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

The legalization of marijuana for recreational use
My adversary contends that there's no valid justification for legalizing marijuana. It is, however, the most widely used illicit drug in the United States. A significant portion of the population, particularly the younger demographic, are misled into believing that marijuana poses minimal health risks. This is categorically false. Among the immediate effects are: 1. Altered perception (of sights, sounds, time, and touch). 2. Cognitive impairments related to memory and learning. 3. Diminished coordination. 4. Cognitive dysfunction and difficulty in problem-solving. 5. Elevated heart rate, accompanied by a drop in blood pressure. This list is sufficient to illustrate the rationale behind the prohibition of marijuana, but I will elaborate further. My opponent inquires, "Have you ever heard of crimes, accidents, or violence associated with marijuana?" Indeed, I have. Possessing marijuana is a crime, and there have been instances of accidents involving individuals under the influence of alcohol and marijuana. Additionally, violence has occurred when law enforcement attempts to apprehend individuals in possession of marijuana. I will expand on my argument in the subsequent round. Thank you. Sources: (1). . http://faculty.washington.edu...

I will spend this time refuting them and then highlighting the impacts of the arguments I provided. My opponent starts out by claiming that cannabis is dangerous. Just because a chemical is dangerous does NOT mean that it should be illegal. Legality and morality do not inform one another. One could argue that prostitution, excessive alcohol, and fatty food are all "dangerous" in some sense, but no American citizen has ever argued to make all of these activities illegal. Being an American means having the discretion and liberty to take risks and to choose activities that the moral actor is comfortable with and agreeable to. This is going to be an issue with my opponent's case for the rest of this debate. Then, even if the voter still believes that morality (whether it's dangerous/harmful) should dictate legality (whether it becomes legalized), my opponent does not successfully show the dangers of cannabis. There are none. He/she states that cannabis can make you panic or give you anxiety. This is a negative side effect called paranoia, but not all strains (varieties) of marijuana result in this effect. Furthermore, the smoker has to use a large amount of marijuana in order to experience these effects. Much more frequently, people claim using marijuana because it REDUCES their anxiety and provides medical BENEFITS. My opponent says that cannabis can kill you. However, to the contrary, there have been no deaths due to marijuana use. His/her argument is not only speculative but also a slippery-slope, as he/she first needs to prove that marijuana substantially increases the rate of heartbeat and THEN that an increase in the rate of heartbeat leads to death. Neither of these have been proven. Please do not believe this ridiculous statement. My opponent brings up some more speculative arguments about what cannabis COULD do to a moral actor (i. e. someone who chooses to use it), but the problem is again that just because something is harmful does not mean that it should be illegal. He/she keeps using words like "can" and "could" and then "can" again. These arguments are speculative and are not substantiated with the evidence that my opponent tried to provide. Marijuana does not create these harmful consequences, and even if it did, these effects would not develop until decades of heavy marijuana use had occurred. My opponent also attempts to compare marijuana to tobacco and says that marijuana is five times as unhealthy, however this is nonsense. Marijuana does not have the carcinogens and nasty chemicals that comprise a regular cigarette, and while 400,000 people die from tobacco each year, zero die from marijuana use. My opponent continues with speculative arguments that might have been proposed by some biased, anti-drug group, but they are not rooted in true empirical statistics. The only other argument that my opponent tries to form is that marijuana increases crime rates. Evidence to the contrary shows the opposite. In fact, when Washington D. C. legalized cannabis in 2015, the crime rate decreased by 99% (so was just about eliminated). Why? First of all, when marijuana is legalized, police officers spend their time fighting serious crimes like murder and rape, rather than nonviolent crimes like marijuana use. This allows more violent crimes to be deterred, and therefore their rates are reduced. Perhaps a more convincing refutation is that, under my opponent's world, marijuana is ITSELF a crime. So, if marijuana were legalized, then no one who smoked pot ever again wouold be committing a crime. Quite obviously, this would reduce the crime rate, since the action in question is no longer a crime. So, in summary, here is what is wrong with my opponent's contentions:1. Just because something is harmful does not mean that it should be illegal.2. Marijuana is not harmful, and consumers use it for medicinal or at least stress-relieving reasons. My opponent's speculative claims should not be considered substantial evidence.3. Legalizing marijuana reduces or eliminates the crmie rate rather than increases it. The evidence can be substantial but is also simply intuitive: if marijuana is no longer a crime, then the "crime" goes down. I will now highlight my arguments and explain how they tie back to the framework of this debate, which is net benefits to society. Recall that the side that better demonstrates whether legalizing/criminalizing marijuana is better to society should win this debate. Contention 1: Economic benefits. Legalizing pot would create money and jobs, because we would be able to collect valuable tax revenue on something that people will use regardless of whether or not the laws allow for it. This revenue is used for health care and education. Furthermore, legalizing pot saves money, because there will be fewer prisoners that drain tax dollars due to long years of imprisonment. Contention 2: Social benefits. Legalizing pot means that police officers channel their time and attention on violent crimes, such as rape and murder, rather than silly nonviolent crimes like smoking weed. This clearly reduces the crime rate and allows for a safer society in which citizens can enjoy freedoms rather than be locked up in jail for much of their lives. Contention 3: Racial benefits. The enforcement of marijuana laws has been extremely racist and discriminatory. Author Michelle Alexander calls it "a new Jim Crow", meaning that blacks continue to have it much harder than whites when it comes to the criminal justice system, even though they are no more likely to use pot than their white counterparts. Legalizing pot prevents police officers from being able to continue with and conduct these racist enforcement procedures. Contention 4: Safer marijuana. Kepeing cannabis illegal DOES NOT DETER citizens from using it. This will be the most challenging argument for my opponent to respond to. He/she says that cannabis is harmful; even if it were, keeping it illegal does not stop people from its use. At least, with legalizing pot, we can verify that the cannabis is as safe as possible and that no sketchy drug dealers or cartels are entering the country with weed that could be laced with PCP or some truly dangerous chemical. Contention 5: Freedom of choice. Americans should be able to do whatever they want so long as their actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. This is the nation that the Founding Fathers intended, and to the most extent we let people make their own decisions. Since we let people smoke cigarettes and eat unhealthy food, they should also be able to smoke cannabis. Nothing about cannabis is harmful to the user, let alone to those who do not use it. My opponent will be expected to refute all five of these contentions with substantial evidence and reasons to believe otherwise. It is hard to argue against a legalization procedure that would create money, save money, reduce violent crimes, incerase health and safety, reduce racism, and promote the freedom of choice that responsible Americans deserve. My opponent also needs to return to his/her contentions and show why my refutations of them do not hold. Finally, he/she must tie his/her arugments back to the framework of net benefits to society. Unless my opponent is successfully able to show that the disadvantages to society of legalization overwhelmingly outweigh the advantages, the voter should vote Pro. My opponent has 48 hours to accomplish these tasks. Evidence:. http://www.drugpolicy.org...http://people.wku.edu... . http://www.drugpolicy.org...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...https://www.mpp.org...;

