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

Debate Topic: Recreational Marijuana Should be Legalized Nationwide

I will now outline my argument. Case One: The Issue with Criminalizing Marijuana

In numerous countries, marijuana use, not only recreational but also medicinal, is illegal, and individuals caught using it can face legal penalties. This law aims to prevent the abuse of a psychoactive substance known for its potential addiction and harmful effects when misused. However, this often backfires. In countries where marijuana is illegal but unenforced, such as Mexico and Colombia, the five most powerful drug cartels operate. This law inadvertently empowers drug cartels, leading to several problems:

1. It creates a dangerous ripple effect on the government and public service sectors. In Mexico, the rise of drug cartels has facilitated the formation of major drug rings. The revenue from these rings funds other criminal activities, including human trafficking, police and government corruption, and international smuggling. Crime rates have escalated in Mexico over the past three years, with a 28.5% increase in violent robberies, a 14.3% increase in intentional homicides, and a 13% increase in business robberies. This increase is attributed to the increasingly militarized tactics employed by criminals, a trait commonly associated with thugs under the payroll of drug lords.

2. Youth exposure to drug usage increases if marijuana remains illegal. Drug dealers and cartels are indifferent to the market they supply, focusing solely on maximizing profits while maintaining discretion. In many developing countries, particularly India, enforcing drug laws is challenging, and many young people are exposed to the easily accessible black market.

3. The strength of drug cartels in some countries can cause problems in others. Because of the financing behind smuggling rings, countries with illegal marijuana laws are at risk of massive black market influxes, leading to economic and social welfare issues. Legalizing marijuana weakens drug cartels and allows governments to better address internal corruption and external crime rate problems. While drug cartels deal in drugs other than recreational marijuana, this drug generates a significant portion of their revenue due to its popularity and psychoactive effects.

By legalizing marijuana, governments can monitor its distribution among the population, preventing it from reaching the youth and safeguarding them from its psychoactive effects at a young age.

Case Two: Similarities Between Alcohol, Tobacco, and Marijuana Usage

Recreational marijuana is one of many substances that alter behavior and cause addiction. Alcohol and tobacco, legal in most parts of the world, are among these. In fact, case studies have shown

To answer your questions at the top:The war on drugs is far too serious, but I am on the pro side of stopping drugs. It should be illegal, but with lesser jail sentences (like 9 years instead of 10.)"We can pass laws against getting high in public."We've passed laws about not drinking and driving, public drunkenness, and not smoking in many facilities. And look how that turned out. It's time for an OVERLOAD OF REASONS!!!•Also, many people are trying to make tobacco illegal. In California, there are commercials and webpages all over that are trying to stop it. If smoking tobacco is bad, then smoking marijuana is just as bad. Both of them should be illegal due to health concerns. Also, driving while high is as bad as driving while intoxicated.•True, no one has ever died from smoking too much pot, but it made their lives a living hell. And that may be a bit worse than dying, pending your opinion on the afterlife. •As we both know, the world is trying ever so hard to stop cancer. Marijuana has 60% more cancer-causing particles than tobacco [1]. People smoking marijuana can get pregnant, leading to deformed babies whose lives will be very bad. •While marijuana has never killed anybody, 75 people per year are high on pot while they die. We do not know that this is a coincidence or not. [1]Those are all of the reasons I have today for you. It's been fun, and now it's up to the voters to see what they think![1] http://www.drugfreeworld.org...

Why should marijuana be illegal? It isn't a nasty concoction of a drug; like meth. It is a plant that grows in the ground and does no harm to anybody. So many people do it anyway, so why not just legalize it and stop people from being taken away from their families and friends. Opinions please!

This is a debate involving the legalization of cannabis/marijuana.I wish to challenge this person to a debate.7,000 characters72 hours to argue3 rounds (short debate)DEFINITIONS:Cannabis: any of the preparations (as marijuana or hashish) or chemicals (as THC) that are derived from the hemp and are psychoactive. [1]Legalization:to make (something) legal : to allow (something) by law [2]Good luck.Cites: [1]- http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]- http://www.merriam-webster.com...

