Question: Should Cannabis Be Available as a Medical Treatment?

Medical Cannabis

Cannabis should be accessible for medical use, as it has proven to be an efficient analgesic, and is gentler on the liver compared to the majority of other prescribed painkillers. Particularly for those with terminal illnesses, the adverse effects of the drug are negligible when weighed against the enhanced quality of life it offers to afflicted individuals. It can also alleviate the anxiety of patients undergoing severe medical treatments, a benefit that is even more pronounced in patients with terminal conditions. Severe anxiety has been linked to immediate detrimental effects on the body, potentially complicating medical procedures. Providing doctors with another tool they may, but are not obligated to, prescribe or employ, simply expands the medical system's ability to cater to patients' needs. This is not an endorsement for its widespread availability to the general public, but for medical purposes, as prescribed by certified physicians, its benefits often surpass any potential drawbacks in numerous scenarios.

Claiming that Marijuana is good for you is absurd. There is MUCH MUCH more evidence proving how bad Marijuana is for your brain. Marijuana is a depressant, just like Alcohol; both of them "calm people down" by permanently killing brain cells. In fact, they calm people down so much that they lose their sense of judgment entirely. They also slow down people's heart rates and breathing rates, causing extreme lethargy while intoxicated. People who smoke Marijuana are incapable of doing anything else for hours after they finish up their smoke. THC has been MEDICALLY proven to destroy brain cells, especially in the Hypothalamus and Pituitary glands, 2 of the most important parts of the brain. There is no use denying it. And THC is a NATURAL chemical in Marijuana.; no one has to add any for it to be present. This destruction of nerve cells is the thing that causes the calming/pain relieving affect. There are many far better pain relievers that do the same thing WITH OUT destroying nerve cells. Medical marijuana is a pitiful excuse to make marijuana more accessible for recreational use. Your statistic only applies to first time use, and very rarely do people only use marijuana once and never use it again. Repeated use causes that number to rise to 52%, which is much more than the numbers for heroine and cocaine (roughly 20%), and only surpassed by Alcohol (71%). I did not say that marijuana HAS cyanide in it; I said it has the same effects as cyanide because of the THC in it. Marijuana is a poison. None of your arguments hold up. They are mere excuses. Sources: (1) http://www.scholastic.com... (2) http://www.worldhealth.net... (3) http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com... (4) http://addiction.narcononrehab.com...

While it may be true that marijuana is less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol, that does not make marijuana the no-risk factor drug. That just makes the United State's legalization of cigarettes and alcohol illogical. While there is no recorded death from marijuana overdose, that does not mean there is not a risk. A user may not die from the plant itself, but they could die from what else is in the drug. Drug dealers line their weed with all sorts of other things to make it seem like the user is buying more weed, some of them that may be lethal to the user. Sometimes the dealer lines it with something like cat litter, or sometimes it is line with a drug like crack cocaine [1]. It is known that as many as 15,000 deaths were caused by cocaine use [3]. Also, many marijuana plant growers grow the drug using plant hormones and steroids to "push" the plant to produce the most potent marijuana possible [1]. The logical argument to this information is, of course, that the legalization of marijuana would stop drug growers from having to grow it this way because it would be regulated like tobacco cigarettes and alcohol. This is not true. Why would drug growers want to stop making more money out of their marijuana by adding cat litter and crack to the drug? Why would people want to stop buying more potent drugs? All legalization would do is make it so the growers and users would not have to do it in hiding. Legalization would not stop the dangerous ways of growing and selling marijuana, it would increase it. You claim that marijuana does not damage the brain. It does. According to [2], "Some studies show that when people have smoked large amounts of marijuana for years, the drug takes its toll on mental function...Marijuana affects memory, judgment and perception...If you use marijuana a lot, you could start to lose interest in how you look and how you"re getting along at school or work." The choice to use marijuana despite its affects is all on the user, but kids and teens are pressured into using it all the time. If marijuana was legalized, kids would think it was okay, and they would be smoking it like cigarettes and binging on it like alcohol. If an adult wants to mess up his life, then fine, but a kid would not really know what the consequences could be if he started smoking weed. The illigalization of the drug at least warns kids that they should not smoke weed. Legalizing the drug would throw concern for child drug abuse to the wind. You claim that marijuana use is not linked to cancer. It is. According to [1], "Marijuana contains known toxins and cancer-inducing chemicals, which are stored in fat cells for long periods of time." "Scientific research relates marijuana use to damaged brain cells and respiratory systems, decreased hormone production in both sexes, acute memory loss, lowered immune systems and impaired motor skills. THC and marijuana smoke have been directly linked to miscarriage, in-utero fetal death, stillbirth and infant death just after birth, along with behavioral and biological abnormalities of offspring," [1]. You say that alcohol is more addictive than marijuana. This may be true, but that does not make marijuana non-addictive. According to [1], "Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction in some people. That is, they cannot control their urges to seek out and use marijuana, even though it negatively affects their family relationships, school performance, and recreational activities." Marijuana users can also develop tolerance, according to the same source. This means the user need larger and larger amounts of marijuana to get the same desired effects as they used to get from smaller amounts in the past. Marijuana can, in fact, be an addictive drug. People have been known to be violent or use violent measures if it means getting their weed. The drug war IS costing taxpayers billions of dollars just to have weed smokers imprisoned. Legalizing marijuana would not help that problem! Many drug users would still end up in jail, not merely just for smoking weed, but for what they do because they are high on the drug. Legalizing marijuana would not solve that problem. Yes, people do have their rights. I suppose people do have the right to smoke pot if they so desire, but people also have the right to be safe as well. Someone who is high on marijuana and in need of more could and would do a lot to get it, and that could involve injuring an innocent victim, or worse. Parents also want their kids safe from pressure to do drugs and from having the availability of a drug like marijuana in the first place. The legalization of it would get rid of what little barriers we have and make it so much easier for someone to get a hold of it, and everyone would, because there would be no consequences. 1.http://www.nytimes.com... 2.http://uodos.uoregon.edu... 3.http://www.egoastra.com...

Me and Con had a small debate on Facebook and in the private messages. This is just to clear that up, incase Pros argument didn't make sense, or seemed random to someone.Why I'm against legalization:1 - It's a harmful drug: Marijuana is not harmless, as many believe. Some studies suggest that smoking 1 joint of Marijuana a day, is equivalent to smoking 20 cigarettes [1]. Another study reports that smoking 1 joint of Marijuana a year increases the users risk of lung cancer by 8%, versus 7% for a pack of cigarettes [2].Other health risks include Trouble thinking and remembering Bloodshot eyes Dry mouth (cotton mouth) Fast heart rate Slowed coordination Harmed blood flow in the brain Less attention span Stifled brain development Anxiety Depression Suicidal thoughts Increased chance of heart attacks [3]2 - It's addictive: Many legalization proponents claim Marijuana is not addictive. It, however, is addictive. The addiction rate is thought to be 9% [4]. I would argue that if something is harmful, and addictive, it should not be legal.3 - Legalization increases use: The current legal status of Marijuana as a schedule 1 drug has caused prices to stay high. Legalization would cause the prices to plummet [6] Legalizing Marijuana in Colorado has had consequences. The Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area published a report, highlighting some of the consequences. "The majority of DUI drug arrests were marijuana related and 25 to 40 percent were marijuana alone... the percent of hospitalizations related to marijuana have increased 82% since 2008… In 2012, 10.47 percent of youth ages 12 to 17 were considered current marijuana users compared to 7.55 percent nationally." [5]. If Marijuana were to be legalized, the prices of Marijuana would drop [6]. A decrease in the price of Marijuana encourages more people to use the drug. More users means more abusers. Cigarettes and Alcohol both cost the U.S. 100x more in damages than they will ever generate in tax revenue. With 1 joint of Marijuana equalling 7 cigarettes, the cost of Marijuana abuse would likely have the same effect (if not, worse) as cigarettes on the economy.Rebuttals: "I believe in freedom for all."I also believe in freedom for all, but your rights end, where other peoples rights begin. If you were to smoke Marijuana in a public area, it could affect other people. Second hand smoke from cigarettes kills 45,000 non-smokers a year, and as I've shown above, Marijuana may be more harmful. We can assume the effects of Marijuana second hand smoke would be the same, if not more deadly than cigarettes second hand smoke."If you really are afraid of getting addicted to marijuana from others second hand smoke"Here, Pro is referring to something I said in a private message. Unfortunately, he misunderstood me. I made the argument that because the second hand smoke can effect other people without their consent, your right is use the drug is outweighed by their right not to not be effected by Marijuana's second hand smoke. I also made the argument, that if you become addicted, you lose the right to say no. Your right to say no, is more important than your right to say yes, in my opinion. If you become addicted to Marijuana, you lose your right to say no, otherwise you are forced to go through withdrawal."my advice is to avoid such places"Why should I have to give up my freedom to move? If I have to stay away from places, in fear of second hand smoke, that is infringing on my right to move. This is another reason you do not have the "right" to use the drug."I don't think your medieval thinking would go over that well."That's a bit rude. Since I didn't post any rules for this debate, I guess it's okay, but I would like to ask Pro to stop being hostile towards me. I would like a civil debate.Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...

