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

The legalization of recreational marijuana in the U.S. could have economic benefits, but it also presents significant concerns related to employment, health care, and societal costs.

On the employment front, one might argue that legalizing marijuana could lead to higher unemployment rates and decreased productivity. According to the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, there is a clear correlation between drug use and unemployment. A study by Al Jazeera revealed that 1/6 of unemployed Americans abuse drugs and alcohol, with marijuana being the most popular choice among the unemployed. This suggests that legalization could exacerbate unemployment, as the working class, the backbone of the economy, might experience reduced productivity due to increased marijuana use. This would negatively impact GDP and tax revenue. Additionally, the National Institute on Drug Abuse reported that drug use, particularly marijuana, leads to decreased academic achievement and workforce participation, thereby increasing welfare dependency. CNBC's report on the legalization of marijuana in Alaska showed that usage rates doubled, leading to concerns about mass unemployment and decreased productivity nationwide.

In terms of health care, the legalization of marijuana could lead to higher health care costs due to the drug's potential health risks. USA Today reported that marijuana today contains nearly three times the THC levels compared to the 70s, leading to increased emergency room visits and potential health issues, such as heart disease. The White House noted that the cost to society from addictive substances like alcohol and tobacco, which are legal and taxed, already outweighs the revenue generated by their taxation by a factor of 15. Legalizing marijuana could lead to a similar situation, where the social costs of health care outweigh the tax revenue. This would result in higher health care costs for consumers, especially considering the nationalization of the health insurance industry through Obamacare, which is funded through taxes.

Addressing the potential economic benefits, such as tax revenue from marijuana sales, the White House stated that increased consumption leads to higher public health and financial costs for society. The social costs of alcohol alone are estimated to be more than 15 times the revenue gained from taxation. Therefore, even if marijuana is taxed and regulated, the costs to society may outweigh the revenue generated.

To address the issue of incarceration related to marijuana use, one could propose decriminalizing marijuana use instead. This approach could decrease incarceration rates while still addressing the negative effects of marijuana on employment and health care. Education and therapy for those who need it could be used to prevent marijuana use, rather than relying solely on criminalization.

In conclusion, while the legalization of recreational marijuana could have economic benefits, it also

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. In an ideal world, Cigarettes would be made illegal, too. However, cigarette smoking doesn't affect how your brain functions and therefore does not pose a threat to society (unless you count second hand smoke, but the government has made efforts to minimize the effects of that through non-smoking zones). However, marijuana has immediate effects on your brain. It impairs coordination and judgement just as much, if not more, than alcohol, and crimes associated with alcohol (e.g. assault, reckless driving, rape, murder, etc.) happen even more frequently with marijuana users. It is such a powerful drug that most people get addicted to it within the first few uses. Even more dangerous than its short term effects are its long term effects. It is scientifically proven that the active NATURAL ingredient in marijuana, THC, actively destroys brain cells; over several years of marijuana use, a user's brain will SHRINK, and the user will never even realize it. Another chemical with the same nerve cell-damaging effect is Cyanide, one of the most well-known POISONS in the world. Marijuana is not accepted by the federal government of having any medical value. Medical marijuana is just an excuse to make marijuana more accessible to recreational marijuana users. There are far more effective treatments to glaucoma and cancer with far less severe side effects. Marijuana is poison with no medical value and should stay illegal. Sources: http://civilliberty.about.com... http://www.abovetheinfluence.com... http://www.webmd.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ncpoisoncenter.org...

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

I 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.

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.