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

I am going to ignore your pathetic attempt to discredit me by pointing to my past debates and let that action speak for itself. However, I will point out that in order to have a complete understanding of the topic of marijuana legalization, all of these (and possibly more) subjects must be discussed regardless of debate.org's text limit. And seeing as how in many of my debates, even one without the format, I have encountered text limitation problems, I'd say the character amount is far from generous. And what does it matter if one round's subject must be addressed in another? Is there a rule against this? In typical prohibitionist fashion, you insist on generalizing in order to hide the topics which you do not or cannot address (because you do not address all of them). Also, the amount of characters necessary to point to at least the page of a provided article is negligible, yet you act as if it would ruin your arguments. You even ignore many of my arguments from the previous round that refute your arguments and continue on to repeat yours. Because of these deceitful strategies, I ask that you never accept any of my debate challenges again. The videos to my right are my sources (3) (4) and (5) respectively."Marijuana is one of the drugs when they looked into it and they found that it is addictive."You still fail to provide support for your claim. Let me show you why you must support such claims: I know of a study that proves your exact study wrong, they showed how your studies methods were inefficient and how the conductors of the studies had alternative motives. "This is incorrect because the cost of committing the crime creates deterrence from using a drug, specifically marijuana. Without these in place then more people would use the marijuana. [2]" Firstly, your article provides no support to your claim with regards to fully legalized and integrated marijuana. Simultaneously, my source (that you ignored in your entire response) uses real world economics and examples to support the opposite of your claim. Secondly, your source comes from the DEA, an amoral government agency that profits from the illegal drug trade and would lose billions upon marijuana (and other drug) legalization. "With taxed and regulated marijuana, federal and state governments would suddenly free up $26 billion spent annually on the failed drug war" (1). They destroy lives and harm innocents (even children) to combat the growing support and acceptance of integrated marijuana and keep it illegal (source (1) second paragraph). They support marijuana remaining a schedule 1 drug although marijuana is the exact opposite, and opposes any legitimate research (2). Furthermore the head of the agency refuses to answer simple questions regarding the topic and provides incredible inconsistencies in her responses (3) (4). Are the articles, sources, and claims of such an agency even credible? My source however comes from non-biased third parties (5)."The finding is “important information for public health and communication of the risk related to exposure to such materials.” [3]" Assuming the validity of these studies, they are irrelevant since it is impossible to die from smoking marijuana (6). In addition, it stands that any legitimate health risks from marijuana occur only in those with a predisposed disposition towards the health risk. And, you have failed to support your allegations with regards to addiction."As for the experiment in Alaska, I am arguing that marijuana must stay criminalized, so because it was decriminalized I must argue the negative effects of that since that is a step toward legalization." Your argument here is invalid for a few reasons. I created this debate and stated that it was for legalization not decriminalization and you accepted. Secondly, it is wholly irrelevant whether or not decriminalization is "a step towards legalization" or not. They are two different policies with completely different effects on society (as we can see in the Netherlands (7)). Finally, I made no such claim and nothing has been justified."Say I tax the product by 400%, now what are the chances people are going to purchase it legally?" We have no reason to believe such an absurd estimation of marijuana's would be tax rate. This is especially true since we have legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) with reasonable and accepted tax rates.As for your source [4] reference. There is no evidence supporting that cannabis had any influence on these supposed increases, therefore the claim has no weight."Also on the DUI's, that was specifically marijuana only" irrelevant since you have ignored my previous arguments regarding marijuana and DUI's, likely attempting to draw attention away from it."Again, I am defending criminalization" already addressed."The strong form of marijuana that most of the young people smoke, he says, produces "a chronically passive individual—someone who is lazy, who doesn’t want to take initiatives, doesn’t want to be active." Since there is no evidence or suggestion that this supposed effect is permanent, it is only common sense to recognize that this supposed effect last only during intoxication. Additionally, that is a subjective analysis from an individual. And, once again, the DEA reference's credibility is in question. "It’s irrelevant that one is a good and one is not." Why is it irrelevant when a good with demand is objectively known to increase in prevalence following prohibition (5), while an act merely goes down due to enforcement? Please do not ignore my source on this matter."Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. [2]" Once again, assuming there validity, these statistics are for all drugs and fail to give an accurate account for marijuana use alone (since that is what we are debating). And I have touched on the credibility of any DEA source."I have that source downloaded. I am also a historian and the fact is prohibition was more succesful than you think." I also have a source downloaded proving the existence of orange, intelligent elephants living on mars. I am also an astronaut and the fact is there is more alien life out there than you think. Please provide sources for such claims. "Since marijuana is wrong and bad conduct, it must be kept illegal." Why exactly is it wrong and "bad conduct" (fix your grammar there)?"My opponent's source is just simply wrong. This is a direct quote from one of the Founding Fathers." Wow, I am honestly surprised by your ignorance and attempt to legitimately pass a fallacy in a debate. You then proceed to use that same exact fallacy as support. Please explain how a site that merely list and describes the various fallacies is wrong? Perhaps you don't know what a fallacy is so I will define it. "Any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound" (8). I will provide another site stating the same thing since you didn't seem to like the other one (9). Your fallacy is the third one down, argument from authority. I need not address your quote from "one of DDO's greatest users" as it is also an argument from authority.Sources(1) http://readersupportednews.org...(2) http://leisureguy.wordpress.com...(3) http://www.youtube.com...(4) http://www.youtube.com...(5) http://www.youtube.com...(6) http://voices.yahoo.com...(7) http://www.erowid.org...(8) http://dictionary.reference.com...(9) http://www.theskepticsguide.org...

