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

Regulated and taxed recreational marijuana should be legal for individuals over the age of 25, and any age for validated medical use. I support the legalization of recreational and medical marijuana under strict regulations and laws. I seek an opponent with a differing viewpoint based on science and statistics, but I'm also willing to debate religious perspectives. I'll outline laws and policies for regulating, taxing, and penalizing recreational and medical marijuana use, citing sources in my comments. First, the legal age for recreational marijuana should be 25, with no minimum age for medical marijuana when prescribed and supervised by a licensed doctor after consultation with three other doctors. The reason is that scientific evidence, using brain scans, shows the human brain is not fully developed until age 20-25, particularly the prefrontal cortex, which helps with impulse control, planning, organizing, and understanding consequences. Adolescents and teens are more likely to engage in uncertain situations due to their developing brain's reward system. Medical marijuana use by minors is evaluated by knowledgeable adults, weighing the benefits against the risks. Regarding homegrown marijuana: A) it must be registered with the local marijuana regulatory office, B) seeds are not allowed, and C) strains must have low THC and high CBD. D) Homes with minors or individuals under 25 are excluded from home growing. E) Growing outside a secure structure is illegal. F) Home growers must commit to bi-monthly and random inspections. G) 24-hour video surveillance is required. For commercial growers: A) licensing and taxes are mandatory. B) Inventory must be grown in secure structures. C) There's a limit of 6 flowering/budding plants and 10 transplants per resident within 20 miles. D) Employees between 16-25 are excluded from growing/sales areas. E) Growing outside secure structures is illegal. F) Commercial growers must commit to inspections. G) 24-hour video surveillance is required. H) Strains must have high CBD and low THC. High THC strains create negative side effects, while low THC and high CBD strains promote wellbeing. Limiting plant numbers minimizes overuse, overproduction, and theft. Limiting commercial plant numbers also helps inventory control and reduces market saturation. Private growers are prohibited from growing from seeds, promoting local business and preventing high THC strains. A regulatory system creates jobs and taxable income. Legalizing cannabis in all 50 states could generate $3 billion annually in taxes. Recreational facilities: A

1. What we are dealing with here is a conflict between idealism and reality, and using the government to regulate harmful substances is a slippery slope! First I would like to add that I personally would not like to live in china! that is why I ignored your statement about the government successfully winning the war and because of the age group you mentioned. Find me the census on 21 years or older because I do not condone children smoking pot! 2. I feel that I am a responsible adult and can make decisions for myself! Addiction and health problems are indeed a concern, but where do we draw the line? Driving your car is both dangerous and addicting, football is dangerous and addicting, swimming, sun tanning.. etc The kind of control you are talking about comes from a dictatorship. (Any form of government works on paper until you add in people!) The flaw in your proposition is that I really don't see you taking down Phyllip-Morris or Budweiser! Although I do agree with you from an idealist perspective.. But in reality, it is a contradiction and marijuana is less harmful than a lot of things people love! 3. I do wish people were lazier, think of all the terrible things that happen when people get motivated. It may seem like a weak excuse at first but think about it, how much of our life is truly necessary? Drink water, Eat, sleep, poop, vitamins, exercise.. etc I think we complicate life with our obsession with being motivated! I think that thriving is far more important than getting things done! Now this better world you describe, I would say that if you met me, you would know how much I preach about how much we could accomplish if we could all set aside our differences, drop our daily comfort zone routines and create something amazing! But I am awakened by the realization that I am living in a chain of 7 billion, and its possible, this chain has about 2 billion weak links! 4.Again, the idealist in me is finding it hard to debate your logic, however the reason I pointed out "The thing you love" is because not everyone is like you.. there is something about you that is a part of the "consumer machine"! (Like having a job). despite our reasoning and foresight we are a creature of pleasure and pain, for some people pain is their pleasure! I have a hard time telling people what to do with their bodies until it harms me! Some people are obviously creepy and a danger to themselves and others, but that hardly describes people getting high from marijuana! 5.Cannibalism? Really? You are gonna have to be clear why you think eating human flesh and smoking weed are comparable! I would pull it way down the scale of danger to around drinking a red bull and scuba diving! You are also going to have to give me evidence for people smoking weed and hurting other people! No offence but, that was a poor analogy! 6.In conclusion, I think you have good moral values that parallel my own, However my extreme idealism involves having no government and complete freedom with education and understanding, not enforcement and incarceration!

