made in my previous round. Indeed, Pro himself admits that his argument was refuted in many categories.The resolution remains negated.Sources[1] http://www.forces.org...[2] http://financialhighway.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.

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

Thank you for your most excellent response! "I suppose ill take up this debate, as my last debate was a bust." Tell me about it... That happens to me a lot... So I'm holding you to this :-) "Sure, people still do drugs. Just like people still murder other people. I mean, has there been a single criminalization of anything, which completely deterred people from doing the said thing? I cant think of any." The specter of punishment does deter people from stealing whatever they want and shooting anyone they don't like. That's why we have laws. They don't exist so that people who do it can still do it and only be punished after they do it, they exist to scare people into not doing things. Obviously it won't stop everybody (although it is illegal to whistle underwater in Portland, and I don't think anyone is breaking that law), but any effective law will carry a punishment that is sufficient to keep people from doing the crime (though it is thankfully limited by the cruel and unusual punishment clause). There comes the issue with drugs. You probably won't get caught doing drugs, or if you do, you are probably already addicted, so no punishment would really be a very successful deterrent, short of something that would absolutely be cruel and unusual. It was the same way with prohibition. I know you said it was different, and I will cover that later, but in that neither are particularly enforceable, they are very similar. "These are all things that do not necessarily harm other people or their property, just like Drugs. Should we let these guys go as well?" Why is drunk driving illegal? Because it's really dangerous and it puts others at a higher risk. I know you will say that drugs do too, but notice that drunk driving is illegal, and drinking is not. "Why don't we do it? Because, we have standards, and one of those standards is to decrease the possible number of accidents and mishaps." Well, there are a lot of laws that restrict the behavior of children. Why the drinking age isn't 18 is beyond me, but children are different. But we're talking about adults here. The same adults who can smoke and drink. "But, much like alcohol, there are restrictions in place, to prevent just anyone going out and buying these." But these have to have a prescription from a doctor. To drink alcohol, you just have to be 21. "First of all, why would the drug cartels kill you for no reason? It would make more sense to keep you alive, especially if you were a customer." Okay, I'm sorry that I don't know the ins and outs of drug dealing. Shall I go do field research before I finish this debate? And the truth is that drug cartels are dangerous. You don't have to pay too much attention to know what's going on in Mexico right now. You can twist my point however you want, but I know I wouldn't want to do business with these people if I had another option... "Suppose that the Government produces specific factories to produce Drugs." We have a really really big deficit right now. How much do we care about profitability? So we can pay the workers at the factories more than minimum wage, but we don't have to make a profit selling the drugs. Alternatively, we could give it to private businesses and regulate it without tax until the bad guys have lost most of their business, and then we can move in and make money off of this. There are strategic ways of doing things. "Or has their business stayed the same, because it is more tedious and cost more to buy them legally?" This is a very good point. But drugs don't work the same as guns. Because guns are used to potentially kill people, it's necessary to run background checks and get licenses and stuff. But the illegal cigarette and alcohol business is not doing as well, and that's how the illegal drug business would be. "Can the same be said of most illegal drugs?" This is a moot point. I was comparing prohibition to this in that the law is clearly not doing a particularly good job of fulfilling the cause that it exists for. The government doesn't exist to stop our bad habits, so it doesn't really matter how bad it is for you. "Now, how many social Cocaine users are there? Clearly much less, to the point that i would guess 10% of people who use Cocaine are not addicted or dependent on it." This is a very good use of a circumstantial point. Yes, most alcohol drinkers are probably very responsible, social alcohol drinkers. Now, tell me, how many cigarette smokers are social smokers who are not addicted? Now, I know that doesn't fall under prohibition, but as I said, I was referring to the lack of success with prohibition, and not so much about the specific nitty gritty. "Which is why, many prescription drugs are prescribed by a doctor who knows your family history and medical history. These drugs are in fact dangerous in the right combination." This is a very good point. Still, how many people already die of accidental (or, perhaps, not accidental) overdoses? This is really not very different. And the great thing about drug packaging is that it gives us the technology to explain what it is not mixable with. And this wouldn't eliminate doctors, so it would still be possible to talk to them. Not to mention, it would be easier to talk to them. Even though the doctor's office is a confidential area, you still might not be comfortable telling the doctor that you've been taking illegal drugs, so they wouldn't know that when they prescribe you something that doesn't sit well with cocaine. If it were legal, then it would be quite a bit easier to tell the doctor. "To reduce this risk, the drugs are prescribed to people who actually need them, and in specific quantities so that there is no abuse of the drugs." Again, as I said, it's not the government's job to monitor my behavior. They let me get addicted to nicotine (though I choose not to), but they won't let me get addicted to marijuana (which, if I remember correctly, is actually much less addictive than cigarettes) or morphine? Why just one? "LSD, is a great example, as it can trigger a schizophrenic episode in someone who never knew he had schizophrenia. Other examples include things like Low or High blood sugar, heart/lung/liver problems, etc etc. The list goes on." Again again, that's not the government's problem. It is proven that a diet high in saturated fat and LDL cholesterol will put you at a much higher risk for heart attacks, but that's completely legal. It's proven that smoking puts you at a higher risk for lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, etc., but it's legal. "Wouldn't anyone agree that this would drastically increase the Drug-related accidents and deaths?" Yes directly, but not indirectly. Right now drug dealers sell drugs for a lot of money, and addicts will do a lot to obtain said money. They wouldn't need to do that at the scale they do if you could buy them at a reasonable price from a store. "Now, my opponent has previously mentioned that drug legalization would decrease the number of police officers." Yes I did. That was probably my least important point. "it is safe to say that the number will not change drastically, or at least as drastically as my opponent would hope." Fair enough... How does this negate the resolution? "Without this process, drug companies will go the cheaper, more profitable route of skipping that and going straight to clinical trials." We can still make them go through rigorous safety testing. We can legalize anything with restrictions and regulations. Point completely negated. "If we were to legalize all drugs, what would the restrictions be?" Only adults can buy them. They have to be tested and approved. Similar to current alcohol and cigarette laws (though I would prefer if they all were switched to food safety laws). I would write more, but, alas, 8,000 characters only allows me so much space. I am excited to see your response!