"Ok i see you point but the drug is already being used for medical help in all the states and yes they're would be less crimes but there would be more wrecks and stealing from places because the drug gets people high and there for its shouldn't be legalized i await my opponents responses eagerly also"This is not true. Only 20 states in the US have legal medicinal marijuana. (1) You show no sources to suggest that there would increase car wrecks or crime, whereas I have shown that it would significantly reduce the crime rate. Furthermore, marijuana is a depressent. Users feel tired and lack the motivation to move. Many users would not likely want to drive while intoxicated, unlike alcohol, which is a barbiturate. Furthermore, people wouldn't have to steal to get marijuana. They could esily work legitimate jobs just as they normally do and buy marijuana with disposable income.Con fails to present a compelling argument or sources. VOTE PRO!Sources1. https://www.medicalmarijuana....procon.org/

Inspired by http://www.debate.org... Each person must argue the resolution to the best of their ability. But the catch is, each person must use as many logical fallacies as possible. The arguments vote should be given to the person with the best balance between persuasiveness and fallaciousness. To my opponent, please do not argue semantics or attempt to weasel out of the spirit of the debate. Since sources are irrelevant, the sources vote should be defaulted to the winner of the arguments/fallacies. Now to get on with the arguments. ======== It is vital that we legalize marijuana for the welfare of society. According to this poll (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...), 52% of Americans want to legalize it, while only 37% are opposed. The choice is clear. If we do not begin marijuana on a regular basis, the only alternative is to inflict great suffering on every man, woman and child across the nation. According to my uncle, who is a widely known medical doctor, marijuana has great health benefits. My great uncle, a world-renowned university professor, concurs. He believes that everyone should smoke marijuana in order to enrich their lives. Marijuana is made from the cannabis plant. Plants have evolved side by side with humans; human bodies are designed to be able to use them. So you see, smoking marijuana is a very natural process. Let me give an example. I had a friend named Jill. She was unhappy with her job and had become very depressed. So her doctor prescribed a daily smoking of marijuana. In no time, she felt much better. Marijuana is great. Everyone knows it. The health benefits have been proven in laboratories time and time again. It would be absurd to even try to argue that marijuana is harmful. My opponent must be crazy to accept this debate. Someone who does not smoke marijuana every day is comparable to someone who does not eat every day. It's just not healthy. What kind of person could advocate that sort of lifestyle? Marijuana is great, everyone knows it. That much is undeniable. My opponent is going to have a hard time breaking down my impenetrable arguments based on flawless reasoning.

I will be arguing for the legalization of MarijuanaCon will argue for the continuation of the "war on drugs"I will argue for the legalization of Marijuana on the grounds that the prohibition of drugs is not a deterrent, Marijuana is less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol, the drug war costs too much money for its own good, and drug prohibition invades civil libertiesCon will provide arguments to support the war on drugs First round will be acceptance or if the opponent wants, it can be for Con's opening arguments

I negate the legalization of marijuana in the U.S I will be defending the status quo in this round of marijuana being illegal. 1. Drugs rob the user of free will. A drug user cannot make an informed and rational decision to continue using drugs because the use of the drug eliminates that user"s ability to think logically. Nor can they disseminate themselves from drug taking. And if the government was to support this it would allow them to more easily brainwash the people and control them. 2.Drug use is dangerous to persons besides the user. In the rise of health care costs, violence associated with the use of drugs, neglect of children by drug-addicted parents, and other third party effects. It would also minimize productivity. People would be more frequently on the influence at work, on the road, and during other activities putting people at risk and limiting people's capability. 3. The use of soft drugs, such as marijuana, leads to the use of hard drugs (the Gateway Theory). The permission of one drug would spark a revolution to legalize all drugs. Even if it doesn't, it promotes people to "move up" on drug use and "upgrade" to more dangerous, and illegal, drugs. 4. Legalizing drugs will send a message to children that drug use is acceptable. It inherently isn't as non-medical drug use has many substancial problems such as addictions, health problems, and such forther. Because of these reasons, I negate.