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

It is clear that my opponent is making an all out attack on users of marijuana. Therefore, I will do that same for my case. My opponent has made the statement that "this debate is geared toward demographics, not the ideology, of marijuana use". However, my opponent uses words such as "bigot", womanizers, drug addicts, lazy spouses and depressed people, which in turn I will pose the question : how is your argument not geared towards the ideology of marijuana usage when you use the above terms to describe it's users? My opponent has also made the statement that "medical marijuana does not conclusively cure any afflictions". I completely agree with this statement. However, many drugs are in use today that do not cure afflictions, especially afflictions of the mind. Some examples of drugs that do not cure but "mask" the problem (and I will use my own experience with mental illness as example) are antipsychotics, anti-depressants, and nerve medication. Also, my opponent has not provided any scientific arguments but insists that his argument is scientific in nature, when in fact, it is completely ideological. I will provide scientific arguments for my position. In an article by npr.org, the author does state that marijuana does cause psychotic symptoms, however, it does not cause a complete psychosis, much like that found in disorders of the mind such as schizophrenia. The author makes the following statement: "Drugs like marijuana or methamphetamine can make someone experience symptoms like paranoia, hostility and disorganized thinking. But that's very different from a chronic, persistent psychotic disorder like schizophrenia." Notice that the author says it "can" cause some psychotic thinking, but not a total psychosis of the mind ( I am schizophrenic and have never used marijuana in my life, so I have experience with this issue). The amount of THC content in a strain of marijuana also contributes to the factor of psychotic thinking. A THC content of 15 percent or more would definitely cause a psychotic break, albeit temporarily. However, I am not advocating for high potency marijuana. I am arguing for a low potency, moreover a medically acceptable form of cannabis. My opponent also makes the statement that job creation is not real. In turn I will ask this question: where are the facts to back this up? An article from the reputable economic website forbes.com states that by 2020, the cannabis industry will create more than 250,000 jobs in the LEGAL cannabis market, talking about the legal cannabis market for medical purposes. The author of the article also makes this statement : "The legal cannabis market was worth an estimated $7.2 billion in 2016 and is projected to grow at a compound annual rate of 17%. Medical marijuana sales are projected to grow from $4.7 billion in 2016 to $13.3 billion in 2020. Adult recreational sales are estimated to jump from $2.6 billion in 2016 to $11.2 billion by 2020." The numbers posed by the author in terms of economic growth are astronomical. Why deprive the American economy of such a thriving industry that has the potential to create the amount of jobs described. The manufacturing job market is expected to decline with operations moving overseas, so why not replenish the job market with jobs in the cannabis industry? In conclusion, my opponent has made harsh statement that essentially cannot be backed with scientific and economic research. It seems as if my opponent is making an ad hominem attack on the cannabis industry in general, a common fallacy used in making a weak argument. I am simply stating the facts and research. I do not have a personal agenda concerning the cannabis industry. I am only providing what experts say. I feel that the cannabis industry is an answer to many problems we as Americans face on a daily basis. Sources http://www.npr.org... https://www.forbes.com...

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

Con has failed to address nearly all of my arguments. I extend 2 to 4.I shall first defend argument one. "Drug cartels, i understand, cause a black market because of marijuana. Even if Marijuana were leagalized, drug cartels would still continue with selling other illegal drugs. Are you suggesting that we make all illegal drugs legal?" Con falsely states that it is the cartels themselves creating the black-market. This is untrue. Even without cartels, considering there is sufficient demand, black markets would be formed by individuals. With regards to question whether we make drugs legal, the answer is that this argument does support making all drugs legal (I do as well!), but it is not relevent to the debate. Con fails to address the rest of my arguments concerning crime.Con defends his assertion that the high is too powerful. He does this without sources to back it up and inspite of the evidence provided. He also asserts that "It is the objective of the government to ensure the safety of an individual and the people around that individual."This is evidently false if one looks at the amount of legal unhealthy foods and non-mandated exercise. My opponent proposes the following scenario;" Imagine if someone that were high were driving home. That person could become easily distracted and not only put themselves in danger, but other people that are nearby or on the road."Though I have already countered this argument (seemingly ignored by con), I shall reiterate it. If I were to hollow out a water-melon and place it upon my head whilst driving, due to my lack of vision I would find exceedingly difficult to drive safely. Even accounting for the possibility that I might strike a few gingers or justin Bieber fans down in my blinded state, the consequences would likely be disastrous.Now my opponent suggests that because one can blind oneself with a watermelon used as a helmet, creating a dangerous situation when in a vehicle, that we should ban the possesion and use of watermelons everywhere. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that this is ridiculous, and rather we ought to just ban the wearing of watermelons on ones head whilst driving a vehicle.Similarly, becuase one can drive under influence of drugs, does not mean that drugs in general should be illegal.I hope that con provides better arguments in the next round.

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

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

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


Question: Should Cannabis Be Available as a Medicinal Alternative?

Medical Cannabis as a Therapeutic Alternative
Cannabis, once dismissed as a Schedule I drug with a high potential for misuse and no medical benefits, is now being recognized by a majority of medical professionals as a potential treatment for over 25 medical conditions. Despite the FDA's stance, 76% of doctors support the use of medical marijuana, and it is already legal in 24 out of 50 states in the U.S., with the number rapidly growing. In Colorado, where medical marijuana is legal, one in every 30 people holds a medical marijuana card, indicating a significant rise in its usage. Pain, which affects nearly 30% of the population daily, can be alleviated by cannabis, leading to a decrease in prescriptions for opioids and other painkillers by about 1,826 doses per physician. As medical cannabis gains traction and becomes a part of American healthcare, we must consider its potential in treating loved ones. It is also being used as a temporary remedy for cancer and can benefit patients with autism. Families dealing with these challenges are willing to explore any option to relieve their loved ones' suffering, and doctors and patients alike are turning to medical cannabis as a viable solution. So, why is the FDA still considering restrictions on the sale and distribution of medical cannabis?

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.

I have no idea what epilepsy or whatever that thing you typed is and sorry for the accusations. It might help for depression and medical uses like that, but there are other ways to get medical help besides this. And if your depression pills aren't working, I suggest looking at YouTube videos of squirrels water skiing or seeing a doctor.