-----Definitions----- should - used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Don't ask don't tell - is a 2002 movie directed by Doug Miles . http://www.imdb.com... allowed - permit; to forbear or neglect to restrain or prevent . http://www.merriam-webster.com... I am arguing that the 2002 movie "Don't ask don't tell" should be allowed (to exist). My opponent is arguing that the 2002 movie "Don't ask don't tell" should not be allowed (to exist). My opponent obviously has a tremendous burden of proof. I can think of no good reason to not allow a movie to exist, I hope my opponent has some. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.

My opponent's argument is essentially this:1) Marijuana is beneficial in many cases2) Banning beneficial substances is bad3) Therefore, marijuana should be legalized. I agree with 2, however disagree with 1 (and therefore the conclusion). Is marijuana good for you? The legalization lobby which claims that marijuana is actually a beneficial substance are mistaken. In fact, the American Cancer Society has stated, "A number of reviewers have concluded that the scientific evidence does not support smoking marijuana as a medicine because of problems with dosing and the variable amounts of any one compound that might be delivered." They continue to look into the most extensive research project in the area, a 1997 report by the IOM. What the report found was that although marijuana can be an effective medicine in some cases, they found many drawbacks which easily overwhelm the possible medicinal purposes. They found that the effects on the immune system are dangerously unknown, and negativley affect movement and memory. Further, as marijuana has many active compounds, the report (summarized by the ACS) argued "it cannot be expected to provide precise effects unless the individual components are isolated". Further, although some researchers mantain the position that THC can reduce cancer growth, the ACS noted that "There is no available scientific evidence from controlled studies in humans that cannabinoids can cure or treat cancer" [1]. This has also been agreed upon by the National Cancer Institute, arguing that "No clinical trials of Cannabis as a treatment for cancer in humans have been found in the [PubMed] database maintained by the [NIH]."[2] In fact, there is considerable research into the harmful effects of marijuana. Research has shown that smoking marijuana increases the rist of heard attack 4.8 times from what it would otherwise be. There have been possible links between marijuana and mental illness--including anxiety, depression, hallucinations, and schizophrenia symptoms becoming increasingly worse. Smoking marijuana while pregnant leads to a host of child deformaties, and doubles the risk of a drivers risk in being in an accident. Although marijuana may be less addictive than other substances, it has an addiction rate of about 9%, and near 17% for young users [3]. The case against marijuana legalization 1. Increased useLegalization of drugs of any kind would lead to a substancial increase in use. Although many argue that medical marijuana, for example, has no effect on overall use, states with pro medical marijuana laws have much higher use. Overall, marijuana use has been falling for a long period of time. However, states with pro-medical marijuana laws have seen much less of an decrease than states with anti-marijuana laws [4]. Many have claimed there is little proof that legalization would lead to increased use, but this is an incorrect statement. A study by the non partisan RAND corporation has found that legalization would lead to a significant rise in drug use. The study found that drug costs would decrease--as they would not be high due to prohibition--and the decreased price, as basic economics assumes, would increase use. They proved both of these assumptions as correct in their data: drug prices would fall, and use would increase [5]. Medical marijuana may seem to be a red herring in this debate, but I assure you it is not. Legalization of medical marijuana would lead to decreased price as well as increased access. Research by the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that allowing marijuana for medical use would lead to a substancial increase in marijuana use. For example, for those 21 and older, the increased probability in use would increase 16%, increase