If marijuana is legalized it won't change the fact that caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol are also dangerous. Instead of legalizing marijuana since its less hazardous, those other drugs should be controlled. We should not look toward legalizing marijuana to benefit our economy, it is a drug! Any type of legalization of a drug is not the best decision. The fact that it can harm your health should not be ignored simply to help the government and its debt. The use of marijuana has been linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. All three of these outcomes will directly affect the life of the smoker which can be avoided. Therefore, the legalization of this drug would lead to an even higher number of people with these disorders.

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

There are some negatives to smoking marijuana regularly. Physically, lung damage does occur over time after years of smoking. Some sites have said that marijuana is less toxic for your lungs than tobacco; others have said that it is more. There haven't been many tests done because the government restricts funding for research because it is Schedule I. I haven't heard of reports of lung cancer caused by marijuana, but lung damage is a risk. Brain scans of lifetime users show a 12% shrink in the hippocampus of the brain compared to non-users. However, it is also shown that abstinence will reverse the shrinkage without problems. Psychologically, there are risks as well. Marijuana is addictive and many people who smoke experience psychological withdrawal when stopping after using for long periods of time (depression, anger, etc. ). Many people who smoke marijuana over time report a loss of interest in things that were once important to them. Many potheads admit this. Also, smoking heavily for many years causes what pot smokers call "burnout". Many pot smokers are less attentive and less responsive to other people around them. Are these deadly? No. But should a drug be legal simply because it is not? Accidental deaths are also common to people that smoked pot.

I think my opponent posted a good argument in 40 minutes! Firstly my opponent challenges the negativity of cannabis, and it argues that it can have beneficial effects. Now the fact it is harmful is not in doubt, there have been innumerable studies that confirm this, everyone who knows a social group who habitually smokes cannabis is aware of one of more people who has suffered permanent or at least long lasting damage to their mental health. Now it is perfectly possible that in addition to this it may assist the body in other conditions, so surely a better system is to retain it as an illegal drug, which still allows for authorised facilities to study it. "For instance, psychedelic mushrooms, mescalin, LSD, MDMA, none of these drugs will kill you, and you cannot overdose on them" Hallucinogenic drugs are dangerous due to their halluncinatory properties, physical injury or psychological damage are both possible outcomes. LSD can cause flashbacks years later that could occur when the person is driving a car, flying a plane, or performing a triple heart bypass. http://www.healthunit.org... On regards drugs and crime. "This is preposterous, you cannot make such a claim. If a drug addict cannot get his "fix" in a legal market, he wouldn't be able to get it in an illegal market anyways. Drugs being in a legal market would make purchasing it more safe, and more reliable. I argue that alcoholics who cannot afford alcohol do not all turn to crime like you suggest, since alcohol is a drug." My opponent simply can not deny that addicts resort to crime to support their habit, this is a clear and obvious fact and is always raised in these debates. "A drug that impairs your ability to think and move properly while being a toxin to your body, harming your brain and liver is currently on the market. A drug that causes the US and Canada billions in health care and kills millions is currently on the market. However if these drugs were illegal, they would kill even more people. We have room to make all drugs legal, and properly educate people on the effects of using them. Them being illegal absolutely does not lower usage rates." We are going to going around in circles on certain issues so I want to cut to the chase as it were and address heroin, possibly the most severe of the drugs in question. The legalisation of heroin would increase usage rates. Through the natural competition of differing and dealers prices would come down, people would consider the use of heroin to be legitimate. It can be instantly addictive. A heroin addict is unable to hold down a job, it is not an addiction you can really manage, this in turns increase the crime rate. How can there be a moral or legal case for the legalisation of heroin? (For more information on heroin, http://en.wikipedia.org...).

NOTICE: This debate is apart of the Revive DDO Debate Competition. RESOLUTION: Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized For Use As Medicine or for Medical Purposes.


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

Marijuana for personal use
I hold the belief that the use of marijuana is perfectly acceptable for individual recreational purposes. The personal consumption of this drug should be regarded as a matter of personal choice, as long as it does not harm others or infringe upon their rights. After all, responsible adults should have the freedom to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies, don't you agree?

The case for Legalizing Marijuana use in the United States stems froms the nation's deep respect for the individual. The strong belief in personal freedom appears early in the nation's history. The Declaration of Independence speaks of every citizen's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Constitution and Bill of Rights go further, making specific guarantees. They forbid the government to make unwarranted entry into dwelling places. They forbid seizure of personal property, except when very clear reasons are approved by the courts. They allow every citizen to remain silent in court when accused of a crime. Legal decisions have extended these rights, so that every citizen may feel safe, secure, and sheltered from public view in the privacy of his or her home. Americans have referred to privacy as one of the basic human rights. According to U.S. traditions, there is a strong case to be made against legislating the private behavior of adults, so long as that behavior does not in turn violate the rights of others. Some people feel that this reasoning should hold also for marijuana. A person who smokes at home is not doing injury. The marijuana user is indulging in a minor pleasure over which the government should have no jurisdiction.