My RefutationsThe Format"First off, I provided the format I did for a reason. The topic of marijuana'slegalization has many subjects, and my provided format allowed for each subject"At the same times, you have addressed far too many topics at once for anyone to go into possible detail on any of them. I have looked at several of your debates and none of them seem really that serious for any past reference. In fact, you even exploit how bad your format is with this sentence in another debate:"Unfortunately, I must address your last few statements in a following post due to text limitations." [1] This is the major problem with your format. You should not have to address topics from one round in another round. Your given a generous amount of characters to deal with this and you are forced to use more than this limit with the several topics. In no other debate about marijuana have seen this kind of format because debaters no it creates a negative effect. Because of this I will not follow your format and will stay on my own.By generalizing, this helps me because some of the counter arguments I put in overlap. That is why I will not specify what specific argument, as I am countering all arguments. Finally, you asked me to specify the exact portion of the source. This also takes up characters, so my response is no.Negative Effects and Positive Effects"Yet you fail to provide any support for this. One can also say that in the 1800's the sky was pink. Furthermore, I already said that I do not wish to discuss drugs, only marijuana." Marijuana is one of the drugs when they looked into it and they found that it is addictive."The first is that while illegal, the general use of a drug is increased (3)." This is incorrect because the cost of committing the crime creates deterrence from using a drug, specifically marijuana. Without these in place then more people would use the marijuana. [2]Besides being strongly addictive, it is very toxic. As said here:“The scientists found that ammonia levels were 20 times higher in the marijuana smoke than in the tobacco smoke, while hydrogen cyanide, nitric oxide and certain aromatic amines occurred at levels 3-5 times higher in the marijuana smoke, they say. The finding is “important information for public health and communication of the risk related to exposure to such materials.” [3]As for the experiment in Alaska, I am arguing that marijuana must stay criminalized, so because it was decriminalized I must argue the negative effects of that since that is a step toward legalization. My opponent even admitted that it gave individuals the right to own an ounce or less. However, the fact remained that it was regulated and anyone under 19 could not own it. Nevertheless, youths had more access after decriminalization. This justifies why marijuana must remain criminalized.Onto the black market. My opponent here is just simply wrong. Maybe he does not know what taxes is. Say I tax the product by 400%, now what are the chances people are going to purchase it legally? They would prefer to buy it on the black market. It is illogical to say taxation or regulation would make the price the same as its price during prohibition. Look at this:"Amsterdam’s experience is already being duplicated in California under the current medical marijuana statute. In Los Angeles, police report that areas surrounding cannabis clubs have experienced a 200 percent increase in robberies, a 52.2 percent increase in burglaries, a 57.1 percent increase in aggravated assault, and a 130.8 percent increase in burglaries from automobiles. Current law requires a doctor’s prescription to procure marijuana; full legalization would likely spark an even more acute increase in crime." [4]The Netherlands is not as great as people think it is.Also on the DUI's, that was specifically marijuana only, just to clear up the confusion. My opponent seems to think itsw something else. Again, I am defending criminalization like I said before. The fact that the marijuana was decriminalized means that it is a step toward legalization. Marijuana is one of the numerous illegalized drugs. I have already explained the increased toxication as well. In fact, in the Netherlands: "The increasing use of marijuana is responsible for more than increased crime. It has widespread when minor possession of all drugs was social implications as well. The head of Holland’s decriminalized. best-known drug abuse rehabilitation center has described what the new drug culture has created: The strong form of marijuana that most of the young people smoke, he says, produces "a chronically passive individual—someone who is lazy, who doesn’t want to take initiatives, doesn’t want to be active—the kid who’d prefer to lie in bed with a joint in the morning rather than getting up and doing something." [2]Prohibition has Failed"The main difference between murder and marijuana is that murder is an act and marijuana is a good. As my source (3) supports, any illicit good with demand is increased by prohibition because of demand and despite enforcement. While an act has no demand, therefore, it necessarily goes down following prohibition, due to enforcement." Murder and marijuana are still both largely illegal, but people will always break that law. Its irrelevant that one is a good and one is not. Also, drug use has gone down massively: "The facts are to the contrary to such pessimism. On the demand side, the U.S. has reduced casual use, chronic use and addiction, and prevented others from even starting using drugs. Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs." [2]Finally:"Your point here is invalid since your source [1] was not found."I have that source downloaded. I am also a historian and the fact is prohibition was more succesful than you think. Alcohol ownership after prohibition was still down and never reached the levels before the Volstead Act until the 1960s-1970s. It did work to an extent. Today we are more efficient and prohibition of drugs has continued to work. So I can use the source because I have it downloaded. You just simply cannot find it, but that makes no difference.Government's PlaceMy opponent's source is just simply wrong. This is a direct quote from one of the Founding Fathers. Legislating morality is basically legislating right and wrong. Since marijuana is wrong and bad conduct, it must be kept illegal. As put forward by one of DDO's greatest users:"The constitution embodies a code of conduct put forward by the founding fathers and embody their subjective views, and the amendments embody codes of conduct put forward by subsequent Congresses and embody their subjective views, and the amendments were validated by Supreme court justices in various court decisions whenever applicable, and thus embody their subjective views. This code of conduct, this subjective morality, is the law under which we abide, else we face some form of punishment from the state." [5]Sources1. http://www.debate.org...2. "Speaking Out: Against Drug Legalization." Justice.gov. Department of Justice, n.d. Web.3. "Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels Of Certain Toxins Than Tobacco Smoke." ScienceDaily,com. ScienceDaily, 18 Dec. 2007. Web.4. Stimson, Charles. "Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No." Heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 2010. Web.5. http://www.debate.org...