Idk, the list on the right of the of the page showed your name. So, be happy you're famous! :D To start, i in no way advocate the use of drugs. I'm sorry if i don't hit every point of the debate or make multiple points in one of the numbered topics, but hopefully you'll have a wonderful rebuttal waiting for me! Basically: 1: More people use drugs when they are illegal. Historically this has been the case. For instance, in the 1920s alcohol was illegal. During that time you had the Al Capons, his men bootlegged alcohol from Belgium and Holland. Their were increased car accidents, crime, and consumption of alcohol. All of the effects i listed decreased dramatically after the passing of the 21st amendment. There is no single compilation of Prohibition statistics which would enable us to determine the degree of success which Prohibition enjoyed during its lifetime. In the Netherlands, where Marijuana is legal, you have less people using it there than you do here (percentage wise) where it's illegal. 2: The "Gateway Drug" theory is a myth. One of the most addictive drugs in the country is nicotine, and no one ever calls nicotine a gateway drug. The man buying marijuana can't get the marijuana from the store like he would if it were legal. He must go through the drug dealer, with the dirty needles, harder drugs, high prices, and crime associates. You don't see the bartender selling alcohol to kids, or else he would lose his liquor license. 3: Making an item illegal does not eliminate it, it merely causes the people who want it to get it in the worse manner possible. Thus, creating a black market. Prohibiting behavior people find "bad" is silly. Why not make sky diving illegal then? It's dangerous too. 4: People who use drugs now will continue to use if they're legal or not. What stops drug use is awareness. It is unlikely that if meth were suddenly legalized tomorrow that i would want to go and purchase meth. 5: Arresting drug is not a solution. Arresting someone who's been using heroin, who may have never committed a violent crime in the past. Spending money to house them, feed them, and clothe them for ridiculous sentences (50,60 year sentences) costs nearly $47,102 [http://www.lao.ca.gov...] a year. Yet, serial killers get released before they do, and often the drug users come out of prison as hardened criminals. 6: Since what i have stated above is true, this would mean the comsumption of drugs that are illegal is at it's highest point now. Which means that continuing the drug war will do nothing to improve conditions. My solution: Regulate illegal drugs like alcohol, the drug war is a failure

Drugs are bad. I am very proud to say that I have never so much as tried any recreational drugs. I see no compelling reason as to why I should try any recreational drugs. I care too much about my health. Alcohol is bad. I am very proud to say that I have never dome more than take a few sips of alcohol. I see no compelling reason as to why I should drink alcohol. I care too much about my health. They tried outlawing alcohol once. It didn't work very well. People made their own alcohol and it caused huge amounts of crime. In fact, prohibition was so unsuccessful and counterproductive that it was repealed just 13 years later. Prohibition was clearly a mistake. That's fine. Mistakes help us move forward. Or do they? We've now been fighting a "war on drugs" for decades. People still do drugs. As of 2004, nearly 20% of American prisoners are in prison on drug charges [1]. This tells us a few things, which include the fact that the war on drugs has hardly been successful. It also tells us that 20% of our prison population is not in prison for harming someone or their property. We happen to be in an economic downturn. If we were to allow drugs to be sold, it would certainly help the economy. And remember that big deficit that the US has? And you know those income taxes that we all hate? Well, we wouldn't have to increase income tax as much if we legalized and taxed drugs. Why stay in the US? If drugs were legalized in Mexico, it would virtually end the drug war. Why would anybody support the drug cartels who kill you when you can get drugs for cheaper and without getting shot or losing fingers? It's really the same way inside the US, though on a much smaller scale. If drugs were legalized, there would be fewer gangs since it would be easier, cheaper, and safer to buy drugs at a store. There are two groups of people who would be hurt by drug legalization: Drug dealers and police officers. The former is obviously a group of people who we want to be hurt, and the latter we actually also want to be hurt. We don't want them to be hurt because we have a deep-seated hatred for police officers, but we want them to hurt because police officers get cut when there are too many, so when police officers get cut, it means that our crime rate is going down, which is a good thing. I fear that I may have already said too much for an introduction, but if anybody is still willing to join my poorly organized debate, I welcome it! 1. http://www.albany.edu...

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.

In response to the fact that you say a drug, such as marijuana, can be very harmful, I completely agree with you. I, myself, would never use these substances, but the thing is, it is the choice of the people to actually use these substances. The ones that do use the substances would provide the government with money, which we need desperately in a time of economic crisis. Additionally, I think that we also need to increase drug education in schools. If all drugs are legal, we need more education so the kids can make more decisions for themselves. There is also a medical aspect to this debate. The legalization of marijuana has cured thousands of people of cancer, and making it illegal would prevent these people from getting the proper medical treatment. Harder drugs like cocaine and heroin also serve as a great way to relieve pain, but they are slightly more addicting. Where cocaine is legal, in countries like Canada, dentists often put cocaine on their patient's gums to create a numbing sensation, easing the process of surgery for those who may be allergic to other numbing agents. Heroin also serves as a great painkiller for those who have gone through painful surgery or something of that nature. I know that abuse is a problem, but that is because doctors and drug companies try to make us buy more drugs to get us addicted and buy more. This can easily be fixed by banning all pharmacies and making them government owned. Finally, there are also hundreds of drugs that get people in trouble, but are actually not even bad for you. For example, ecstasy makes you see hallucinations. It's not even addicting, yet people are getting their lives ruined for only doing having a little bit and end up having to serve life in prison. The economy would see a great boost if all drugs were legal. Those who are addicted would give a lot of money to the government, reducing our taxes and making our country #1 in the world again.

Marijuana has health benefits and is illegal. If you read the warning labels on alcohol or cigarettes, you definitely won't be finding any health benefits. And of course alcohol and cigarettes are both very much legal. Of course you might behave ignorantly, but nobody is the most intelligent while under the influence of alcohol either. Marijuana is a plant, that grows in the ground... and to say that we can't have this plant is ridiculous. I'm not saying I choose to do this. But I'm saying that I'm tired of seeing family and friends being taken away, for possession of a plant.

Cannibas is a drug. And the reason for this being is because of the side affects that it has on the human body. Any normal synthetic can also be abused in the process of which it is supposed to heal or be used for medicinal purposes. However, this is an underground empire that has caused the death of many, many people all around the world. You have drugs involved in the military industrial complex. And you have it being smuggled over the border from Canada and Mexico. The street value only turns this into an illegal trade. Think of this as a gold that affects a persons mental state or mind. Do you honestly believe that this is the right thing to do knowing that people are often substance abusers. I think the law should stay.