"To start off, there are many reasons it should be illegal. Here are just a few of them. "Listed as 'addictive'" [1]Marmarijuana should be illegal for a few reasons. One is that it is addictive and can ruin your life. I would be somewhat for the legalization of marijuana if it was not so addictive. Marijuana can ruin your looks, relationship, and can get you arrested. It would be like smoking, and it would be very bad for your health. It can cure diseases, but using of much of it can DESTROY YOU. It has also been listed to other drugs, such as heroin. If you can barely stop smoking, it wouldn't be hard to understand that you could literally never stop marijuana until you die. For example, many people have been on the run for marijuana use all over the world. It is truly a bad drug, like heroin. "It is associated with unfashionable lifestyles. " [1]This is not a solid argument, but stick with me here. Marijuana is usually thought of by hippies and losers, While this is not exactly true, this may cause a bigger war on drugs to illegalize them. "Marijuana can cause health problems. " [2]Health problems are serious, the worst cancer. Cancer is already a very big problem throughout the whole world and marijuana doesn't help a single thing about that. Marijuana has been linked to damaged brain cells. There are many other incurable things, like acute memory loss. This is just the beginning of many arguments to come. Marijuana should not be legalized at any costs. [1] . http://civilliberty.about.com...[2] . http://www.nytimes.com...

I suggest we debate Cannibas legalization.

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

okay....so you just proved that marijuana has a chemical that creates a euphoric feeling to most living beings here on Earth. However... my argument is the word "gateway" drug. Since conception, we (yes all of us) have been reliant on "drugs". Think of how our parents got together and procreated in the first place. Just like US, they needed a catalyst. Alcohol...cigarettes...asprin....diet pills...birth control. We grow up taking asprin for head aches, coffe to wake up, pharmacudicals to prevent sickness and allergies, sugar for breakfast, presevitives in our foods etc... The definition of a DRUG is "Any chemical taken within an organic body that changes the chemistry and emotional respone to that body. To think that marijuana is a "gateway" drug is ludicrious,considering all the corporations, factories, advertisments, drug stores, grocery stores, friends, and family who that tell you a man made product will solve your problems since we can remember. The "gateway" my friend is not a single product. It is the product of our life experience, our peers, and our influences growing up. Like I said before.... everyone has two choices when it comes to drugs

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

I argue that Sponsoring or Funding Capitalist, Whore-mongering, Criminal Cartels by purchasing Marijuana, thus Crashing our economy of food, cloths, utilities, security, media, education and paraphilia which is the act of money laundering and gang affiliation through enabling and harbouring criminals who are selling drugs to children, womanizers, bigots, drug addicts, lazy spouses & depressed people Is a criminal offense that should not be legalized for the sake of the demography which is guilty of this offense. If Marijuana were to be legalized, then it should be done so with Zero correlation to the Decisions of the Criminal Population which has been Robbing the republic, empowering the cartels, thus tyrannizing and enslaving our working class, our food producers, our foreign associates and our officials. More over, It does create psychotic anomalies in the mind, which are nearly impossible to reprimand , in the same way that sexualizing a child is unreprimandble. Indicting that it is not just a criminal act, but an inhumane act to sell or legalize it. The Cartels are currently so powerful, making millions a day selling liquor, cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, porn and porn apparatus that they have influence in our media, in our politics, in our demographics and in our education system. Thus, introducing to this article of discussion, sex trafficking, robbery, violence, social bigotry, depression, economic insecurity (national and private). So. I am 100% against Marijuana Culture. and I would like someone to address each of these topics for what they, individually, and maintain their position of Pro with sustenance. If you fail to perceive any of these arguments, we have a 'comment' section to address your lapse in understanding [ As it is impossible to respond to a clause, if you do not know what clause you are responding to. ]. thank you, for taking on this debate challenge. Accepting before reading will undoubtedly be an automatic fail.

While it may be true that marijuana is less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol, that does not make marijuana the no-risk factor drug. That just makes the United State's legalization of cigarettes and alcohol illogical. While there is no recorded death from marijuana overdose, that does not mean there is not a risk. A user may not die from the plant itself, but they could die from what else is in the drug. Drug dealers line their weed with all sorts of other things to make it seem like the user is buying more weed, some of them that may be lethal to the user. Sometimes the dealer lines it with something like cat litter, or sometimes it is line with a drug like crack cocaine [1]. It is known that as many as 15,000 deaths were caused by cocaine use [3]. Also, many marijuana plant growers grow the drug using plant hormones and steroids to "push" the plant to produce the most potent marijuana possible [1]. The logical argument to this information is, of course, that the legalization of marijuana would stop drug growers from having to grow it this way because it would be regulated like tobacco cigarettes and alcohol. This is not true. Why would drug growers want to stop making more money out of their marijuana by adding cat litter and crack to the drug? Why would people want to stop buying more potent drugs? All legalization would do is make it so the growers and users would not have to do it in hiding. Legalization would not stop the dangerous ways of growing and selling marijuana, it would increase it. You claim that marijuana does not damage the brain. It does. According to [2], "Some studies show that when people have smoked large amounts of marijuana for years, the drug takes its toll on mental function...Marijuana affects memory, judgment and perception...If you use marijuana a lot, you could start to lose interest in how you look and how you"re getting along at school or work." The choice to use marijuana despite its affects is all on the user, but kids and teens are pressured into using it all the time. If marijuana was legalized, kids would think it was okay, and they would be smoking it like cigarettes and binging on it like alcohol. If an adult wants to mess up his life, then fine, but a kid would not really know what the consequences could be if he started smoking weed. The illigalization of the drug at least warns kids that they should not smoke weed. Legalizing the drug would throw concern for child drug abuse to the wind. You claim that marijuana use is not linked to cancer. It is. According to [1], "Marijuana contains known toxins and cancer-inducing chemicals, which are stored in fat cells for long periods of time." "Scientific research relates marijuana use to damaged brain cells and respiratory systems, decreased hormone production in both sexes, acute memory loss, lowered immune systems and impaired motor skills. THC and marijuana smoke have been directly linked to miscarriage, in-utero fetal death, stillbirth and infant death just after birth, along with behavioral and biological abnormalities of offspring," [1]. You say that alcohol is more addictive than marijuana. This may be true, but that does not make marijuana non-addictive. According to [1], "Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction in some people. That is, they cannot control their urges to seek out and use marijuana, even though it negatively affects their family relationships, school performance, and recreational activities." Marijuana users can also develop tolerance, according to the same source. This means the user need larger and larger amounts of marijuana to get the same desired effects as they used to get from smaller amounts in the past. Marijuana can, in fact, be an addictive drug. People have been known to be violent or use violent measures if it means getting their weed. The drug war IS costing taxpayers billions of dollars just to have weed smokers imprisoned. Legalizing marijuana would not help that problem! Many drug users would still end up in jail, not merely just for smoking weed, but for what they do because they are high on the drug. Legalizing marijuana would not solve that problem. Yes, people do have their rights. I suppose people do have the right to smoke pot if they so desire, but people also have the right to be safe as well. Someone who is high on marijuana and in need of more could and would do a lot to get it, and that could involve injuring an innocent victim, or worse. Parents also want their kids safe from pressure to do drugs and from having the availability of a drug like marijuana in the first place. The legalization of it would get rid of what little barriers we have and make it so much easier for someone to get a hold of it, and everyone would, because there would be no consequences. 1.http://www.nytimes.com... 2.http://uodos.uoregon.edu... 3.http://www.egoastra.com...