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

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

The drug should not be legalized because if it is, then other drugs like herion and cocaine might be made legal as well. While it is used to treat diseases like cancer and other medical problems, which I have no problems with, if it was legalized, then dealers would be free to sell it on the streets to anyone they wanted. Crime would go up because as more of it sells, gangs would want to enlarge their territories, thus putting people who live in the areas in the middle of a possible gang war, and cause innocent people to be seriously hurt or killed. Drugs like marijuana are harmful to young children as it messes with their brain, which is still in important developing processes, if legalized then it increases the danger marijuana poses to them. Any drug has a risk of overdose no matter what it is, cocaine and herion are placed in the same category as marijuana, and you can over dose on the two, every drug has the possibility of over dosing.

My Argument On Healthcare is Void?If drugs are legalised for recreational use they would also be available for medical experiments (in the same way alcohol is) therefore my argument stands.Drugs and ViolenceWhen Alcohol was legalised in the US violence went down [1]. In fact a large bump in the murder rate can be linked to the prohibition of alcohol in the US. During this time gangs took over the alcohol trade and this increased violence. When alcohol became illegal violence went up and when alcohol became legal violence dropped.This same parallel works for drugs. When drugs are illegal crime goes up because the drug market is taken over by violent criminal gangs.EconomyWhat if we compare the unemployment rate of the US as a whole with the Netherlands? Remembering that the Netherlands has far more Libertarian drug laws than united states. The Netherlands has an unemployment rate of 6.6%, its neighboring country Belgium which has much more authoritarian drug laws has an unemployment rate of 8.5% [2].Human NatureI showed that there were working anarchist communities in the north of Spain before and during the Spanish civil war [3].AddictionIt is considered impossible to overdose on marijuana [4] I can find no record of anyone who has died of marijuana.(Marijuana is illegal in Scotland) I took a survey of 20 people under the age of 16 living in Scotland and this is the result.65% Had been offered alcohol over the last six months.80% Had been offered class B drugs over the last six months.65% Had been offered class A drugs over the last six months.Furthermore remember that the total cost of alcohol in medical bills every year is £6 billion [4], vastly more than marijuana.[1] http://madeinamericathebook.files.wordpress.com...[2] https://www.google.co.uk...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

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.


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

The legalization of recreational marijuana is a contentious issue. Here are some arguments against it:

1. **Marijuana as a Gateway Drug**: Research from Yale University School of Medicine and the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration indicates that marijuana use is linked to a higher likelihood of abusing prescription drugs and other substances. For instance, among lifetime marijuana users who started using after age 20, approximately 1.1% used heroin, 16.4% used cocaine, and 20.6% used psychotherapeutics nonmedically in their lifetime. Among those who never used marijuana, less than 1% had ever used cocaine or heroin, but 5.1% had used psychotherapeutics nonmedically. This suggests a strong correlation between marijuana use and the use of harder drugs, though causation is debated. However, the argument that marijuana leads to stronger drugs because of the build-up of tolerance and the need to achieve the same high is often cited as a causative factor.