I find it absurd to think that there are people in the world who think that marijuana has no medicinal benefits to patience with such diseases as Cancer, Glaucoma, Multiple Sclerosis, and Cerebral Palsy. I feel strongly that the use of cannabis should not only be legalized but encouraged in cases where it could actually help. My uncle was diagnosed with MS 9 years ago and slowly his body started to deteriorate from the inside. He became unstable in his walking ability and the pain from the deterioration caused him to have extreme difficulty sleeping. Once he was prescribed Marijuana he called my father in tears of happiness, for the medicine had allowed him not only to walk with complete balance, but even to jog. Upon use of his medical Cannabis in the evenings he was able to sleep without any problems. Now as the disease has progressed his walking has become even more unbalanced but there is no denying that the Marijuana still helps him manage the searing pain from the deterioration of his nerves. Cannabis still allows my uncle to sleep through the night without having to worry about waking in the middle of the night in terrible and excruciating pain. This herb has made the life of a terminally ill person that much easier, and how dare anyone deny him this right. It is ludicrous to think that the federal government wishes not only to deny him the right to a less painful way of life but they also wish to arrest him and others in similar positions for simply wishing to live as much of a pain free life as possible.

When you say me saying marijuana Is a drug is not neccesarily permissible is incorrect. Marijuana is a drug regardless of its effects. Whether it helps or not it is still a drug. It is a schedule one substance that shows its value and where it stands. Some pills used for pain such as Tylenol even though it is not extreme will take away your pain, and not alter your brain. It won't alter your senses or your perception. Marijuana does. The effects are similar not the same, and the effects at completely diffrent. Banning and something being illegal is pretty much the same thing? The argument I made that you spoke on and tried to break down didn't make since. However it is a good thing cocaine is illegal as well as other drugs because it is helping the community and the people whom don't know any better. Sure you can say it's a freedom of choice. If someone didnt know any Better or we young, they would be not prone to try it, and even more at that if it was legalised. Cocaine shouldnt be used, it's not the same as Ritalin or else that would be illegal as well. Cocaine makes you ugly :/. When you say if someone wants to take it for a small reason makes it acceptable, then you are also for recreational use. Because if someone went into a dispensary to get cannabis with a scratch, and got some. That's not medical use. A traditional mindset means that if you are destroying your body to have fun and enjoy at an expense that you are ruining your body is not very smart. Right have fun and get hurt. There are other ways to have fun. But hey their lives and outlooks. I'm sure however grandparents in the older generations were not going out and getting wasted and intoxicated. In the end it is free choice of the states. If people want It that bad, then it will be legalized. The world did people a favor out of education and knowing right from wrong. Just like a mother not giving her obese child a candy bar. free choice right :) However once it becomes legal professionals will regret the decision after seeing the consequences. Maybe the government is doing themsleves a favor to get nor money. Yes it has a big impact on the economy but it is unnecesary. I believe smart people will refrain. Don't indulge in worldly pleasures and you will see the garden -to religious people is this quote. An excessive user does eventually become slow. And this I noticable. Chemical dependency one. It's harder for them to learn things that would be easier to other people.

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...;


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

Resolved: The legalization of recreational marijuana in the U.S. should be supported.

To begin, let's clarify some terms. If my opponent disagrees with these definitions, they may suggest alternatives. Let's keep it simple: possession means having something in your control; use means consuming marijuana in various forms; recreational marijuana refers to the ability of adults over 21 to purchase up to seven grams for any reason, without medical necessity; legalization means removing penalties and regulating marijuana sales in dispensaries; and the U.S. refers to all 50 states, aiming to end the national cannabis ban. The debate should focus on net benefits, unless my opponent can prove that the drawbacks of legalization outweigh the advantages.

Economic Benefits: Legalizing marijuana brings significant economic benefits, such as tax revenue and reduced incarceration costs. Colorado collected $40 million in tax revenue from January to October 2014, and nationwide legalization could generate $8.7 billion annually in state and federal taxes. This revenue can fund education, healthcare, and drug addiction treatment. Legalization also saves billions spent on incarcerating individuals for marijuana offenses, which could be used to reduce the deficit, combat other crimes, or lower taxes.

Crime Reduction: Legalization frees up police resources wasted on arresting non-violent marijuana users, allowing them to focus on serious crimes like murder and rape. According to RollingStone and LearnLiberty, this shift could lead to a decrease in violent crime.

Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Marijuana arrests disproportionately affect racial minorities, perpetuating a discriminatory system. Legalization can promote equality and justice by preventing unjust arrests and reducing racial biases in law enforcement.

Healthier Marijuana: Prohibition creates a black market, leading to unsafe marijuana consumption. Legalization allows for regulation, ensuring high-quality, chemical-free marijuana, and reducing the involvement of drug cartels and associated violence.

Freedom of Choice: Americans should have the freedom to engage in activities of their choice, as long as they do not harm others. Legalizing marijuana aligns with the pursuit of happiness and personal liberties.

In summary, legalizing recreational marijuana in the U.S. offers economic, social, and health benefits, promoting freedom and equality. Evidence supports these claims. Legalization addresses economic, crime, racism, safety, and freedom issues, making it a favorable policy choice. Vote for the legalization of recreational marijuana.