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

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.

I believe in freedom for all. If you really are afraid of getting addicted to marijuana from others second hand smoke (LOL) my advice is to avoid such places. Especially cool cities such as Vancouver and Denver. I don't think your medieval thinking would go over that well. One would think if we truly did live in a democratic society the majority would have a say on the subject and we both fully understand that the overwhelming majority can think of better ways the police and courts could use their tax money. The law truly is as laughable as the rule of thumb law that was one day actually in writing. Do you believe marijuana to be a gateway DRUG ? (Lol)

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.

Kind regards for posting this debate. In this debate I will argue on the legalization of Cannabis on a con point of view. As you did not provide a definition, I will provide one, Cannabis being defined as Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis, all indigenous to central and south Asia. As you have also stated the rudimentary production of materials using Cannabis, or more specifically called hemp, shall be called hemp while the sort of cannabis used for drug use shall be called marijuana. I propose this for general ease of debate and am sure that you see benefit in this. Pro however did not provide sources or evidence but based his opening statement on opinion, thus making it virtually useless. Opening Statement: In recent years there has been an up-flaming debate about the legalization of cannabis, due to the criminalization of Cannabis in 1937 in the U.S., following a trend of the use of cannabis due to it's psychoactive ingredients, such as THC. Many people seem to feel that cannabis should be legalized, due to marijuana being the most used drug after coffee, alcohol and nicotine, as well as economy and health. I am however strictly against this trend. It seems like the majority of legalization supporters seem to be very uninformed about cannabis and its use. Hemp has been used for centuries, notably even being imported to south America in 1545 for use as a fiber. The cannabis legalization groups seem to be very unaware of the use of hemp in modern society, leading me to dismiss most of their claims as to cannabis usage for material, as it is already done. Hemp is used for a wide variety of products, such as paper, textiles, clothing, biodegradable plastics, construction, body products, health food and even bio-fuel. The world production of hemp fiber fell from over 300,000 metric tons 1961 to about 75,000 metric tons in the early 1990s and has after that been stable at that level due to an increase of demand for artificial fiber and product. (Lynn Robins et al.: Economic Considerations for Growing Industrial Hemp:Implications for Kentucky"s Farmers and Agricultural Economy, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky,July 2013). This is still around 75000 tonnes per year used for fiber, not for marijuana use, this hemp also being legally produced. The reason why I am stating this is because the cultivation of cannabis for the use of hemp is legal in many countries, such as: Australia, Austria, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey and Ukraine. The majority of these plants are low in THC, as the cannabis sorts used for marijuana are typically low growing and as such would not be profitable. Also note, that many people would not even know that they use, own or know a product that uses hemp. But just as an example, here is a list of some of the car manufacturers that use hemp in composite panels for automobiles: Audi, BMW, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Iveco, Lotus, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Saturn, Volkswagen and Volvo. Just as another example, the Mercedes C-class, a around US$40000 car uses up to 20 kg of hemp. (Green Cars, Fuel Efficiency and the Environment | Mercedes-Benz) The reason why I shared this information is because I want to display that hemp is well used in our everyday life and legal, and as such does not contribute to any argument of the pro legalization side as to cannabis being able to be used for so many ways, as it is being used, note, being used legally, grown legally and sold and possessed legally. As such it seems to me that the majority of the pro legalize population is not informed or does not want to be informed out of different reasons. As I have already shown, the production of hemp is heavily dependent on demand, and as current demand is rising, rising as well as such the argument of 'more usage potential' falling away from the pro legalize side. It thus seems to me that the pro legalization side is seeming to act out of different motives than legalization due to hemp usage, which is legal, but due to the usage of cannabis as marijuana and as such a drug, and seemingly is just looking for justification. Note that an estimated 4% of the adult world population uses cannabis annually (280 million) which is not such a grand percentage. If you now note that only an estimated 0.6% uses cannabis daily (42 million). This is a tiny number compared to the