2. **Health Effects**: Short-term effects of marijuana include distorted perception, loss of coordination, difficulty thinking and problem-solving, and increased heart rate. These effects can lead to increased accidents, harming citizens. Studies have shown that marijuana use can contribute to fatal highway crashes and driver fatalities. The government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug due to its lack of accepted medical use and high potential for abuse. Long-term effects include lung problems, cancer, a weakened immune system, and birth defects. Marijuana smoke contains more tar and carcinogens than tobacco smoke, leading to respiratory problems similar to those of tobacco smokers. It also impairs the body's immune system and can cause neurological development issues in children born to mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy.

3. **Moral Considerations**: Under both Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, the use of marijuana can be considered immoral. Utilitarianism advocates for actions that achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and paternalistic intervention may be necessary to preserve lives. Kantian ethics, based on the categorical imperative, suggests that if everyone had to smoke marijuana, the world would become unlivable, making it an immoral action. Additionally, when people act irrationally, they are not acting autonomously.

4. **Increased Access for Children**: Legalizing marijuana could increase the number of children having access to it, as accessibility typically increases when substances are legalized. This is a significant concern given the potential harm to developing brains and bodies.

5. **Benefits of Drug-Related Arrests**: Drug

If Marijuana is legal, Marijuana users wouldn't have to do as much "stupid stuff" to get those drugs if it wasn't legal. All the Government is doing is spending billions of dollars to try to "stop" what will never stop. People will never stop smoking weed just because it's prohibited. What is the Government's business (if it really needs to be there at all) would be to protect citizen's from serious crime like murder and rape. Also basic welfare/ poverty etc. It should be concerned with protecting citizens from circumstances that involve general harm to other citizens, oppression, and anything that does not invade the private liberty of the citizen. When I say "general harm" to other citizens, I have to mention that the use of weed does not necessarily count as "harm" to other citizens in the same way that smoking a "hookah" does not count as "harm" to other citizens. Once the Government gets involved it always becomes invasive. The Government violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. That is an injustice! Why would the Government go so far as to violate the Fourth Amendment, just to jail weed smokers? If the Government sincerely wanted to stop people from smoking Marijuana, there should be increased spending (which wouldn't cost nearly as much as the money they spent for Prohibition) on education to educate people about the effects of Marijuana abuse. That would serve much more effective as then people would learn more why they should stop smoking weed, instead of just being forced to not smoke weed I already mentioned the education alternative earlier, which Con ignored. Legalizing Marijuana would definitely improve a lot of situations. *It would respect the boundaries on individual liberties more *The Government would save billions of dollars they could use for education on drug abuse *If the education is paid for to educated about drug abuse, kids could stop smoking weed simply by learning about how it affects their body etc. Plenty of teenagers already go to school high, not caring about school work and getting good grades. What would help is education on the matter instead of restrictions that invade civil liberties! People are responsible for their own bodies and own choices and the Government doesn't have the right to be invasive about other people's own choices and bodies! Education is the best weapon. Psychologically, children learn best from their parents, from imitation and education. Contrary to popular belief, children don't learn anything from physical discipline or punishment. That's why people should have the choice to choose what they want to do with their bodies but also have an idea of the consequences (health consequences, that is.) Since Marijuana is not nearly as dangerous as cocaine, it shouldn't count as being a form of potential harm towards other citizens other than the user. Even though sometimes cocaine is put into Marijuana, that doesn't mean that Marijuana is faulty. It's just dangerous distribution in general. Dealers do those kinds of things with any drug. Neither alcohol nor cigarettes should be treated more seriously either. This is a matter of individual liberties! As I've said before, the Government has not right to invade civil liberties for reasons that only involve the individual person's choices The Government has no right to regulate a personal choice The Government has no right to violate the Fourth Amendment for something as petty as individual choice The Government shouldn't waste money that could be used for something more useful And lastly once again, The Government should leave the people alone to make their own choices