Contention 1: Economy The DEA has connected the link between Marijuana and terrorist activities. Legalization will only increase it as the demand will go up while the Cartels will use violence to keep the supply down. Here is a quote from the DEA regarding this issue, "The bombers swapped hashish and ecstasy for the 440 pounds of dynamite used in the blasts, which killed 191 people and injured more than 1,400 others. Money from the drugs also paid for an apartment hideout, a car, and the cell phones used to detonate the bombs." (http://www.policechiefmagazine.org...) Donnie Marshall, Congressional subcommittee on drugs has stated that legalization will not stop violence. Marijuana is addictive and can increase your heart rate by a factor of 20 to 100. Smoking 1 joint is the equilivent of smoking 5 cigarettes. The 'High' fallowed by a crash that can cause fear and depression. These last forever while a 'High' will only last a few hours. (http://www.charismanews.com...) We all know how expensive our health bills are. Well, when it comes to Marijuana in the year 2002, the ONDCP has found that the total cost of Marijuana injuries totaled over $52 billion, that's when it's illegal. Imagine if it were legal and opened up to the general population. Contention 2: Human Freedom For this response to what Pro had said last round I have three responses; Gonzalez V. Rich, application of Thomas Hobbes theory, and finaly the rights of the individual. In the Gonzalez V. Rich Supreme Court Case the Supreme Court ruled that the state law may not trump federal law. This case had to deal with medicinial marijuana in California, but since it could be shipped elsewhere for commerce and due to the Commerce Clause this makes what Colorado and Washington are doing unconstitutional. Sigmund Freud has stated that humans are selfishly aggressive. You could have easily done it just so you can feel good about yourself. Here he is quoted. "I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think." Thomas Hobbes has also shown that humanity, by nature, is rotten. That we will rape and pillage everything unless we have a threat. This of course being laws and punishment. Otherwise we would end up in chaos and anarchy. (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) This shows that both Hobbes and Freud show that humans are terrible creatures and make terrible choices, hence the phrase, “Only human.” This is why we need the government to regulate many of these things otherwise we wouldn’t be able to do many things, because we would be so dysfunctional. Another piece of justification is that your rights end where the rights of other’s begins. Which would mean that all sale and purchasing drugs would lead to violation of other’s rights due to their bodily harm. (http://techcrunch.com...) Especially if they are any of the ones named in Contention 4. Contention 3: Addiction My opponent argues that legalized addiction will lead to lower addiction rates, but this is incorrect. The accessability will actually lead to an increase of addiction and especially that of children. (http://www.addictionblog.net...) What about Colorado? Aren’t they a good example of good Marijuana control and legalization? Sure…if you like to include that the very first day that they came into legalization that a total of 37 people died of overdose. (http://blogs.westword.com...) Contention 4: Crazy Drugs that will be legalized. I will leave this video here that details these drugs. () My opponent agreed to that it will be all legalized, so let me get into some of these. Devils Breath- this drug is used for amnesia (causes) them to do anything you want and they have no memory of it the next day. It’s a powder that you just blow into your vitiums face. Dipted- This causes ringing in the ears, distorted music and sounds for three weeps. Bromo Dragon Fly- This is like LSD but lasts three weeks, causes seizers, vein spasms and more. Jankum- Made from fragmented poop for a week. This causes hallusenations for 3 hours. You are smelling the methane from your poop. DNP- For weight loss, but this this raises your body heat from the inside to the point that you cook from the inside. Etrophine- Like meth and morphine, so strong that 1/1000th of a gram can knock out an elephant. Can you imagine if someone drops this into your drink. This is like a date rape, but tons a time stro

My opponent claims that Marijuana "Should" be legal; should indicates an ideological change to the status quo; i. e. "You should go to bed" or "the other canidate should have won" Point being that the only burden of proof I have is to show why my opponent is wrong, I do no need to make a case for why marijuana is bad or shoud be Illegall That said, let us examine my opponent's argument; First; My opponent makes no clarification of the realm of legality that marijuana will be legal. Are we to assume then that we will be allowing kindergarten children to now legally smoke marijuana dunring recess? Second; My opponent tries to make marijuana seem good by making it sound less harmful than another vice (Alcohol) however we already know that alcohol is bad, thus he really makes no positive case for marijuana and we have no reason to legalize it.

As Ronald Reagan said, "Man is not free unless government is limited." Even though he was against the legalization of marijuana, I still believe this quote is the best representation of why we should legalize all illegal drugs. We should limit the government so people can be free to make there own decisions.

People can get second hand smoke if you legalize that crap, people will be dieing more if you legalize it. Also not just the people that get second hand smoke but the first hand smokers will die faster than normal people. There is no reason why to make that bad of a drug.

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

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...