overall world population, but note that a great part of those 0.6% are part in the legalization movement. In the U.S.A. according to estimates 7.3% use cannabis monthly or more often (23 million). (http://www.pewresearch.org...) One of the grand arguments of the pro legalization side are medical benefits. They do however not note that "Most of the research involves marijuana or its individual psychoactive compounds administered in carefully measured doses", 'its individual psychoactive compounds' meaning parts like THC (http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu...). This thus does not mean what the majority of the pro legalization wants, to go out and smoke. In fact, I would argue that no serious doctor nor researcher would suggest for anyone to 'hit it up'. I will not deny that THC has medical benefits, but a legalization of medical THC will not have any benefit for your average stoner, who seems to be the main guy in the debate, as the medical THC is normally introduced into the body in controlled measurements, meaning methods like syringes. Smoking is not correct administration as it cannot be measured, and I will call anyone who thinks that puffing a joint has medical benefits an idiot. Furthermore I would like to note that the controlled administration of THC and other cannabinoids would most likely not get you 'high' and as such ruining the dream for the pro legalization group of 'smoking weed all day, getting high and saying it's for health'. To make it clear, the usage of marijuana, as it is fact that a cancer patient is less likely to be administered cannabinoids (they would definitely not smoke them) than a teenager who takes the walk to his local dealer and then gets high and does it to get high, and no other reason, is proven to cause Schizophrenia, memory loss, cognition impairment, bronchitis and many more. As to the argument of smoking cannabis being safe compared to cigarettes, this is incorrect as the tar in cannabis is very similar to the tar in cigarettes. It is also noted that around 9% of users who experiment with cannabis become dependent on it, with 42% of heavy users experiencing withdrawal symptoms, as such making the very common and loved statement of cannabis not being addictive factually incorrect. (http://www.webmd.com...) Note that the number of dependents who start as teenagers is 1 in 6, with daily users being one quarter to half, a disturbing fact when it is scientifically noted that these teens are known for poor academic achievement, reduced connectivity in specific brain regions associated with memory, learning, alertness, and executive function. To say it, although not politically correct, these people are more stupid than non cannabis users, based on science. (Volkow ND, Baler RD, Compton WM, Weiss SR (2014). "Adverse health effects of marijuana use". N. Engl. J. Med. 370 (23): 2219"27. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1402309. PMID 24897085) As my last point, the legalization of cannabis suggested here is most surely for its marijuana use, and as such I will calculate the apparent economic benefits accordingly. I will however subtract any potential usage of hemp, as marijuana, which is the main reason for legalization and hemp are not connected. In my opinion hemp should be allowed as a crop in the U.S. due to actual economic reason, while marijuana should be not. It should also be noted that China is the prime producer of hemp with 79% of productions world wide and as such would create a huge, largely disadvantaged rivalry for the US. Nevertheless I will use the calculation from this website, pro legalization. (http://norml.org...) The possible, maximum gain according to the source would be US$26.7 billion. If I calculate 10 billion off of this due to the hemp industry, which is partly unrelated or would be unrelated, this leaves 16.7 billion. If we note that 9 billion of this is due to "Enforcement Savings", we have to note that this enforcement saving will go on other costs, such as mental health as a result of increased marijuana usage. Further it should be noted that a legalization would cause a possible drop in production rates because everyone knows that you can't really work when you are high. Also it should be noted that the increased amount of legal marijuana would mean an increase of heavy smokers, especially in teens and as such creating future 'dumb' generations, again lowering production as well as general economy. Thus this could quite possibly mean a decrease in economic profit, and not an increase, and as such not being profitable. In conclusion I am against the legalization of cannabis, as the reasons for supposed legalization are not in the benefit of the US. Saying this, I would be for the use of correct medical usage by medical professionals in a 'non green form' which would mean not for smoking, and only in needed and proven beneficial cases. Hemp legalization might have a benefit on economy, if only slight, and as such would also be beneficial. But the legalization of all cannabis would be not beneficial. Marijuana is proven dangerous and being the main focus of the cannabis debate, cannabis should most definitely not be legalized. Kind regards, I am looking forward to your reply, WAM.