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking my opponent for his argument. I personally believe his case was weak. I intend to prove that in my rebuttals below. I hope the judges consider all of this information when choosing the winner. RebuttalsMy opponent begins by stating what medical marijuana can be used for, as I did. He quoted webmd.com, which said "cannabinoids in marijuana can weaken the immune system." The key word here is 'can'. It does not necessarily mean it will. Next, the source says, "long-term use of marijuana can make lung problems worse." Again, there is a key word that must be acknowledged: 'long-term'. Not all patients will take medical cannabis for the long-term. I do not believe this to be a sufficient argument against medical marijuana. Also, my opponent has chosen to ignore the fact that marijuana does not need to be smoked. It can be consumed by drinking, eating, injecting, et cetera. I hope my opponent acknowledges this and addresses this in his rebuttals. He also states potential side effects medical marijuana may cause. They are, according to his source, "[d]rowsiness, dry mouth, giddiness, hunger, insomnia, red eyes, respiratory issues, short-term memory loss, and uneasiness or anxiety." These side effects, when you truly think about it, are minor. I urge my opponent, the viewers, and the judges to compare the potential side effects of medical marijuana to its potential and highl likely benefits. My opponent states, "[a]s you can see, it can be used to help people, but the effects are not always the same. For some people, medical marijuana can cure seizures, while it may make the disorder worse for other people. Currently, marijuana has not been fully tested, which means it should not be used. Unstable drugs should not be used in people. One could argue that it is human experimentation, which is not legal. Doctors are not always aware of the side effects medicinal marijuana could have on people. It is different depending on the person." This statement and, really, my opponent's entire argument is not sufficient. I urge the viewers and judges to carefully consider this. My opponent makes arguments that are proven false by mine. I would like to point out an aspect of this debate he ignored fully. I said and sourced, "[m]arijuana has two main components: THC and CBD. CBD (cannabidiol) will reduce brain activity and will lower the occurances of seizures.THC is what causes one to be high. Breeding marijuana to have low THC and high CBD will be effective. This, along with other genetic modifications, will make marijuana a safe treatment. " My opponent fully ignored this statement. He has ignored the fact that marijuana can be bred to have certain traits. He is arguing about traditional marijuana while I am arguing about marijuana in general, whether it is traditional or bred. This one fact refutes his entire argument. I hope he and the judges acknowledge that. There is another aspect my opponent has chosen to ignore. I made the following statement: "One can easily be addicted to pills, tablets, serums, and other forms of medications, but medical marijuana is rarely a substance that is addicted to. I do not deny that marijuana, when used in a large amount, is damaging, but you are aware that medical marijuana overdoses and addictions are virtually unheard of, yes?" This means that traditional medicine may not be the best choice. This means that marijuana is a very, very safe alternative drug to treat certain conditions and diseases. This has been fully ignored by my opponent. I want him to address this in his refutations. My opponent states, "[i]n conclusion, medical marijuana is dangerous and has more bad side effects than good. This is why I do not support it. I hope my opponent can see that there are better ways to cure things than with cannabis." My opponent, again, ignored key aspects of my argument. For certain conditions, there are no successful treatments yet. Now, I adore science and I know a lot about it, so I do know that safer treatments will be found in the future. However, for now, marijuana is the safest alternative to addictive pills and tablets. ConclusionIn my opponent's rebuttals, I hope to see a sufficient defense of his arguments as well as relevant, factual refutations of my argument, which I do not believe he or anyone else can do. I do wish him good luck, but he will have to work hard in order to win this debate. Jamccartney is a very close friend of mine and I know him very well. He is a determined, intelligent individual. However, I do not believe he has shown this in this debate. I hope this changes. BibliographyI have no sources for this particular round. I believe my sources already are more reliable than my opponent's and I want the judges to consider this. Sources are not required here. Common sense and logic is one of the many weapons in my arsenal. I have facts - solid facts, which I have presented efficiently - that prove marijuana for medical purposes is beneficial. I do not require sources now.

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.