of use 12-17%, and an increase in marijuana dependency/addiction of 15-17%. The increased use is primarily seen in those over 21 (who would have access to the drug for medicinal purposes) [6]. The increase for those over 21 years of age who would have access to the drug agrees with the hypothesis that lax laws would lead to increased use. Many animal expiriments actually provide an interesting place to research. When rats were given unlimited amounts of cocaine, they kept consuming until they died. And obviously, then it was harder to access or restricted, fewer died. This then hints that restricting the use of drugs would lead to decreased abuse. Further, during the decade that 11 states decriminalized marijuana use, use tripled among adolescents, doubled for adults, and quadrupled among older adults. Each year, there are 8,000 people sent to the emergency room for marijuana abuse. Imagine the substancial increase in costs from legalization, assuming that the number of 8,000 increased to 16,000 or more. The economic costs would be enormous [7]. 2. Increased cost to society1) Drugs cause harm to society2) Legalization increases drug use3) Therefore, legalization would lead to increased cost of societyThis line of reasoning is further supported by a study which noted that legalization would lead to an increased amount of time spent in the hospital. As one report argued, "this study took place in a London borough where it saw a 40% to 100% increase in the hospitalization of men due to hard drugs after marijuana was legalized" [8]. In fact, the study further argues that policing policies of marijuana actually significantly impact public health, for the better [9]. Further, the head of Emergency Room of Denver's largest hospital says he has seen a substancial increase in people in the ER due to marijuana [10]. Conclusion --> Marijuana does not have significant positive qualities--> Marijuana legalization leads to increased use--> Legalization of marijuana increases the cost to society by increasing hard drug ER visits (due to increased drug acceptance, and decreased hard drug prices as well [5]), and an increase in ER visits due to the drug itself. 1. http://www.cancer.org...;2. http://www.cancer.gov...;3. http://www.drugabuse.gov...;4. http://thecaseagainstmarijuana.com...;5. http://www.rand.org...;6. http://www.nber.org...;7. http://www.sarnia.com...;8. http://www.completeinthee.com...;9. http://www.ifs.org.uk...;10. http://www.cpr.org...;

org clearly states that any unauthorized soliciting is illegal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The clause my opponent refers to relates to spam e-mails (such as the love spam messages most members receive on a regular basis) as the sanction for such an activity is as follows: "Juggle reserves the right to restrict the number of emails that a Member may send to other Members in any 24-hour period, to a number that Debate. org deems appropriate in its sole discretion. " So, we can see that, as the T&C"s stand, morally-bankrupt members of DDO who wish to use debates to advertise their personal websites are not currently prohibited from doing so. Vote Pro. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Con. I assure you that Happy Meal toys are more likely to draw kids' attention than Tony the Tiger. Also, dollar store items cost a dollar. If you buy a Happy Meal instead, you get a free toy with yummy food. The parents should be responsible for what children want, but it makes no difference to the fact that the children want it and ask for it often. Some parents are more likely to give in. This bill was created to stop the skyrocketing childhood obesity rates. If these rates keep growing at the pace it is already at, the world will be filled with unhealthy people. . http://www.livestrong.com... . http://www.google.com... Some scientists even believe that this could be the first generation where parents outlive their children. Obese children are likely to have hypertension, high cholesterol, type two diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. Parents should be responsible for their children's eating habits, but some don't know the dangers. 96% of children recognize Ronald McDonald, second only to Santa Claus. Why shouldn't they? So many advertisements have been made featuring the mascot, it's hard to keep track.

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