Jeffrey Miron is senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies in the economics department at Harvard University. He is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of "Libertarianism, from A to Z." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. (CNN) -- Following the liberal footsteps of Colorado and Washington, Alaska, Oregon and the District of Columbia passed ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana this month. Florida's medical marijuana law failed, but only because as a constitutional amendment it needed 60% support; 58% voted in favor of it. In 2016, another five to 10 states will likely consider legalization -- possibly Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. It's not surprising. Opinion polls show that marijuana legalization now commands majority support across the country. Do these developments mean that full legalization is inevitable? Jeffrey Miron Jeffrey Miron Not necessarily, but one would hope so. Marijuana legalization is a policy no-brainer. Any society that professes to value liberty should leave adults free to consume marijuana. Moreover, the evidence from states and countries that have decriminalized or medicalized marijuana suggests that policy plays a modest role in limiting use. And while marijuana can harm the user or others when consumed inappropriately, the same applies to many legal goods such as alcohol, tobacco, excessive eating or driving a car. Recent evidence from Colorado confirms that marijuana's legal status has minimal impact on marijuana use or the harms allegedly caused by use. Since commercialization of medical marijuana in 2009, and since legalization in 2012, marijuana use, crime, traffic accidents, education and health outcomes have all followed their pre-existing trends rather than increasing or decreasing after policy liberalized. Ricki Lake: Pot can treat cancer in kids Investors betting on marijuana in U.S. This is your body on weed The strong claims made by legalization critics are not borne out in the data. Likewise, some strong claims by legalization advocates -- e.g., that marijuana tourism would be a major boom to the economy -- have also not materialized. The main impact of Colorado's legalization has been that marijuana users can now purchase and use with less worry about harsh legal ramifications. Yet despite the compelling case for legalization, and progress toward legalization at the state level, ultimate success is not assured. Federal law still prohibits marijuana, and existing jurisprudence (Gonzales v. Raich 2005) holds that federal law trumps state law when it comes to marijuana prohibition. So far, the federal government has mostly taken a hands-off approach to state medicalizations and legalizations, but in January 2017, the country will have a new president. That person could order the attorney general to enforce federal prohibition regardless of state law. Whether that will happen is hard to forecast. If more states legalize marijuana and public opinion continues its support, Washington may hesitate to push back. But federal prohibition creates problems even if enforcement is nominal: Marijuana business cannot easily use standard financial institutions and transactions technologies such as credit cards; physicians may still hesitate to prescribe marijuana; and medical researchers will still face difficulty in studying marijuana. To realize the full potential of legalization, therefore, federal law must change. The best approach is to remove marijuana from the list of drugs regulated by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the federal law that governs prohibition. Standard regulatory and tax policies would still apply to legalized marijuana, and states would probably adopt marijuana-specific regulations similar to those for alcohol (e.g., minimum purchase ages). State and federal governments might also impose "sin taxes," as for alcohol. But otherwise marijuana would be just another commodity, as it was before the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. A more cautious approach would have Congress reschedule marijuana under the CSA. Currently, marijuana is in Schedule I, which is reserved for drugs such as heroin and LSD that, according to the CSA, have "a high potential for abuse ... no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States ... [and] a lack of accepted safety for use." Hardly anyone believes these conditions apply to marijuana. If marijuana were in Schedule II, which states it as "a high potential for abuse ... [but a] currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," doctors could legally prescribe it under federal law, as with other Schedule II drugs such as cocaine, methadone and morphine. Given the broad range of conditions for which marijuana may be useful, including muscle spasms caused by multiple sclerosis, nausea from cancer chemotherapy, poor appetite and weight loss caused by chronic illness such as HIV, chronic pain, stress, seizure disorders and Crohn's disease, doctors would have wide reign to prescribe, making marijuana all but legal as occurs under the broadest state medical marijuana laws, such as California and Colorado. Medical science would also face fewer regulatory hurdles to marijuana research. This "medicalization" approach, while perhaps politically more feasible than full legalization, has serious drawbacks. Federal authorities such as the Drug Enforcement Administration could interfere with marijuana prescribing -- as sometimes occurs with opiate prescribing. Taxing medical marijuana may be harder than taxing recreational marijuana. And the medical approach risks a charge of hypocrisy, since it is backdoor legalization. But medicalization is still better than full prohibition, since it eliminates the black market. For 77 years, the United States has outlawed marijuana, with tragic repercussions and unintended consequences. The public and their state governments are on track to rectify this terrible policy. Here's hoping Congress catches up. Shut up Gabe

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.

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

I strongly believe that weed should be fully legal and sold in stores like any other plant. Both the government and the people could gain from having this plant legal and it makes no sense that its a criminal offence for having it.


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

Marijuana should be permitted for recreational purposes.

Counterargument: Marijuana should not be legalized for recreational use because the adverse effects associated with it can pose significant risks to one's health. Research indicates that smoking marijuana can potentially double an individual's heart rate for up to three hours,[1] which could potentially be dangerous for those with heart conditions. Another negative side effect of marijuana stems from the act of smoking it, as the smoke can irritate the lungs and lead to long-term respiratory problems.[2] While some argue that marijuana can alleviate the pain of certain cancers and illnesses, or serve as a medicinal aid, it is important to keep this debate focused on recreational use rather than medical applications. If a healthcare professional believes that marijuana can be a beneficial medical supplement, that is a separate issue. The argument that legalizing marijuana could generate tax revenue for the country is also weak, considering that the health risks associated with marijuana should take precedence over financial gains.

[1] Example Reference
[2] Example Reference

The problem of what substances should be legal or should not be legal has been debated over and over in the past. Firmly, I believe that all drugs in the United States should be legalized. 1. Firstly we must recall the main argument for pro-choice members of the US. They use the argument 'It's her body' with that in mind, anything you do to your body should be legal. The fact that a woman can cut a fetus out of her body, but I can't smoke a bit of weed is illogical. 2. It would be a major source of revenue for the United States. Instead of not being able to tax the hell out of all drugs. Right now, even though people are getting drugs, the government doesn't have anything to tax because the dealers definitely aren't the most legal people themselves. If retail stores such as Walmart or Target carried narcotics, it would be a large amount of goods taxable by the US government. 3. People are stupid. They are going to acquire drugs one way or another even if it is illegal. This would also clean out our prison system by keeping people who aren't really hurting anyone in jail, while we are wasting money fighting drugs instead of important things.