Before I begin my points, I would like to rebutt the points that you have laid out. Rebuttal There are no valid scientific studies that show alternative medicine has more effect than a placebo. This is not necessarily true as there are cases in which alternative medicine does work even though conventional medicine does not. An example of this is when Sally* had a skin condition that caused her skin to become pale. When she spoke to conventional doctors, they told her that it was incurable and would just spread all over her body, providing her with only foundation. However she then went to a ayurvedic doctor that used alternative medicines, who gave her a treatment that did reduce the amount of infection to only a small amount just under her chin. Although it did take some time, it did cure it and if she had listened to the advice of a conventional doctor her life would be a lot different than it is now. *This name was changed for privacy reasons. Negative Points: Conventional medicine, like all drugs, has side effects. If you overdose (take too much), you"ll die. This is especially true for paracetamol like panadol, that people often take. Even cold medicine that most people think is completely safe has side effects that can sometimes make people drowsy and tired, and sometimes increase their heart rate and cause them to be restless and anxious. This is only listing a few of the side effects that it has. When in surgery, surgeons use general anaesthetics to make the patient unconscious. If they use too much, the patient wont wake up, if they use too little the patient will wake up and feel the pain. It is a fact that conventional medicine, though tested in laboratories and approved by the AMA and FDA, still has many side effects that seem to sometimes harm patients more than it helps them. As a result of side effects, you begin to take more medicines to heal those side effects that the original medicine caused and so you're just continuing to harm your body even more. This shows that conventional medicine is risky and has side effects whether it is simple cold medicine or medicine for more serious injuries. Alternative medicine has helped many people by giving them an alternative to conventional medicine"s negative side effects and less natural beginnings. Alternative medicine also helps heal patients on a higher level than conventional medicine. Unlike conventional medicine, which generally only focuses on curing the immediate illness, alternative medicine works on both the cause and effect of the illness and uses herbs from nature, hands on techniques and even mental techniques like meditation to help the patient get better. Alternative medicine allows the patient to be involved in their own recovery by telling them to do, like exercise and therapy. This makes them think that they are helping themselves get better and so they have better morale, which contributes to their recovery. Instead of simply taking a pill as in conventional medicine patients take part in their own recovery and gain mental, physical, spiritual and emotional benefits. Conclusion Alternative medicine should be used more in today"s society which is mostly governed by the western culture, because it covers many of the faults that conventional medicine has. That concludes my case.


Question: Should Cannabis Be Available as a Medicinal Alternative?

The legalization of marijuana as a medical option has been a topic of heated debate. Some argue that it should be legal for medicinal purposes, while others believe it should remain illegal. Here are some points against legalizing marijuana:

1. Marijuana can be highly addictive for some individuals. Dr. Drew Pinsky, a renowned addiction specialist, has stated that cannabis addiction can be profound and difficult to overcome, particularly for those with a genetic predisposition to addiction. According to a 2012 survey, 4.3 million people in the United States aged 12 or older had marijuana dependence or abuse, highlighting the potential for addiction.

2. Legalizing marijuana has not proven successful in Amsterdam. Despite its reputation as a haven for marijuana use, Amsterdam has faced issues with increased exposure of children to the drug and an increase in crime around coffeehouses where marijuana is sold. The city has even banned students from smoking marijuana at school, indicating the negative impact on young people.

3. Marijuana has negative effects on mental health. Studies have shown that chronic marijuana use can lead to brain changes similar to those seen in schizophrenia, and it can cause persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and IQ. The American Medical Association has also reported that marijuana use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood, and psychotic thought disorders.

4. Marijuana has adverse effects on physical health. Regular marijuana use can cause lung problems, temporary sterility, and can have a detrimental impact on the health of babies born to women who smoke. Even small amounts of marijuana can cause harm, and it is more toxic than cigarette smoke.

5. Marijuana can have a detrimental impact on people's lives. While movies often portray potheads as fun-loving individuals, the reality is that marijuana use can lead to flunking out of school, losing jobs, and damaging relationships. Studies have shown that marijuana use is associated with lower grades and decreased ability to remember and organize information. It can also lead to increased accidents, injuries, and absenteeism at work.

In conclusion, while some may argue that marijuana should be legal for medicinal purposes, the potential negative consequences on addiction, mental and physical health, and overall quality of life cannot be ignored. Legalizing marijuana may not necessarily lead to a better country or improve the lives of individuals who use it regularly.

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

Marijuana should be legalized for many reasons. The number one reason is that the legalization of marijuana will reduce drug related deaths.

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

Marijuana should be de-criminalized for a few reasons, There is not one case in history that recorded a death due to only cannabis use, not one! Compared to the hundreds of thousands that die due to tobacco and alcohol!

My opponent apparently believes in the shotgun approach to debating, where one throws at one's opponent as many arguments as possible in the hopes he will miss one, giving a technical victory by forfeit. It is more respectful and productive to make one or two arguments and flesh them out, giving sources, clear reasoning, and persuasive arguments for your position. I will address each of my opponent's points in order; I apologize if this is a little rushed, as I did not have the time to properly attend to this until today, and only just barely even now. ------- 1. Reducing the amount of cannabis (which for time sake I will after this be referring to as MJ) used is dependent on compliance with the law and enforcement of the law. Making it illegal does not automatically reduce the number of users; however, it does give law enforcement the authority they need to reduce the usage. By my opponent's own source, though, the same experts expect a dramatic drop in the price for MJ upon legalization. it is only natural to assume that the people who could not afford, could not find, or were afraid to try MJ (for fear of legal consequences), no longer having these obstacles, will try the drug. Contrary to what my opponent states, then, there is a good probability that the number of users will skyrocket upon legalization. Point 1 is therefore relevant, but wrong. 2. My opponent gives no source for this, and I refuse to accept his bare assertion. His point is too vague/unsupported to be useful. 3. Again, no source. I expect my opponent realizes that his word is not proof of anything here; one must back up assertions of fact with reliable unbiased sources, such as this one: http://drugabuse.gov... Notice that here we have the effects of MJ: "distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problemsolving, and problems with learning and memory." Long term effects include "anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia," "marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke,"and "marijuana users have a 4.8-fold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first hour after smoking the drug." Heart attacks, lung cancers, and their resulting death or debilitation are certainly long-term effects worth considering. 4. My opponent tries to wave aside the dangers of MJ use, but they are very real. MJ causes "distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problemsolving, and problems with learning and memory," all of which puts other people at risk when MJ users drive or operate machinery. Parallels exist with our current laws against driving drunk, but with a twist: the dulling effects of MJ can last for days or weeks after the acute effects wear off. [1] Clearly, the risks posed by MJ users to the rest of the population are a reason for concern. 5. This point is irrelevant. "Cannaboids" are chemicals found in tiny quantities in MJ; MJ is not, by itself, necessarily helpful in any of those diseases. Indeed, the lung irritation, increased risk of heart attack, heavy concentration of carcinogens, and tar deposits associated with smoking MJ more than offset any dubious possible benefits for any reasonable user. 6. Making it legal puts innocent lives at risk. I don't need to point out why that's bad. More than that, this is a case of sloppy thinking. Making something illegal to sell automatically makes any selling of it a crime. That's completely obvious. Why point out that making something popular illegal will increase crime? If it needs to be illegal to protect the lives of the law-abiding, those that choose to become criminals despite that risk deserve what they get. 7. Utterly irrelevant. We can make nuclear bombs or graffiti legal and tax their use; this does not make them any less dangerous or obnoxious. 8. Partially true, but irrelevant. We can also grow fast-growing renewable plants, such as white pine or certain bamboos, that have the same benefits without the dangers. ----- Conclusion: My opponent has given no good reason to legalize MJ. He has not refuted the dangers of MJ use, short or long term, and he has shown no greater societal good that would come from legalization. The resolution is negated. I return this debate to my opponent; good luck! C. All quotations and references are from http://drugabuse.gov...

Arguments continued. There is no reason to increase the use of alternate medicine when Pro can not even produce one shred of evidence that it actually works in a typical case. .