The brain scans that were done were done in the 70's were done on monkeys who were strapped to a gas mask and pumped with 63 joints, no oxygen was passed through, they were losing brain cells not because of the chemicals but because of lac of oxygen, they were passing out. And yes lung damage may occur over the years but its only from breathing in the heated smoke, and is nothing compared to the damages caused by tobacco, and addiction is non exsistant, sure it might suck without it for a wile but look at the withdraws from tabacco and liq, its no where close to them. the reason so many people are in rehab because of it is because the process is out of this world, if your caught with it, you go to court and have two choices, jail, or rehab, the answer is very obvious. And what you described as a burnout is not right, a burnout is almost like a hang over, it lasts for maybe a half a day and your just tiered, making it seem like your un-attentive and un- caring. But there is no way it lasts you in the long run, look at all the very successful people who smoked since they were 10 and became something big, they didn't get there by chance. And are you aware of hemp? Hemp is a all in one amazing cheap product that will nearly save our economy. Hemp can be grown anywhere, and has thousands of uses. It is the strongest rope, it can be easly turned into fuel, and can be made into paper, the first document of the deceleration of Independence was made on hemp paper, its just stupid to keep cannabis illleagle. And cannabis, i do not consider a drug, its a herb. And by people saying people do stupid stuff when their high on pot is completely true, but not to the existent of injury, when people are high on pot they are not on high speed chases or running around with guns like drunks or hard drugs do to you, when your high on pot, you just want to relax, people dont get angry when they are high and they dont get sad, they just relax and let it take its curse, its almost impossible to explain. No one can ever give the country a straight answer on why it is illeagle, in the early 19th century it was illeagle because it was said that all the tribal people and African Americans smoked it making them violent, then during Vietnam it was made illeagle for the complete opposite reason, it was said to make people nicer and that our enemies will use it against us. I mean its proven to be non threatening to your life, there is little to no withdraw, thousands of things we can do with it other then getting high. I dont have to get into the medical uses of it cause those are already in use and not one problem has occurred yet. Im not a hippie, im a 26 year old collage graduate making 114,000 a year with a beautiful wife and 2 kids i love to death.............and i smoke pot. I just dont see why we keep on pushing this law, we spend millions in law enforcement to stop a drug that has caused no problems to people but the law against it, in my opinion we just drop it and go after the real drugs, like crack PCP ect, and maybe start thinking what people are doing, keeping the two most toxic addicting substances (tobacco, liq) leagle, and the most effective, non threatning herb on the other side of the law. The only thing that makes scence is that it makes no scene at all. And P.S. I typed this high

Thank you for your opening argument! Firstly, I would like to talk about the negative health effects of marijuana. Marijuana has several short term negative effects which include- panic attacks, anxiety, depression, sleepiness, restlessness, lowered reaction time and increased heartbeat by almost 50%- sharply increasing the risk of a heart attack However what makes the effects of smoking marijuana even more severe is the length of time that the drug stays in the body. In one smoking of marijuana- the drug stays in the body for around to 14 days and in smokers who smoke marijuana more often and more intensely, the drug can stay in the body for up to 3 months. This means that one smoking of marijuana stays in the body 56 times longer than 3 pints of beer, which is usually removed from the body within a maximum of 6 hours. There are also several long term effects of marijuana which include-Respiratory issues such as- Reduced resistance to bronchitis, rapid destruction to lung tissues and fibres, potentially causing lung cancer. Marijuana also affects the immune system, causing abnormally low or high activity and in some cases the body begins to fight off its own "good" cells. It also causes abnormal growth in teen users, brain disorders and abnormal cellular structures, sometimes even the complete destruction of cellular matter. Marijuana negatively affects the urological system, it reduces male sex hormones, and can cause erectile dysfunction. Marijuana is also shown to cause testicular cancer in some cases. The most overwhelming negative effects of marijuana lie in the brain, it can cause permanent brain lesions, learning difficulties, depression, and other long term psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia. Here we can see a long list of violent, destructive long term effects of marijuana. By legalizing this drug, it means that more people are subject to the affects of the drug, causing more illness, injury and in some circumstances death.

Hello, it is an honor to participate in my first debate on debate.org, although I see many people on this site are not very-well politically educated.I am arguing that marijuana should remain illegal in this country.Marijuana benefits the plutocracy and is only used as a way for retarded Libertarian Christian hippies to get what they want. It's one step away from Anarchy! Marijuana, contrary to belief, is addictive, unhealthy, and benefits the plutocracy.If Charlie Chaplin wasn't a silent film actor, he would have put it best.But since we don't know what he sounded like, I will express what he would have believed. That it benefits the lousy punk Libertarian Plutocracy! It pisses me off to no end how ridiculous these Islamic Hippie-crits are getting with their stupid "Weed Agenda". It must be stopped!It simply pisses me off. I will not stand for it, and nor will America.The Weed Agenda Must Be Stopped!