I would like to begin by defining a couple of terms. If my opponent disagrees with my definitions, then he/she can suggest and justify alternative definitions, however terminology should be agreed upon within the first half of the debate. I will not use dictionary definitions; let us just keep it simple. Possession means owning something. Use means smoking/inhaling/eating/vaporizing/etc. marijuan. Recreational marijuana means that adults ABOVE THE AGE OF 21 YEARS OLD are allowed to purchase up to SEVEN GRAMS of marijuana for any reason, with no medical conditions required. Legalized means that we remove the penalties from marijuana activities and that we regulate marijuana in dispensaries at which consumers of age can purchase it. The U. S. refers to all fifty states of the United States of America; the resolution seeks to essentially overturn the national ban on cannabis. The framework for this round should be net benefits. Unless my opponent is able to demonstrate that the costs of legalizing marijuana in the U. S. overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits, the Pro should win the round. Contention 1: Economic Benefits. Legalizing pot allows the United States to allow a wealth of economic benefits in the form of tax revenue and also in the form of liberating costly prisoners from incarceration. We have already seen examples of collecting revenue. According to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), between January 2014 and October 2014, Colorado accrued 40 million dollars of tax revenue by legalizing marijuana and allowing 21+ citizens to purchase it. Suppose that we extrapolated legalization to the whole country. According to the Huffington Post, this would result in $8.7 billion per year in the form of state and federal taxes. Taxing any good or service allows the economy to grow, because it provides money that is uesd for other programs. In the case of marijuana legalization, these programs translate to education, health care, and drug addiction treatment, valuable impacts in our society. Furthermore, legalizing marijuana prevents costs that are associated with incarcerating individuals. According to the DPA, approximately 750 thousand citizens are arrested for an infraction of marijuana law each year. Furthermore, the cost of incarceration is $47,000 per prisoner per year. This translates to 7 to 10 billion dollars per year that are wasted on locking up stoners (rather than rapists or murderers). Clearly, not only does legalizing marijuana create money; keeping it illegal costs money. This 35 billion dollars could be used to reduce the national deficit, solve other crimes, or perhaps reduce taxes on American citizens. Contention 2: Legalizing marijuana reduces crime. Legalizing marijuana prevents police officers from wasting their time arresting harmless stoners, when they could be spending these efforts and resources fighting actually dangerous crimes, such as murder, theft, or rape. According to RollingStone Magazine, marijuana arrests are no longer real "police work"; law enforcement would rather spend their time tackling other crimes such as murder and rape. This argument is intuitive rather than logical; less time wasted on activity X (stopping pot smoke) leads to more time available for activity Y (stopping murder). LearnLiberty echoes this message: "legalizing marijuana frees up resources to solve other crimes". The impact is clear: a reduction in violent crimes that hurt American citizens, if the U. S. is smart enough to legalize pot. Contention 3: Legalizing marijuana reduces or eliminates racial discrimination in law enforcement. It should be clear to the layperson that most marijuana arrests are against racial minorities, particularly blacks. A black individual is no more likely to use pot than a white person but, in Washington D. C. , is over 8 times more likely to be arrested for it. This is what one could refer to as a Jim Crowe system; blacks suffer from mass incarceration much more than whites do, but they do not commit any more wrongdoings than whites. In order to provide for an American system of equality of opportunity and justice without regard to skin color, marijuana should be legalized. This will prevent irrationally suspicious police officers from locking up "dangerous blacks" (who, in truth, are not the least bit dangerous; they are just minding their own business); this racist enforcement is unethical, discriminatory, and clearly non-beneficial. Contention 4: Regulated marijuana is healthier marijuana. When alcohol was prohibited (i. e. before the 1920's), this led to an extensive black market whereby Americans still found ways to produce, purchase, and enjoy alcoholic beverages such as rum and beer. The same phenomenon occurs with marijuana. Even if marijuana is perceived to be dangerous, keeping it illegal does not deter its use. In fact, the criminal nature of cannabis provides a compelling reason for drug cartels to enter the country and sell cannabis, with no regard to whether the weed is tainted with dangerous chemicals like PCP. Since the illegality of marijuana fails to have any deterrent effect, legalizing pot will allow the government to closely control and regulate it. This allows for high-quality marijuana, meaning that consumers will enjoy marijuana that has no dangerous chemicals in it and that achieves standards of safety and health. This makes it a safer option. The influx of drug cartels is associated with the trade of weapons and also with violence, coercion, and sometimes murder. It is easier for a teenager to obtain a joint than it is for him to obtain a can of beer. Since Americans smoke pot regardless of whether or not it is legal, we should legalize it so that citizens purchase it from trusted, regulated dispensaries rather than untrustworthy, sketchy black-market dealers. Contention 5: Americans have freedom of choice. An American citizen should be able to do whatever she want, so long as her actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. Even if skeptics were successfully able to argue that smoking pot is harmful (which I would disagree with), Americans can choose to engage in harmful activities, as long as the others in society do not feel the effects of these choices. People are allowed to eat candy, drink beer, watch TV all day, and smoke cigarettes. Why should we limit the behavior of an individual simply due to archaic notions without any substantial evidence? Marijuana is used for a wide variety of medicinal and leisure purposes, and its effects have been described as uplifting, stress-relieving, and relaxing. To keep marijuana illegal is at variance with the pursuit of happiness that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when America was established as an independent nation. If individuals want to smoke pot, they should be able to do so, particularly in the privacy of their own homes. For many citizens, occasional marijuana use improves the quality of their lives and has medicinal benefits. Some who need it for medical use are too impoverished to afford to obtain a medical recommendation from their doctors, making their medicinal options severely limited. Keeping marijuana illegal is an invasion of privacy. In short, to legalize pot is to provide Americans with the freedoms of choice and discretion and the liberty that they deserve. I have posted evidence below that substantiates my claim. In short, the legalization of marijuana leads to benefits that address the economy, other crimes, racism, national safety, and the freedom of choice. These are all significant benefits that contribute to my proposed framework of "net benefits". A reason why keeping marijuana illegal is disadvantageous is equivalent to a reason why making marijuana legal is advantageous. Too many dollars are wasted in prohibition. Too many lives are locked up in prohibition. To many blacks and Hispanics are unfairly arrested in prohibition. Too many drug cartels enter the U. S. in prohibition. Finally, too many freedoms and basic liberties are violated in prohibition. For these reasons, the possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U. S. Please vote Pro. I await Con's contentions. . https://www.drugpolicy.org... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . http://www.drugpolicy.org... . http://www.rawstory.com... . http://www.rollingstone.com... . http://www.learnliberty.org... . https://www.washingtonpost.com... . http://www.collegiatetimes.com...