Given that con has not stated for which country, we can assume that this is discussing the law in a general sense. Therefore, as some country's have legalized marijuana whilst others haven't, the burden of proof is shared, as neither of us are arguing for the status quo. I will be arguing that on balance it is beneficial for a country to not have a law preventing the ownership or use of marijuana, whilst my opponent will be arguing that on balance having the law would be beneficial. I shall first provide my arguments and then address my opponents. In this first round I shall be brief in outlining my arguments. 1. Prohibition increases crime rates By prohibiting marijuana it eliminates legal supply without affecting demand, thus creating a black market. This means that criminal activity can be funded by the sale of marijuana, thus allowing for the expansion of drug cartels into other areas, increasing crime. "If you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true." —Milton Friedman By making marijuana illegal, we make smuggling profitable. Making marijuana illegal also leads to police corruption [http://www.ichrp.org...] and causes people to commit crime in order to aquire the finances to illegally purchase the drugs [Duke, Steven B (21 Dec 1993). How Legalization Would Cut Crime.] [Trebach, Arnold S.; Kevin B. Zeese, Milton Friedman (1992). Friedman and Szasz on Liberty and Drugs: Essays on the Free Market and Prohibition] 2. Prohibition is incredibly expensive The cost of enforcing such a law is very expensive. As an example the US has spends 44 billion dollars on enforceing this law. Furthermore the oportunity cost of being unable to tax the drugs is costing somewhere around 7 billion more. [http://blogs.reuters.com...] 3. It is not the role of government to prevent someone from harming oneself through marijuana use The government's role is not to make us make healthy choices, otherwise they would ban fast-food, which is far more ruinous to one's health. The use of law in government is to protect individuals being harmed by others. Given that the only one harmed by the useage of marijuana used sensibly (the government can't legalize against stupidity - just because I can endanger other road users by wearing a tv on my head whilst driving doesn't mean the govt. should make tvs illegal) is one's self, a law restricting use is unjustified. 4. Marijuana is actually a very safe drug comparitively Many studies have shown that the risks of marijuana are very low, even when compared to legal drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, or caffiene [http://www.guardian.co.uk...] Con's arguments. 1. The high is too powerful for most people to control. This is an assertion without warrent. As I have already demonstrated [argument 4] the harm to one's self is minimal. However, even granting that the harm was severe, so what? Does that mean governments should interfere with civil liberties? Why should a government prevent one from harming one's self if it does not harm others? 2. Medical alternatives It is true there are other ways to relieve pain, though seeing as I support non-medical usuage of marijuana, this is irrelevent. I await your response.

I argue that Sponsoring or Funding Capitalist, Whore-mongering, Criminal Cartels by purchasing Marijuana, thus Crashing our economy of food, cloths, utilities, security, media, education and paraphilia which is the act of money laundering and gang affiliation through enabling and harbouring criminals who are selling drugs to children, womanizers, bigots, drug addicts, lazy spouses & depressed people Is a criminal offense that should not be legalized for the sake of the demography which is guilty of this offense. If Marijuana were to be legalized, then it should be done so with Zero correlation to the Decisions of the Criminal Population which has been Robbing the republic, empowering the cartels, thus tyrannizing and enslaving our working class, our food producers, our foreign associates and our officials. More over, It does create psychotic anomalies in the mind, which are nearly impossible to reprimand , in the same way that sexualizing a child is unreprimandble. Indicting that it is not just a criminal act, but an inhumane act to sell or legalize it. The Cartels are currently so powerful, making millions a day selling liquor, cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, porn and porn apparatus that they have influence in our media, in our politics, in our demographics and in our education system. Thus, introducing to this article of discussion, sex trafficking, robbery, violence, social bigotry, depression, economic insecurity (national and private). So. I am 100% against Marijuana Culture. and I would like someone to address each of these topics for what they, individually, and maintain their position of Pro with sustenance. If you fail to perceive any of these arguments, we have a 'comment' section to address your lapse in understanding [ As it is impossible to respond to a clause, if you do not know what clause you are responding to. ]. thank you, for taking on this debate challenge. Accepting before reading will undoubtedly be an automatic fail.

"Marijuana is a very addictive drug; it is not as addictive as many other substances but it still is addictive." Let us quote some of my opponent's sources, shall we? "The majority of pot smokers do not develop a marijuana addiction, but some smokers do develop all the symptoms of an actual addiction after chronic marijuana use." (http://alcoholism.about.com...) "Only about 9% will have a serious addiction" (http://www.psychologytoday.com...) http://www.spiritualriver.com... says that out of all of the marijuana users, only 4% become addicted. As far as recoveryguy.hubpages.com goes, for some reason, I cannot access the server, and therefore am not able to quote it. "The reason that many people do not try it is because they do not have access to it or is too expensive for them to buy it from dealers." Obviously, my opponent does not know enough about marijuana to even argue this point. For only 10 dollars, you can purchase something known as a "dime bag", and it will usually have about 7 grams of marijuana in it. This will usually last someone with a medium to high tolerance for marijuana (me) about 3 or 4 days. In fact, I have known several dealers who will sell marijuana cigarettes (Joints) for only 3 dollars. They are also, at least from personal experience, rather easy to come by. Maybe you aren't in the right places? Marijuana is actually more liberally dispensed, because it is not regulated. "...but not everyone does, and others do not care about the damage they could do to themselves..." so are you implying that the government has to tell certain people how to live? If I want to kill myself, then I should have that right completely. "If you investigate further though you will see just exactly who is growing the Marijuana, it is not the states or the government... Tons of Marijuana is grown and the government is doing a rather crappy job of trying to limit access to it..." Limit it?! They are growing it! Let me direct you to a story that was recently on MSN, and also CBS news. "Americans get medical pot from the feds" http://www.cbsnews.com... As far as the marijuana being a cash crop thing, I am willing to let that go, it isn't a focal point to the debate, any way. "You make an assumption that all teenagers in rehabilitation centers were caught, arrested, and then given an unbalanced choice by a judge to then be forced into rehab..." I never said all, but it is the VAST majority. "...Marijuana could cause depression and feel physically weaker and lazier..." It is odd that you would name depression... "Marijuana Treats Depression Patients have, in numerous surveys and interviews, reported anti-depressant and anxiolytic effects of cannabis. Patients who use cannabis to "relax" may be treating the anxiousness sometimes associated with depression. Cannabis aids the insomnia sometimes present in depression and can improve appetite. Better pain control with cannabis can reduce chronic pain related depression." http://www.opposingviews.com... As far as lethargy goes, it is true that marijuana can cause that. But then again, so does: Alcohol, Hydrocodone, codeine, cough syrup, tobacco, Adderall, Ritalin, Paxil, and many more prescription drugs, but those are perfectly legal, and two are legal for recreational use. "As for the 2012 study, relax I made an honest mistake, it should have been 2009..." Well, then, let's quote that 2009 study, shall we? Cause of death1 Number All causes 2,436,652 Cardiovascular diseases 779,367 Malignant neoplasms 568,668 Drug induced2 37,485 Suicide 36,547 Motor vehicle accidents 36,284 Septicemia (infections) 35,587 by Firearms 31,224 Accidental poisoning 30,504 Alcohol induced 23,199 Homicide 16,591 Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) 9,424 Viral hepatitis 7,652 Cannabis (Marijuana) 0 Bottom line is, there are plenty of legal substances, (Caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco, to name a few.) that are MUCH more dangerous, and have a MUCH higher addiction rate than marijuana, but they remain legal. Plenty of functioning members of society use or have used marijuana for medical or recreational reasons (Steve Jobs, The majority of our presidents, 42% of the American people, http://www.time.com...) and the country hasn't condensed and formed a black hole. 50% of Americans now say the use of marijuana should be made legal, (http://www.gallup.com...) and I completely agree. With the facts I have laid out in this debate, I feel like you should too. Thank you for your time! (:

It is clear that my opponent doesn't want to accept or let my say turns the blind eye to the threat a marijuana industry poses to society. My opponent vehemently denies the short term and long term hazards of smoking marijuana, and this is expected of him. However, a recent study by Madeline Meier, a post doctoral researcher of Duke University, shows th prolonged marijuana use by teenagers can be harmful to the developing brain, to the extent of lowering adulthood IQ's by almost ten points on average. Now take this into account and imagine if marijuana was legalized how many people would become a victim of this study. My fellow opponent might say people have access to it, but this only refers to a certain number of people who use it illegally. and I acknowledge that, but lets look at the number of people are not using because of it being illegal. Doesn't my opponent see that with it being illegal we are acting in the best interests of society. Furthermore I cannot seem to avoid the fact that my opponent talks about "taking drugs off the streets and getting it out of the hands of our youth sounds like more of a benefit to society to him", but taking drugs out the hands of the youth is just like taking drugs out of the shops, Doesn't that sound that sound more beneficial to him? On the contrary my opponent has focused only on the industry marijuana if legalized would give birth to, and this is not enough in order to tell us why Marijuana should be legalized, because need not I reiterate that short term and long term hazards of smoking marijuana are fatal, and these hazards of smoking marijuana prove that it cannot be legalized, because we are saving the lives of many. Let us continue in preventing many from using it, and left us stand together to build a drug free society.


Question: Should There Be an Increase in the Federal Minimum Wage?

The federal minimum wage should be increased to $15 an hour to provide a much-needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers. This increase would stimulate the economy as workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth. The minimum wage has been called "one of the best antipoverty programs we have" by Senator Edward Kennedy. It would also reduce the number of single mothers living in poverty and have positive effects on public health. An increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour would place minimum wage earners above the poverty line, allowing them to better support themselves and their families. A study found that this wage increase would decrease the risk of premature death for adults ages 24 to 44 living in households with an income of about $20,000, and would also increase the odds of high school completion for the children of such workers. Additionally, a higher minimum wage would reduce enrollment in traditional Medicaid, leading to potential net savings for the federal government. It is important to consider the benefits of a higher minimum wage for the working poor and for the country as a whole. The cost of living will be minimally affected, and the increase in the minimum wage will have little effect on the unemployment rate. Tax breaks alone are not the answer to poverty, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) should be used in conjunction with a higher minimum wage to provide benefits for the working poor and for taxpayers. The federal government should mandate a $15 minimum wage to improve the health and well-being of low-income earners and to see clear trends in the data regarding the effects of a minimum wage above the poverty line.

- This is a common counter-argument against concerns surrounding job-loss associated with free trade. While job-loss does occur, the counter-argument is that it is well made-up for by the greater purchasing powers and living-standards of workers in general.

The opposition has built their case on an assumption unemployed are only victims of circumstances and can’t influence the situation. Wrong! Many of these people actually are just not stimulated enough to accept some job offers, because the benefits they receive provide them with the same amount of money as those offers. We can’t force them to accept these jobs if they can prove they are still looking for a job, so they continue to exploit working taxpayers. The opposition thinks the unemployed should just wait until the economy recovers by itself and starts offering wonderful job opportunities they were dreaming of. No one is willing to work for a minimal wage. The difference between receiving the benefits and working for a minimal wage is that the latter is a productive activity bringing benefits to the economy. The government could also use the tax revenue to boost the economy further. This process starts a chain reaction of working, earning, and spending, which revives the economy. The opposition doesn’t understand how work places are created in the economy. It is wrong to say there is no demand for labour. There could be no demand for the labour at the wages the unemployed demand. Companies can earn more by producing goods in other regions where people ask for less, boosting the economy there, for example in the South East Asia. Unemployed here demand too much for their level of productivity, so they are not competitive and are not worth the wages they wish for. Moreover, many of them are simply unskilled. It is easy to sit doing nothing receiving benefits and wining about the state of the economy. It is hard to motivate yourself to accept a job offer below your level of expectations or improve your skills. Those people need additional stimulus from the government to return to the labour market. The longer the unrestricted benefits are available, the longer it will take for the unemployed to find jobs, and revive the economy.

There are currently those in the workforce who are racist and sexist. By bringing more minority applicants into the workplace, in an environment in which everyone works as part of a team, we can help alleviate such bigoted attitudes.

It may very well be true that universal health care increases costs. Yet, if we presume that health care is a right, then such added costs are insignificant; they must be born to secure the right of universal health care.

Progressive taxes help increase employment rate

Opp sees providing stable employment will significantly benefit the economy which can be achieved by govt’s regulation in businesses. Especially with the current economic crisis, people have constant fear of being unemployed. This fear of unemployment results in hesitance in their consumer spending thus harms the economy by limiting the amount of money being circulated. With gov’t regulations such as min wage policy and bailouts on corps, opp sees that this will bring down the instability of employment and abuse of labor rights in status quo and also result in wage consistency for the employees. Once employment and wage are regulated thus stabilized, we can easily presume that more money will be spent by consumers, and fuel the economy that is currently predominantly driven by consumer spending, which accounts for approximately 70 percent of economic growth in US for instance. [[http://goo.gl/JmYOE]] Govt regulations play a crucial role to protect workers and consumers. It is due to govt interventions that laws prohibiting discrimination upon age, sex, race; right to unionize; enforcement of workplace safety exist. Every product sold in the US, for example, is affected by some kind of government regulation: food manufacturers must tell exactly what is in the product; automobiles must be built according to safety standards and pollution standards; prices for goods must be clearly marked; and advertisers cannot mislead consumers. [[http://goo.gl/BzV2B]] Govts need to consider the impact of corp’s actions upon society and monitor and control activities that are against the public interest. Thru intervention of the govt, like investment in infrastructure project, capital intensive projects and innovative projects, opp hopes to generate employment, increase spending and helped economy to bail out of recession. In all, opp can easily conclude that government intervention is necessary for economical stability and regulation of monopolies.

"Repealing CAFE Standards Would Be…Stupid". Think Youth. 23 Sept. 2008 - "Some have argued that to raise CAFE standards means that people will only drive more. The argument is as stupid is one that says to make our money easier to carry means we will spend more. People aren’t moving their job because their car will get more gas to the gallon."

We may have learned more stuff, but there is also more to learn. How book smart you are has nothing to do with how street smart you are. As a 16 year old myself, I find that I need my parents support and guidance, without it I would never get anything done. I think 18 is a fine legal age. <<< If you consider yourself smart you would look at the whole process that you're corrupting, making it easily scammable and asking for ways to throw away the small cash you make from your minimum wage job OR throwing away your parents money. Its not worth it

Yes if we lived in a perfect world that's how things would work. Probably without the nukes. But we don't and every single government that has ever existed proves this point. 100% income tax, 100% government corruption. You'd have to be sure that the government will spend the money well. This is highly debatable. Governments (particularly the current one) have a tragic record of blowing cash on job-creation schemes.


Question: Should There Be a Rise in the Federal Minimum Wage?

The federal minimum wage should not be raised to $15 per hour. In this debate, we will focus on the federal minimum wage and address the arguments made by proponents of the increase.

1. Cost of Living: The cost of living varies significantly across different states. Implementing a $15 federal minimum wage would either be too high or too low for certain regions. For instance, a $15 minimum wage in Des Moines, Iowa, would equate to a $4.12 hourly rate when adjusted for the cost of living in New York City. Conversely, it would take a $24.77 minimum wage to match the Des Moines rate in New York. A federal minimum wage is ineffective because it's challenging to pinpoint the right wage for all states. Minimum wage laws should be left to local counties or municipalities, as they can better accommodate their specific needs.