There are some negatives to smoking marijuana regularly. Physically, lung damage does occur over time after years of smoking. Some sites have said that marijuana is less toxic for your lungs than tobacco; others have said that it is more. There haven't been many tests done because the government restricts funding for research because it is Schedule I. I haven't heard of reports of lung cancer caused by marijuana, but lung damage is a risk. Brain scans of lifetime users show a 12% shrink in the hippocampus of the brain compared to non-users. However, it is also shown that abstinence will reverse the shrinkage without problems. Psychologically, there are risks as well. Marijuana is addictive and many people who smoke experience psychological withdrawal when stopping after using for long periods of time (depression, anger, etc. ). Many people who smoke marijuana over time report a loss of interest in things that were once important to them. Many potheads admit this. Also, smoking heavily for many years causes what pot smokers call "burnout". Many pot smokers are less attentive and less responsive to other people around them. Are these deadly? No. But should a drug be legal simply because it is not? Accidental deaths are also common to people that smoked pot.

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

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

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 think my opponent posted a good argument in 40 minutes! Firstly my opponent challenges the negativity of cannabis, and it argues that it can have beneficial effects. Now the fact it is harmful is not in doubt, there have been innumerable studies that confirm this, everyone who knows a social group who habitually smokes cannabis is aware of one of more people who has suffered permanent or at least long lasting damage to their mental health. Now it is perfectly possible that in addition to this it may assist the body in other conditions, so surely a better system is to retain it as an illegal drug, which still allows for authorised facilities to study it. "For instance, psychedelic mushrooms, mescalin, LSD, MDMA, none of these drugs will kill you, and you cannot overdose on them" Hallucinogenic drugs are dangerous due to their halluncinatory properties, physical injury or psychological damage are both possible outcomes. LSD can cause flashbacks years later that could occur when the person is driving a car, flying a plane, or performing a triple heart bypass. http://www.healthunit.org... On regards drugs and crime. "This is preposterous, you cannot make such a claim. If a drug addict cannot get his "fix" in a legal market, he wouldn't be able to get it in an illegal market anyways. Drugs being in a legal market would make purchasing it more safe, and more reliable. I argue that alcoholics who cannot afford alcohol do not all turn to crime like you suggest, since alcohol is a drug." My opponent simply can not deny that addicts resort to crime to support their habit, this is a clear and obvious fact and is always raised in these debates. "A drug that impairs your ability to think and move properly while being a toxin to your body, harming your brain and liver is currently on the market. A drug that causes the US and Canada billions in health care and kills millions is currently on the market. However if these drugs were illegal, they would kill even more people. We have room to make all drugs legal, and properly educate people on the effects of using them. Them being illegal absolutely does not lower usage rates." We are going to going around in circles on certain issues so I want to cut to the chase as it were and address heroin, possibly the most severe of the drugs in question. The legalisation of heroin would increase usage rates. Through the natural competition of differing and dealers prices would come down, people would consider the use of heroin to be legitimate. It can be instantly addictive. A heroin addict is unable to hold down a job, it is not an addiction you can really manage, this in turns increase the crime rate. How can there be a moral or legal case for the legalisation of heroin? (For more information on heroin, http://en.wikipedia.org...).

The government is not "shoving down its morality in law". The government is trying to protect its citizens from stupid people who will do stupid stuff on drugs, and who will do stupid stuff to get those drugs. If the "distribution of weed and how it is dangerously used" is none of the Government's business, then what is? People complain about how crappy the Government is because it is over protective. And in the parts it is not protective, people complain that it needs to be more so. If marijuana was made legal, the Government would immediately get complaints from people against it, saying that they are not being protected from a drug that can do harm to the body, and harm to victims of people addicted to a drug. Prohibition will never completely stop drug abuse, but that does not mean that prohibition should be stopped. Nothing is ever fool proof. According to [1], prohibition has decreased the use of marijuana, even though it has not stopped it. As I mentioned in round two, marijuana is indeed proven to be less of a risk than cigarettes and alcohol, but that does not mean that marijuana should be legalized. That is just a poor decision to not ban cigarettes and drinking too much alcohol. Legalizing marijuana would not change "absolutely nothing". It would make the situation worse. Teenagers would have next to zero consequences (besides physical) when smoking weed, and more teens would be going to school high, not giving a care about school work and getting good grades. School grade point averages across the country would plummet. Also, teachers could smoke marijuana without getting fired. Weed should not be treated differently from cigarettes and alcohol. However, cigarettes and alcohol should be treated more seriously. People are not responsible enough to take their body's health seriously. Having a restraint on these poisons will at least decrease the amount of injuries and deaths because of the abuse of these drugs. "Con is acting as if Marijuana is the equivalent of cocaine." Marijuana IS NOT nearly as dangerous as cocaine. People on weed are almost never as dangerous. I did mention in round two that some dealers line their marijuana with other substances (sometimes cocaine, the source cited in that argument), which could cause the user to act in a similar manner as someone on the other drug. 1.http://en.wikipedia.org...


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

Marijuana should not be made legal for recreational use.

Jeffrey Miron, a senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies in the economics department at Harvard University, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of "Libertarianism, from A to Z." He expresses his personal views in this commentary. (CNN) - Following the liberal path set by Colorado and Washington, Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia have recently passed initiatives to legalize marijuana. Although Florida's medical marijuana law failed to pass due to needing 60% support, 58% of voters were in favor. In 2016, around five to ten states, including Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont, may consider legalization. This is not surprising, given that opinion polls show majority support for marijuana legalization across the country. Do these developments suggest that full legalization is inevitable? Not necessarily, but one would hope so.