Why should it be legalized??!! Then more people will be driving drunk and the death rate will rocket sky high. My guess is that you already do drugs and just don't want to get caught with it

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

But if these other drugs are already legal it wont do any harm to make marijuana legal to the public over the age of 18. In Amsterdam where marijuana is legal they have a lower percentage of marijuana users then the U.S and a lower percentage of teen marijuana use. The fact that its illegal makes it more appealing to teens and is sort of "taboo" in a sense. If it was legal less people would use it and also more people who are using hard illegal drugs would just stick to marijuana. In Amsterdam they also have a lower percentage of hard drug users as well.

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

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

Hey! How are you doin'? I'm daddydrerek616, And I don't believe that the United States federal government should legalize all drugs. First off, Smoking is for retards. No one wants to have health problems, Right? Well, The disabled honkeys seem to do. Now, Let's take a look at cigarettes. They cause lung cancer. No smart white person would want that, Unless they are disabled. Now, You might argue that they can't stop smoking, But my question is, Why did they start smoking them in the first place? I still don't get that. Why would you want lung cancer as a part of your life? Cigarettes should be banned because of this. Second, Marijuana. Niggers love to smoke it and get high everyday. It's so god damn annoying. It's already illegal in the first place, So why make it legal now? Also, No, We shouldn't have medical marijuana, Because the black people are just going to abuse the system so they can get high like the niggers they are. Third, Meth. Yeah, Screw that. Meth f#cks people up. 'Nuff said. I could go ON AND ON AND ON about how bad drugs are. Basically, Drugs are bad, And only disabled honkeys, Niggers, And other races smoke. Us smart white people are clean, And don't like drugs.

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.

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.


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

Marijuana should not be legalized for recreational use across the country.

So, I'll be refuting the arguments presented by the opposing side, as they have to demonstrate why every state in the United States should prohibit marijuana. Alleged school issues (?) The opposing side failed to provide any instances of the so-called problems associated with marijuana in schools, let alone any sources to support their claim. They claim that marijuana is causing significant problems, but they fail to specify what these problems are and how they are connected to marijuana. Tax Revenue The opposing side essentially contradicts their own stance by acknowledging that substantial and essential tax revenue can be generated through the legalization of marijuana. By admitting that some regions derive most, or all, of their tax revenue from marijuana, they concede that these areas would be unable to collect the required taxes if the substance were illegal. Then, they go on to say, "This is outrageous." This is quite peculiar given that the tax revenue generated would be an argument in favor of marijuana legalization, not against it. The opposing side's entire argument is based on the argumentum ad lapidem fallacy, where they simply dismiss a proposition based on how ridiculous it sounds, without providing any valid reasons as to why it is absurd.

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

I find it absurd to think that there are people in the world who think that marijuana has no medicinal benefits to patience with such diseases as Cancer, Glaucoma, Multiple Sclerosis, and Cerebral Palsy. I feel strongly that the use of cannabis should not only be legalized but encouraged in cases where it could actually help. My uncle was diagnosed with MS 9 years ago and slowly his body started to deteriorate from the inside. He became unstable in his walking ability and the pain from the deterioration caused him to have extreme difficulty sleeping. Once he was prescribed Marijuana he called my father in tears of happiness, for the medicine had allowed him not only to walk with complete balance, but even to jog. Upon use of his medical Cannabis in the evenings he was able to sleep without any problems. Now as the disease has progressed his walking has become even more unbalanced but there is no denying that the Marijuana still helps him manage the searing pain from the deterioration of his nerves. Cannabis still allows my uncle to sleep through the night without having to worry about waking in the middle of the night in terrible and excruciating pain. This herb has made the life of a terminally ill person that much easier, and how dare anyone deny him this right. It is ludicrous to think that the federal government wishes not only to deny him the right to a less painful way of life but they also wish to arrest him and others in similar positions for simply wishing to live as much of a pain free life as possible.