2. Job Loss: An increase in the minimum wage could lead to job loss, as businesses may not be able to afford the higher wages. Consider an employer who pays a worker $15 per hour, generating $20 in revenue. If the minimum wage is raised to $15, and the worker's productivity does not increase, the employer may have to let the employee go to maintain profitability. Studies by economists have shown that minimum wage hikes can lead to job loss. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, a 10% increase in the minimum wage lowers low-skill employment by 2-4% and total restaurant employment by 1-3%. Furthermore, 61% of economists surveyed by the American Economist were against a minimum wage increase. Alan Kruger, a former economist who studied the effects of minimum wage in New Jersey, opposes a $15 federal minimum wage due to potential unintended consequences.

3. Impact on Poverty: Empirical data indicates that a minimum wage hike does little to alleviate poverty, as 60% of those in poverty are not in the workforce. This could make it harder for them to find employment, as employers may prioritize hiring more experienced workers. Research from economists at American University and Cornell University found that state minimum wage increases between 2003 and 2007 did not reduce poverty rates. Additionally, economists at Ohio University found that the federal minimum wage did not decrease poverty and may have even increased poverty for certain subgroups.

4. EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit): The EITC is a refundable tax credit for low- to moderate-income working

There simply isn't enough money in the treasury to pay people who don't have work and people who find work. Work should be an incentive in itself. The vast majority of people on benefits have no desire to stay on them. It leaves very little to live on, and it carries a social stigma that people want to avoid. There is no need to further incentivize work. The benefits system is necessarily complex because people have different needs, such as incapacity benefit, child benefit and unemployment benefit. If we reduced this to a single flat rate, then some people would lose out.

We may have learned more stuff, but there is also more to learn. How book smart you are has nothing to do with how street smart you are. As a 16 year old myself, I find that I need my parents support and guidance, without it I would never get anything done. I think 18 is a fine legal age. <<< If you consider yourself smart you would look at the whole process that you're corrupting, making it easily scammable and asking for ways to throw away the small cash you make from your minimum wage job OR throwing away your parents money. Its not worth it

In a capitalist system, which the United States has, any one entity having a monopoly can only lead to prices rising. The reason that we allow these hundreds of different healthcare firms to be open is so they can compete with each other. Each struggles to be cheaper than the others so that they can attract customers. If we were to provide a universalizing healthcare system prices would skyrocket.

THB that A GOVERNMENT HAS THE OBLIGATION TO LESSEN THE ECONOMIC GAP BETWEEN ITS RICH AND POOR CITIZENS.Let the definition of poor and rich be define conceptually.The poor according to the UN nations studies is as the below facts. Poverty in the United States The official poverty measure is published by the United States Census Bureau and shows that: In 2010, 46.9 million people were in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007 -- the fourth consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty . This is the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty rates have been published The 2010 poverty rate was 15.1 percent, up from 12.5 percent in 1997. This is the highest poverty rate since 1993, but 7.3 percentage points lower than the poverty rate in 1959, the first year for poverty estimates. The 2010 poverty rate for Hispanics was 26.6 percent, for Blacks 27.4 percent. In 2010, the poverty rate increased for children under age 18 from 20.7 percent to 22.0 percent. 20.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty. This means their family’s cash income is less than half of the poverty line, or about $10,000 a year for a family of four 49.9 million people or 16.3 percent of the American people, do not have medical insurance In 2011 the Census Bureau published a supplemental poverty measure for the first time (US Census Bureau 2011b). This new measure addresses seven concerns that have been raised about the official poverty measure, including the fact that the offical poverty measure does not reflect the effects of key government policies that alter the disposable income of families and thus their poverty status, such as the SNAP/food stamp program. Taking these adjustments into account, the supplemental poverty measure showed a 3 million increase in the number of poor people in 2010, compared to the official poverty rate. Who is poor shows some striking changes. The percentage of children in poverty is 27.7 percent of the total population in poverty with the supplemental measure and 36.1 with the official measure; while people over 65 are 12.7 percent of the total population in poverty in the supplemental measure and 7.6 percent in the official measure The supplemental poverty measure does measure poverty more accurately, and it is gratifiying to see that programs to reduce poverty and hunger among children have had an impact. .See when there are a gap in between rich and poor , automatically they poor will need to shut their mouth.As the modern country their poverty should be in control like the development country such as Malaysia and Singapore where almost every sectors in those country is in top 5th ranking in 3rd world region specifically Asian plate.So the goverment need to use their authority not campaigning but restoring their poor need. For llight example we can use rich people such as Oprah Winfrey to help the need so that the poor see that, " Oh its okay now the communities is helping us "

Unless I have misunderstood, this means the state would top up incomes below certain amounts on a percentage basis. This would mean people with no income whatsoever would receive no money at all and would be left to fend for themselves.

Low wages are inadequate compensation for potential workers who are discouraged from entering the la...

Just because other countries have it, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is right. The statistics on road deaths in the US reflect those of the UK. America is also considering its stance on minimum driving age at this time. The following chart specifies the age at which one may be fully privileged to drive in a particular American state. Alabama 17 yrs. Alaska 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Arizona 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Arkansas 18 yrs. California 18 yrs., provisional from 16 to 18 Colorado 17 yrs. Connecticut 17 yrs. & 4 mos. (w/ passengers); 18 yrs. @ night Delaware 17 yrs. Florida 18 yrs. Georgia 18 yrs. Hawaii 17 yrs. Idaho 16 yrs. (night); 15 yrs. & 6 mos. (w/ passenger) Illinois 18 yrs. (night); 17 yrs. (w/ passenger) Indiana 17 yrs. Iowa 17 yrs. Kansas 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Kentucky 17 yrs. Louisiana 17 yrs. Maine 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Maryland 17 yrs. & 9 mos. (night); 16 yrs. & 11 mos. ( w/ passenger) Massachusetts 18 yrs. (night); 17 yrs. (w/ passenger) Michigan 17 yrs. Minnesota 16 yrs. & 6 mos. (night); 17 yrs. (w/ passenger) Mississippi 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Missouri 17 yrs. & 11 mos. Montana 16 yrs. Nebraska 17 yrs. (night); 16 yrs. & 6 mos. (w/ passenger) Nevada 16 yrs. & 6 mos. New Hampshire 17 yrs. & 1 mos. (night); 16 yrs. & 6 mos. (w/ passenger) New Jersey 18 yrs., provisional at 17 yrs. New Mexico 16 yrs. & 6 mos. New York 17 yrs. w/ drivers ed; 18 yrs. w/o drivers ed North Carolina 16 yrs. & 6 mos. North Dakota 14 yrs. & 6 mos. Ohio 18 yrs. (night); 17 yrs. (w/passenger) Oklahoma 16 yrs. & 6 mos. w/ drivers ed; 17 yrs. w/o drivers ed Oregon 17 yrs. Pennsylvania 17 yrs. (if crash & conviction free); 18 yrs. otherwise Rhode Island 17 yrs. & 6 mos. South Carolina 16 yrs. & 6 mos. South Dakota 16 yrs. Tennessee 17 yrs. Texas 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Utah 17 yrs. (night); 16 yrs. & 6 mos. (w/ passneger) Vermont 16 yrs. & 6 mos. Virginia 18 yrs. Washington 18 yrs. West Virginia 17 yrs. Wisconsin 16 yrs. & 9 mos. Wyoming 16 yrs. & 6 mos. w/ drivers ed; 17 yrs. w/o drivers ed Washington DC 18 yrs. http://dmvanswers.com/questions/257/What-is-the-legal-driving-age-in-my-state

Making it illegal helps exploit those we should be protecting

no importance of making it free for people who don't have money and can't get to work because of it. why? 1. People who apply for job should know where their job place is, and how they can get there. if they know that they don't have money, they should've find another nearer place that they can get only by walking, etc. it is ridiculous that you apply for job without knowing where your job place is, and even if you know you're still being stubborn and take the position. 2. even if those people are being stubborn, and they still take the position, there's nothing government can do with that. look, when these people want this position, they should know the consequences of having a very far job place or things. and when the consequence is they have to pay some amountt of money because of applying for a far job place. since these people will get money by the job, so that's why this consequence belong to them.