Marijuana legalization is a policy that should be a no-brainer for any society that values liberty. Adults should be free to consume marijuana. The evidence from states and countries that have decriminalized or medicalized marijuana suggests that policy plays a minor role in limiting use. And while marijuana can harm the user or others when consumed improperly, the same applies to many legal goods such as alcohol, tobacco, excessive eating, or driving a car. Recent evidence from Colorado confirms that marijuana's legal status has a minimal impact on marijuana use or the harms allegedly caused by use. Since the commercialization of medical marijuana in 2009 and legalization in 2012, marijuana use, crime, traffic accidents, education, and health outcomes have all followed their pre-existing trends rather than increasing or decreasing after policy liberalization. The strong claims made by legalization critics are not supported by the data. Likewise, some strong claims by legalization advocates have also not materialized. The main impact of Colorado's legalization has been that marijuana users can now purchase and use with less concern about harsh legal consequences.

However, despite the compelling case for legalization and progress at the state level, ultimate success is not assured. Federal law still prohibits marijuana, and existing jurisprudence (Gonzales v. Raich 2005) holds that federal law takes precedence over state law when it comes to marijuana prohibition. So far, the federal government has mostly taken a hands-off approach to state medicalizations and legalizations, but in January

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.

Marijuana should NOT be legalized due to it's effects although it helps relax you it is also bad for you like for instance it makes your skin sensitive to cold and heat. It also makes your mouth dry which makes you drink more water, juice, soda etc. which can cause you to over hydrate. Back to you pro

My humble greetings to my fellow opponent. General public, the first question we need to ask ourselves is what are the hazards of using marijuana? Some of the common discomforts found when using marijuana include dry mouth, swollen eyelids, bloodshot eyes, loss of coordination and an accelerated heart rate. Short-term Hazards include: Anxiety and paranoia Impaired memory Difficulty in thinking Learning difficulties Lack of attention and focus Poor driving skills Long-Term Hazards Include: Respiratory problems Heightened risk of infections, especially the lungs Poor short-term recall Inability to shift attention normally Inability to understand complex information An increased risk of developing lung, head and neck cancers Lack of motivation Decreased sperm count in men Irregular menstruation in women Clearly one can see the imminent danger of marijuana. Now general public if the short term hazards include "poor driving skills", how many innocent people's lives are at stake when driving on the road? And how many have fallen prey on the road due to someone having smoked marijuana? However general public, if marijuana is legalized, how many school children wouldn't have access to it. Now my fellow opponent will talk about a age limit being implemented to prohibit school children from using it, but hasn't the same thing been done to alcohol but still scholars access alcohol even if there is a age limit. Now since marijuana causes learning difficulties, if scholars have access to it, wouldn't a number of learners perform poorly at school and take into consideration that if this happens, the economy will crumble due to a poor productivity. Furthermore, my opponent speaks about job creation if marijuana is legalized. This is simply tedious to mention, because such an industry poses a threat to society as we will have a lot of people accessing it easily and a lot of people will eventually become addicts. Clearly on can see that at the end of the day, preventing people from using marijuana is of great benefit to them and to society. After all, "prevention" is better then "cure".

I shall begin my case.Contention 1: Marijuana is dangerousMarijuana has negative side effects when individuals are exposed to it for both short term and long term periods of usage. It distorts your senses, can make you panic, give you anxiety, and increase the rate of your heartbeat, which risks a chance of a heart attack, and since heart attacks are lethal, this means that Marijuana can kill you overtime. Marijuana distorts both you both physically and psychologically. It can make you depressed, reduce your sexual capacity, reduce illness resistance in your body, and destroy your lungs fibers which could potentially be permanent. It also can give you psychosis and schizophrenia. Bronchitis and lung infections are also negative effects you can get from this lethal substance. But worst of all, it increases risk of cancer. It increases amount of cell mutations in your body and when the users smoke them, they inhale carcinogens, which have been scientifically proven to give you cancer by either manipulating your dna directly or increasing the rate of cells dividing, which increases chances of cancerous cells forming. The worst part of Marijuana is the simple fact that it contains up to 50-70% more of the cancer causing substances than tobacco does, and it can cause the same amount of damage as FIVE cigarettes being smoked one at a time.All of the above I have stated are negative effects Marijuana can give you, and we shouldn't allow a drug that is dangerous or lethal, as it causes an unnecessary amount of pain to those who are exposed to it, and each single period of time smoking marijuana is much worse than a single period of time of smoking tobacco.Contention 2: In Colorado, pot increased the crime rateFrom 2004 to 2012, crime rate in Colorado decreased by 32%, that is until pot was legalized, because once it was, crime rate was increased by 21% in just 2 years, with an average of 10.5% per year, whereas the crime rate from 2004 to 2012 decreased at a rate of 4% per year. If crime rates are increasing now with marijuana faster than it was decreasing, then Colorado has a problem. The rate could keep increasing of it is not stopped, and the problem is, this is just Colorado. Imagine if every state allowed people to smoke weed. There are only 4 states in the U.S that have 0 restrictions on Marijuana, while there are 22 states where Marijuana is illegal. Would you want to risk increasing crime rates in all of those states, not even counting the states that have heavy restrictions on Marijuana?Marijuana hurts both the users and the people around the users because as I have demonstrated, it has more cancer causing toxins than tobacco, can give you lung infections which destroy them, can make you depressed and anxious, and it can increase the likelihood of you committing a crimes. Marijuana is clearly not a safe substance, and therefore, it should remain illegal.Sources:http://www.americanthinker.com...http://herb.co...http://www.drugfreeworld.org...http://www.drugfreeworld.org...http://www.narconon.org...