Contention 1: Economy The DEA has connected the link between Marijuana and terrorist activities. Legalization will only increase it as the demand will go up while the Cartels will use violence to keep the supply down. Here is a quote from the DEA regarding this issue, "The bombers swapped hashish and ecstasy for the 440 pounds of dynamite used in the blasts, which killed 191 people and injured more than 1,400 others. Money from the drugs also paid for an apartment hideout, a car, and the cell phones used to detonate the bombs." (http://www.policechiefmagazine.org...) Donnie Marshall, Congressional subcommittee on drugs has stated that legalization will not stop violence. Marijuana is addictive and can increase your heart rate by a factor of 20 to 100. Smoking 1 joint is the equilivent of smoking 5 cigarettes. The 'High' fallowed by a crash that can cause fear and depression. These last forever while a 'High' will only last a few hours. (http://www.charismanews.com...) We all know how expensive our health bills are. Well, when it comes to Marijuana in the year 2002, the ONDCP has found that the total cost of Marijuana injuries totaled over $52 billion, that's when it's illegal. Imagine if it were legal and opened up to the general population. Contention 2: Human Freedom For this response to what Pro had said last round I have three responses; Gonzalez V. Rich, application of Thomas Hobbes theory, and finaly the rights of the individual. In the Gonzalez V. Rich Supreme Court Case the Supreme Court ruled that the state law may not trump federal law. This case had to deal with medicinial marijuana in California, but since it could be shipped elsewhere for commerce and due to the Commerce Clause this makes what Colorado and Washington are doing unconstitutional. Sigmund Freud has stated that humans are selfishly aggressive. You could have easily done it just so you can feel good about yourself. Here he is quoted. "I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think." Thomas Hobbes has also shown that humanity, by nature, is rotten. That we will rape and pillage everything unless we have a threat. This of course being laws and punishment. Otherwise we would end up in chaos and anarchy. (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) This shows that both Hobbes and Freud show that humans are terrible creatures and make terrible choices, hence the phrase, “Only human.” This is why we need the government to regulate many of these things otherwise we wouldn’t be able to do many things, because we would be so dysfunctional. Another piece of justification is that your rights end where the rights of other’s begins. Which would mean that all sale and purchasing drugs would lead to violation of other’s rights due to their bodily harm. (http://techcrunch.com...) Especially if they are any of the ones named in Contention 4. Contention 3: Addiction My opponent argues that legalized addiction will lead to lower addiction rates, but this is incorrect. The accessability will actually lead to an increase of addiction and especially that of children. (http://www.addictionblog.net...) What about Colorado? Aren’t they a good example of good Marijuana control and legalization? Sure…if you like to include that the very first day that they came into legalization that a total of 37 people died of overdose. (http://blogs.westword.com...) Contention 4: Crazy Drugs that will be legalized. I will leave this video here that details these drugs. () My opponent agreed to that it will be all legalized, so let me get into some of these. Devils Breath- this drug is used for amnesia (causes) them to do anything you want and they have no memory of it the next day. It’s a powder that you just blow into your vitiums face. Dipted- This causes ringing in the ears, distorted music and sounds for three weeps. Bromo Dragon Fly- This is like LSD but lasts three weeks, causes seizers, vein spasms and more. Jankum- Made from fragmented poop for a week. This causes hallusenations for 3 hours. You are smelling the methane from your poop. DNP- For weight loss, but this this raises your body heat from the inside to the point that you cook from the inside. Etrophine- Like meth and morphine, so strong that 1/1000th of a gram can knock out an elephant. Can you imagine if someone drops this into your drink. This is like a date rape, but tons a time stro

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.

I don't know really what you mean when you say that our economy would be better if it was legal, because that could turn into even more problems for our people. Marijuana is a gateway to even stronger drugs and if people use it, they might start buying other drugs that aren't good for their bodies. You also said that marijuana should be provided for scientists to study it, but if doctors gave away the prescriptions, the people taking the medicine could overdose and not know. I heard a story about a girl that took drugs for a medication, only needed to use them certain times, but used them just because they made her feel calm, and abused it. She ended up waking up in the hospital. This is just one of the many stories of people who can abuse drugs, such as marijuana. If it were legal, people could make these decisions everyday not even knowing the effects it has on their bodies. Marijuana is dangerous and harmful. If our government made it legal it would just cause more problems for our country, because of all the health care and taxes we would have to pay for the marijuana abusers and users in the hospital. This is not fair, and it's not as big of a deal as it would be if we made it legal. I thank you for listening to my side of the story, and giving me the chance to have a good debate! Thanks!

I believe that the reference to Amsterdam is another irrelevant issue. America is a completely different country and the outcomes of legalizing marijuana would be drastically different. Also, if marijuana was legalized the use of it will surely increase. Especially among teens, they will no longer be restricted from using this drug, therefore, it will be easier to purchase and they will definitely use it more openly. For example, the drinking age is 21, but of course under-age people still do consume alcohol. If the drinking age was dropped to 18, would that mean that less minors would consume alcohol? Absolutely not. Being that it would be legal to take this action, more teens would do it simply because obtaining it wouldn't be as much as a hassle as it was. Legalizing marijuana would in no way shape or form help lower the use of it, it would absolutely put a rise to this drug since it being illegal holds people back from doing it.

Cannibas is a drug. And the reason for this being is because of the side affects that it has on the human body. Any normal synthetic can also be abused in the process of which it is supposed to heal or be used for medicinal purposes. However, this is an underground empire that has caused the death of many, many people all around the world. You have drugs involved in the military industrial complex. And you have it being smuggled over the border from Canada and Mexico. The street value only turns this into an illegal trade. Think of this as a gold that affects a persons mental state or mind. Do you honestly believe that this is the right thing to do knowing that people are often substance abusers. I think the law should stay. See site for more information. http://en.wikipedia.org...(drug) My last comment is my argument.

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.

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

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.