Mark Jaquith. "Why I Support Progressive Taxation". Tempus Fugit. 18 Sept. 2005 - "you must consider the effect that a completely flat tax system would have on the poor. The people who, after buying the things they need and are left with nothing, will have a very hard time breaking that inertia. They likely won’t have time to learn new skills, because they don’t have any significant discretionary income. They have to keep going to work just to put food on the table. A tax on the basic necessities of life is a severe handicap to one’s ability to break out of that cycle. It is essentially a tax on living, which is abhorrent both from a moral standpoint (Liberals’ objection) and from an American philosophical standpoint (Conservatives’ and Liberterians’ objection)"


Question: Should There Be an Increase in the Federal Minimum Wage?

Increasing the federal minimum wage is a detrimental move for the residents of the United States. Despite your decision to avoid presenting an argument in consecutive rounds, I will proceed to conclude our debate. To sum up, inflation is a significant obstacle to raising the minimum wage. There is no need to increase the minimum wage beyond $8.50 for at least the next decade. Furthermore, citizens in the United States already enjoy a lifestyle comparable to that of the wealthy, and increasing the minimum wage would only exacerbate unemployment. I found this debate to be quite engaging, and I commend you for being an intelligent adversary, although I was disappointed with your decision to forfeit rounds 3 and 4.

Far more people will be exploited if we allow total immigration. The desperately poor often invest all their money in a one way ticket and are therefore trapped with no means of bargaining. Their willingness to accept below minimum wage will undercut the whole system and impoverish Western workers. Foreign workers are often unaware of their rights and the regulations about their work whether they are legal or illegal immigrants. These are the grounds on which the Trades Unions movement explicitly opposes this case.

Opp sees providing stable employment will significantly benefit the economy which can be achieved by govt’s regulation in businesses. Especially with the current economic crisis, people have constant fear of being unemployed. This fear of unemployment results in hesitance in their consumer spending thus harms the economy by limiting the amount of money being circulated. With gov’t regulations such as min wage policy and bailouts on corps, opp sees that this will bring down the instability of employment and abuse of labor rights in status quo and also result in wage consistency for the employees. Once employment and wage are regulated thus stabilized, we can easily presume that more money will be spent by consumers, and fuel the economy that is currently predominantly driven by consumer spending, which accounts for approximately 70 percent of economic growth in US for instance. [[http://goo.gl/JmYOE]] Govt regulations play a crucial role to protect workers and consumers. It is due to govt interventions that laws prohibiting discrimination upon age, sex, race; right to unionize; enforcement of workplace safety exist. Every product sold in the US, for example, is affected by some kind of government regulation: food manufacturers must tell exactly what is in the product; automobiles must be built according to safety standards and pollution standards; prices for goods must be clearly marked; and advertisers cannot mislead consumers. [[http://goo.gl/BzV2B]] Govts need to consider the impact of corp’s actions upon society and monitor and control activities that are against the public interest. Thru intervention of the govt, like investment in infrastructure project, capital intensive projects and innovative projects, opp hopes to generate employment, increase spending and helped economy to bail out of recession. In all, opp can easily conclude that government intervention is necessary for economical stability and regulation of monopolies.

Once more it would be wise to question the proposition's information: Nowadays Chile is not just recognized for its economic achievements, it is also sighted as one of the countries with highest quality of life, lowest perception of corruption and lowest poverty rate in Latin America [1]. If the alleged alarming numbers about exploited women were true, how would all of this qualifications for Chile be truth?? The example (assuming it is veridical of course) falls again to illustrate the relation between the intensive and autodestructive competition and the completely different and hypothetical situation of Chilean workers, in this case competition is useful for ensuring the high quality of the products. More in important than this is that non of the following examples provides a link between the boost of the economy and the decrease in the labor welfare, there is not even a logical reason for this to happen, incomplete information, and confusing data. Can this argument be taken seriously? [1] http://imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=37&pr.y=17&sy=2007&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=213%2C263%2C268%2C273%2C218%2C278%2C223%2C283%2C228%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C238%2C243%2C248%2C253%2C298%2C258%2C299&s=NGDPDPC&grp=0&a=

The only reason this has come into issue now is due to the vast amount of press coverage given to the topic. This does not mean that the income gap is rising, just that we are hearing about it and making abigger deal out of it now. The gap is becoming more visible to us now. But surely this is a great thing. If we can see the inequaltiy we can attempt to change it. When we fail to see the inequality, that is where the problem lies. In communism, the inequalities are hidden. So this capitalism is well placed.

Nothing is free and tax pays for a lot of things we take for granted. The rich pay more than the poor and always have.

The most critical consideration for extending the generally accepted age of retirement to a mandatory age of 65 for all of society is to safeguard against the effects of old age on judges, surgeons and other professional practitioners. The age of 65 is chosen as an average age above which it is possible for people to experience problems with their physical or mental well-being. Mandatory retirement would protect against the detrimental effects that could be the result of mistakes or misjudgements by elderly professionals. Many argue that these professions have a great influence over the lives of many e.g. judicial decisions, surgical procedures, and there are at present insufficient safeguards to prevent against incompetence.

This is because tax increases are a significant government action into the lives and liberties of citizens. If government is of, by, and for the people, any tax increase should be voted upon by the people.[6]

Encouraging mothers to work increases the number of people in the workforce thereby increasing the productivity of the country. This also helps to create jobs in the childcare sector, generating employment for more people.

The prop point to why life is better for illegal immigrants in the US, without showing negatives. Yes, people in the US pay for welfare, but none of this goes to illegal immigrants because they can't possibly apply for it without identification. We weren't arguing that life isn't better for the immigrants in the US, simply that they do contribute and aren't just a leach on society. The prop has misquoted their own article, the cost is much less than $4-6 billion [[judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/mar/county-spends-600-mil-welfare-illegals]], and the welfare pays for children of illegal immigrants who become citizens because they are born in the USA. Therefore they have the same entitlement to rights as the people the prop say 'deserve' to have them, because they were born in the US (why this makes people deserve the benefits of welfare more they still haven't explained). Because working illegal immigrants do make a contribution, they do deserve some benefits. In addition, the fact that these illegal immigrants have children in the US makes it even more difficult to ship them out of the country, leaving their children behind, and makes our model of a path to citizenship better. There may be 30 million unemployed in the US, but they won't all be able to take immigrants' jobs.Arizona has a comparatively low immigration rate [[http://roguecolumnist.typepad.com/rogue_columnist/2009/03/arizonas-mysterious-jobless-rate.html]] and it is hard to see how half a million people in Michigan [[http://www.michiganpolicy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=813:extended-unemployment-benefits-in-michigan&catid=16:employment-policy-briefs&Itemid=75]] will suddenly get the Arizona jobs. The point that employers, and hence the local economy, will suffer from lost employment still stands. Racial profiling will not remove violence. As we've discussed, it will create greater reasons to turn to gangs and greater discontent. It also won't stop illegal immigrants entering America.

You should raise the legal age of driving to 18 because the most wrecks that occur are from teens.Teens have a certain way of thinking that "I win you lose," kind of attitude.Or the "My way or no way."