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

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

The amount of deaths caused by alcohol is irrelevant to the use of marijuana. Although it doesn't directly cause death, it does harm the human body. Smoking anything is obviously not advantageous to your health. The use of marijuana causes distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. In addition, marijuana can become addictive after long-term use. It has been reported that when people have tried to quit they experience withdrawal symptoms such as anxiety, sleeplessness and irritability.

There are many arguments for both sides, let's hope we have an interesting and engaging debate. I'll begin with a bit of topic analysis: The resolution is as follows "All drugs should be legalized. " This means we're not only debating the legalization of Marijuana or Shrooms, but also the legalization of hard drugs that cause real psychological, physiological, and neurological damage, like Heroin and Crack Cocaine. Let's go through his arguments, point by point. "1. They can be taxed, more income that people would be happy to pay. " What makes you think that there wouldn't be a black market for drugs, even if they were legalized? There is a very lucrative black market for guns, it wouldn't be any different for drugs. Furthermore, what you're in essence saying is that it is good for the government to make money off of depraved and deranged addicts who will do anything for another fix. "2. Many of them are harmless in the short term. " Sure, but we're debating ALL drugs, not SOME drugs or MANY drugs. Heroin is devastating from the first time it is injected or inhaled, same goes for Cocaine, Crack, and LSD. Furthermore, if the drugs are laced with other substances we can't even guarantee that an inhalation of a relatively harmless drug like Marijuana will be "harmless. " "3. We've wasted more money on the war on drugs than we would have simply TREATING addicts and ignoring casual users. " I agree with you, but this is not an argument for legalization. It is an argument that advocates for a new approach to drug crime legislation, an approach that would focus on rehabilation over retribution. "4. Most of these drugs are only psychologically addictive (Weed, Shrooms, etc) and are no more dangerous than chocolate. " Psychological addictions can be just as devastating as physical ones, first of all, and patterns of abuse can occur very easily. Secondly, while "most" might only be psychologically addictive, many others are physically addictive, and these ones are the worst ones. In a debate over the legalization of all drugs, there is no way that this is an argument for Pro. "5. There is actually little conclusive evidence supporting many of the claims made by anti-drug persons. My own father claimed marijuana causes testicular cancer (when most research has actually shown is cures cancer, or prevents it)" What? Do you have any evidence that the claims made by anti-drug advocates are false? Do you have any evidence that shows that "most research has actually shown that [marijuana] cures cancer, or prevents it"? This is a ludicrous argument, baseless at best. "6. By taking the illegality away we would destroy the underground drug markets, all of the drug related deaths around the world would CEASE to exist because drug cartels no longer have power since clean industrial production would be created. " This is false, as I demonstrated earlier when I cited the black market centered around arms smuggling. Even if drugs were legalized there would still be an underground market for them, perhaps for cheaper prices or for a way to get around government restriction. In fact, if we gave more power to "clean industrial production" you can guarantee the drugs might get even more dangerous, packed with nicotine like cigarettes are. Marijuana would become physically addictive! As can be seen, each argument my opponent gives can be neatly rebutted with an obvious and clear counter-argument. My opponent goes on to say that since we can do things like buy cigarettes and vote at 18, we should be able to get addicted to heroin and ruin our lives at 18, too. Obviously his position endorses irresponsibility and societal unrest. For these reasons I urge a Con vote.

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

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


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

The Legalization of Recreational Marijuana in the United States is Necessary

Racism, Poverty, and the Failure of Prohibition: It is unnecessary to address these points, as legalization would address the concerns raised. Why Legalization is the Best Approach: Crime: Con's argument relies on statistics from California, where recreational marijuana is not legal, creating a flawed comparison. Con's source does not even support the claim that legal marijuana would only be 4.4% cheaper than the black market. In reality, the price of marijuana in Colorado has decreased consistently since legalization, despite the growing industry, effectively eliminating the black market. (1) Furthermore, violent crime has decreased in both Colorado and Washington since legalization, contradicting Con's assertion that legal marijuana would increase crime. (2, 3)

Schooling: Con argues that marijuana use will increase among younger people if it is legalized. However, Washington has not seen an increase in marijuana usage among youth since legalization. (4) Marijuana would still be illegal for those under 18 years of age. A study cited by Con from the NBER claims to have obtained information from the 2004-2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, but the data suggests little difference in usage over the time period. (5) Another study from experts at various universities also shows little change in teen marijuana usage after medical marijuana legalization. (6) It is more effective to raise awareness about the dangers of marijuana and provide support for those who abuse it, rather than relying on prohibition as the solution. The funding for these efforts can come from taxes on marijuana sales, as discussed in the Taxation argument.

Sources: 1- <http://www.canorml.org...> 2- <http://time.com...> 3- <http://www.drugpolicy.org...> 4- <http://www.drugpolicy.org...> 5- <https://www.whitehouse.gov...> 6- <http://blogs.chicagotribune.com...>

Note: The rewritten document maintains the length, complexity, and semantic style of the original document while preserving its relationship to the question. The argument structure and key points are retained, but the wording and sentence structure have been altered to create a semantically similar document.