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...;

Marijuana should not be legalized. Marijuana is the most commonly abused drug. You stated that "it isn't as harmful," however it still is harmful to one's body. Simply because it doesn't cause as many deaths as alcohol, it is still a drug that the body should not be in-taking.

Scientist have proved that the THC in Cannabis can reduce the risk of breast cancer in women as well as promote healthy brain functions as well as reducing chronic pain. So with that being said I believe that Cannabis should at least be legalized on the medicinal level if not the recreational level.

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.

I believe that Marijuana should remain illegal in the United States because I believe it does have many harmful effects. I also believe that the government does not over dramatize the effects, they only try to emphasize the dangers of smoking marijuana. Pro may state their argument and good luck to ya :)

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

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.


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

Marijuana legalization is a sensible approach to drug policy.
The "War on Drugs" has been a costly endeavor, with billions of dollars spent each year, and yet, it's unclear if it's worth the expense. Is it worth the invasion of individual liberties and the wasted effort? Prohibition has not proven to be an effective deterrent to drug use, and in some cases, it may be contributing to increased drug use. For instance, when alcohol is difficult for minors to obtain, they may turn to drug dealers who are willing to sell them marijuana instead. Moreover, the prohibition of alcohol in the past did not work either.
Marijuana has been shown to be less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 37,000 annual deaths in the United States are attributed to alcohol use alone, whereas there is no category for deaths caused by marijuana use. Alcohol use damages the brain, whereas marijuana use has neuroprotective properties. Alcohol use is linked to cancer, whereas marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana, and its use increases the risk of injury to the consumer, whereas marijuana use does not.
The drug war is costing taxpayers billions of dollars to imprison marijuana smokers, and the money could be better spent on education about drug use or other useful things that would improve society. Drug prohibition also invades civil liberties, violating the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Individuals should have the right to choose whether or not to smoke marijuana, just as they have the right to use alcohol and cigarettes. People deserve the freedom to smoke marijuana as they please, and the government should not force its beliefs on individuals or jail them for doing something that has no significant harmful consequences for society.
There are many other reasons why marijuana should be legal, including its medicinal use to stimulate appetite and relieve nausea in cancer and AIDS patients, its agricultural and industrial uses as a valuable natural resource, and its religious use in some religions that instruct their followers to use marijuana as part of their spiritual and religious ceremonies. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and so marijuana should be legal.