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

It is a common fact that Marijuana has less harmful effects than alcohol, cigarettes, and guns. Although Marijuana is illegal, people continue to sell it as well as smoke it through the black market, and regardless of it becoming legal or not, people will continue to smoke it no matter what the government says. If Marijuana becomes legal, the cops will have less petty things to worry about and may concentrate more on crimes as well as drugs that are actually harmful. Contrary to popular belief, there is an enormous amount of money associated with the taxing of Marijuana. Marijuana is NOT addictive, yet it is completely and utterly legal to smoke cigarettes that ARE in fact, addictive and cause cancer among other side-effects. Not only do cigarettes kill you, they kill the people around you as well. Marijuana is not only a natural herb, it is ten times safer than any other Illegal substance known to man. Marijuana is one of many controversial issues facing America today. It should not be a crime to smoke something natural, and less harmful than products that do indeed harm people that are legal. The number of crimes in the state of West Virginia increase more and more each day, and an estimated half of those crimes are due to selling and possession of the substance. Marijuana is NOT illegal to smoke, it is however, illegal to be in your possession. It's a complete contradiction that shouldn't even exist. There are millions of American's that smoke Marijuana and are not classified as criminals or "bad" people. According to Dr. Melanie Dreher, a famous Reefer researcher who has done countless studies on the effects of Marijuana on the human body and the use of consumption during pregnancy, proves with her countless studies that children being born to a Marijuana consuming mother, has found no link to any form of birth defects and that the children tend to be smarter than children born of non-using mothers. Thus proving, Marijuana has far more advantages than disadvantages. It is fact that there has never been any form of studies done in The United States proving or disproving whether or not Marijuana is harmful or not. However, there have been numerous studies in other countries PROVING that Marijuana does not harm you. In fact, there are several benefits of medical marijuana. It's also true that Marijuana can also benefit someone who's facing a mental illness. It's a proven fact that the use of Marijuana during a woman's pregnancy can decrease nausea and excessive vomiting and can actually help maintain a healthy appetite, and improves the child's birth weight. With all of this being said, America is one of the very few countries that has yet to legalize Marijuana without even considering the scientific resources.

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

Voters, please note that I will be posting a section on improvements, since my opponent is new to DDO. Refutations: 1. "It makes your skin sensitive to cold and heat". Compared to the side effects of many other illegal drugs this is very minor. 2. "Dehydration". Again, a very minor side effect. Contentions: 1. Marijuana has positive health effects. 2. If Alchohol and Cigarettes are legal, why not 'pot'? 3. It would bring lots of much-needed revenue to the state. 1. Marijuana has positive health effects. Marijuana, containing the chemical THC and commonly known as "pot" or "weed", has been known to reduce tumor growth. [1] 2. Alcohol and Tobacco. According to the CDC (Center For Disease Control) Alcohol is one of the leading causes of death in the US, and Tobacco follows not far behind. Marijuana is not even on the list. [2] 3. http://www.businessweek.com... Sources: 1. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 2. Cdc.gov Suggestions: 1. Make your arguments longer and more organized. Avoid run on sentences. 2. Cite sources. 3. Check your spelling before posting Voters Note: Do not vote on this debate. I want this to be a learning experience, and I want to avoid accusations of noob sniping.

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...

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

"Should video games be illegal? What about sports or talking to women?"Say what you will, I've heard it before. Quite frankly, I've never heard a case of a f***ing mexican cartel geting in a shootout over the latest copy of Call of Duty or some s*** like that.You made a good point about the harmful affects, so I'll give you that one."a gross overexageration of the munchies"I don't think so. It may seem like an exaterattion to you, but some of my friends are potheads. I can tell you from personal experience of being around someone who's high but not high myself that they ate every bag of lays in my house. Maybe I took it too far, but as I said I'm a bit of a d*** about the way I argue.And as for the gateway drug thing that you wrote an entire f***ing seminar on, if weed becomes legal then how does it stop being a gateway drug? People take pharmacudicals all the time illegally, so making it legal might make it worse, because teenagers can get in a whole lot more trouble, and now someone who actually needs that weed for cancer or something can't get it because some idiot names Brody needed to get his weed."I am not trying to be rude but "it completely does" is not an arguement."Okay, fair enough. What I was trying to say is that weed, like any other mood changing substance, causes crazy psychadelic affects. These things can cause certain people to do reckless and impulsive things, mainly because they're just so calm about everything. Alchohol does this too, but instead of calmness, drunks get pissed about everything. I'm not trying to say weed's a bad thing, I'm just trying to get people to drop the subject. It's not like it's hard to find or anything. Are you too lazy to visit a nearby park that you'd rather wait in a line to get some more pot?

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.

Cannabis should be legalized completely and not just for its medicinal properties, but because it can be used for many things such as rope, plastic, paper ,clothes ,and many other uses. I can see a high probability that cannabis will also help the economy.

If marijuana is legalized it won't change the fact that caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol are also dangerous. Instead of legalizing marijuana since its less hazardous, those other drugs should be controlled. We should not look toward legalizing marijuana to benefit our economy, it is a drug! Any type of legalization of a drug is not the best decision. The fact that it can harm your health should not be ignored simply to help the government and its debt. The use of marijuana has been linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. All three of these outcomes will directly affect the life of the smoker which can be avoided. Therefore, the legalization of this drug would lead to an even higher number of people with these disorders.