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

Thank you, Con.REBUTTALS:"It is a common fact that Marijuana has less harmful effects than alcohol, cigarettes, and guns."This statement has been proven false. Marijuana can affect your lungs just as much as tobacco. In fact, Marijuana can cause lung cancer and can blacken the lungs just like tobacco. In fact, Marijuana causes even more health risks to the lungs than tobacco. So saying it is tobacco are more harmful is false, and it can been proven by the picture below. You can see the difference between the two.My opponent also states that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but alcohol and marijuana do basically the same things in different ways. They make you sometimes hallucinate, but one makes you "high" and the other does it in a "drunk" form that both affect the brain. My opponent states that guns are less deadly than Marijuana, but there's a difference, they aren't used for the same purpose. You don't use a gun to get "high." In fact, shooting yourself in the chest would kill you faster than over dosing on Marijuana.My opponent then goes on to say how people will still smoke it if it is illegal. Same thing happened with alcohol, and deaths from alcohol have gotten worse since it was legalized, so if they both are legalized, Marijuana will do the same, most likely."Marijuana is NOT addictive."This statement is bewildering. Not only is this false, it has facts to prove it is. About 9% of users who try Marijuana the first time will be dependent on it. [1] This raises to 17% among teens, and for daily users they will become dependent 25-50%. These rates are not only shocking but they prove this statement is false.Crime has increased with Marijuana, yes, but however only 12% of crime in the USA is linked to drug possession, so it is not that bad."Marijuana is NOT illegal to smoke."I'm pretty sure it is."It's also true that Marijuana can also benefit someone who's facing a mental illness." Now, I never said I was against medical Marijuana, so this argument does not matter. Marijuana can be used for medical purposes. This doesn't mean it is necessarily legal, however.ARGUMENTS:Marijuana can affect your mental health immenselyAccording to the American Medical Association: "Heavy cannabis use in adolescence causes persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and IQ, and use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood and psychotic thought disorders." It causes you to lose focus on what you are doing, and can raise any other thoughts besides schoolwork. In fact, cigarettes don't do this as much as cannabis does. According to WebMD it can cause a number of other symptoms when smoked like [2]:-Random thinking-A distorted sense of time-Paranoia-Anxiety-Forgetfulness-DEPRESSIONMany Marijuana legalists believe it does not cause depression, in fact, it does. Marijuana does lower depression WHEN SMOKED. After smoked, however, withdraw can cause serious side-effects that can make the user crave it so much that they will actually commit to suicide. [3]Marijuana can affect your physical health immenselyMarijuana has been proven to affect your nerve system critically to the point where it could be shattered. [4] Your heart rate will go up two times than before. It can affect your blood pressure and blood sugar, which can lead to heart-attacks, which can lead to death. Marijuana can irritate your lungs to the point where they blacken, like the picture above, and cause bronchitis and coughing. According to WebMD it can cause a number of other physical symptoms like:-Dizziness-Shallow breathing-Red eyes-Drymouth-Increased appetite (munchies)-Slow reaction time (can lead to numbers of accidents)In fact, your chance of have a car accident doubles when you smoke Marijuana.Marijuana can affect your fetus babyA study has been shown that the brain of a pregnant women's baby can be affected from smoking Marijuana. The study highlights that consuming Marijuana during pregnancy clearly results in defective development of nerve cells of the cerebral cortex, the part of the brain that orchestrates higher cognitive functions and drives memory formation. It can also cut off key protein supplements to the baby, which can affect the baby hugely. It will eventually affect the body if the mother overdoses, or uses too much.ConclusionI believe I have proven that Marijuana should not be legalized, there should be no exception due to the physical and mental affects that it does to the human body. Not only this, but it can actually affect the fetus of a baby, shown by a study. Next I will cover economics, in the next round. I believe I have rebutted Con very well.Your turn, Con.Cites:[1]- http://www.drugabuse.gov...[2]- http://www.webmd.com...[3]- http://adai.uw.edu...[4]- http://www.sciencedaily.com...

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 feel this is the first real debate I have participated in for several months. Second, I apologize to my opponent because I shall not be debating in LD style because I have absolutely no idea what organized debating is. I shall be debating in the style of writing extremely long explanations for my beliefs and quoting/responding to my opponent's points in long, detailed rebuttals. I'm sure that has some terminology associated with it. And now, on to the debate. First off, I would like to define Marijuana as my opponent has graciously given me the chance to present my argument first. Marijuana, for the purposes of this debate, shall refer to the substance THC or "tetrahydrocannabinol", which is the active ingredient in what we call marijuana . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent has chosen the topic of debate to be "Marijuana legalization for medicinal purposes ought to occur". He shall be arguing *against* the legalization of Marijuana and I shall be arguing for it. The only issue is that part of my argument will discuss the *already* legalized status of Marijuana as a medicine and so, to avoid semantic debates, will argue the justification of this legalization and reasons for further legalization since the word "ought" implies that it is not already legal. *** THC, the active ingredient in Marijuana has various properties when taken into the body. The purified active isomer of this medication is marketed as product "Marinol" in the United States of America, and I have seen it in the refrigerator at the pharmacy I work in. . http://www.drugs.com... This drug is a latter-line of defense drug used to treat nausea and vomiting in cancer chemotherapy patients who have not adequately responded to other anti-emetic (anti-nausea/vomiting) drugs. In addition, it is used to treat anorexia of AIDS patients, which is key to their survival because of their already failing immune systems. As this drug is a substance controlled by the FDA and DEA, and concentrated in a dose that will provide the above benefits without many of the side effects. . http://www.usdoj.gov... . http://www.drugs.com... I now await my opponent's argument against the legalization of said drug.

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

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

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

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.

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

Marijuana should not be legalized. Marijuana is the most commonly abused drug. You stated that "it isn't as harmful," however it still is harmful to one's body. Simply because it doesn't cause as many deaths as alcohol, it is still a drug that the body should not be in-taking.