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

Should the legal age for recreational marijuana use be lowered to 18?

The debate on whether the legal age for recreational marijuana use should be 18 or remain at 21, or even if marijuana should be legal at all, is a complex one. Let's explore the arguments against lowering the legal age for recreational marijuana use to 18, with a focus on the potential harms and addictive nature of the drug.

Marijuana is indeed harmful, addictive, and often serves as a gateway drug. Its consumption can impair the immune system, cause short-term memory loss, increase the risk of heart attack, and lead to respiratory and brain damage. Long-term effects of marijuana use include breathing problems, increased heart rate, issues with child development, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, and exacerbation of symptoms for individuals with schizophrenia.

Personal anecdotes from high school experiences highlight the correlation between marijuana use and the use of other drugs such as speed, heroin, and meth among younger individuals. This suggests that if marijuana were legal and more accessible, the potential for drug use among youth could increase.

Moreover, marijuana use has been linked to lower academic performance, higher rates of school absence, and a greater likelihood of dropping out of school. This is supported by research that indicates a decline in productivity among students who abuse drugs.

The developing brain, which continues to mature until the age of 25, is particularly vulnerable to the effects of marijuana. Using drugs during this critical period can disrupt normal brain development and interfere with the normal functioning of neurotransmitters. This can have long-lasting impacts on cognitive abilities and overall brain health.

In conclusion, the legal age for recreational marijuana use should not be lowered to 18, as marijuana is harmful and addictive, particularly for younger individuals. The potential for harm and the negative impacts on academic performance and brain development support the argument for maintaining a higher legal age or even considering the prohibition of marijuana use.

Resources for individuals struggling with drug abuse are available at <http://www.drugandalcoholhelpline.ca> for adults and <https://www.kidshelpphone.ca> for those under 18.

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.

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.

Well, I agree that there are some dangers in smoking and using marijuana, mainly because there is always a risk that they could get caught with it, and has alot to deal with gang related material. but If Marijuana was legal, most of those dangers would disappear because that fear would no longer be there. Also, did you not read what I posted about how smoking marijuana reduces the chances of getting lung cancer, even more then a normal non-smoking person has. It has been proved that smoking marijuana has its advantages. Yes second hand smoke is dangerous to another persons health, but its not the smokers responsibility to make sure they are away from the smoke, that is why there are laws and such to help prevent second hand smoking, like staying away from certain buildings, and restrictions when it comes to smoking in certain area's its the person who decides to walk or be around the smokes fault they are getting the second hand smoke. I strongly believe that this world would be better if marijuana was legal because it would take so much controversy out of the way for us to focus on other things. If it was legal, mores scientists could be open to studying it.

What does legalizing marijuana have to do with more drunk driving. It could also help people with depression because personally I am 15 and depression pills don't really work for me and it can help people with epilepsy. p.s dont make false accusations about me thx.

Ok. I know that it seems safer than alcohol and tobacco, but would it still be a good idea to legalize it? I think ( and this is my own opinion) that all substances ( alcohol, tobacco, and other harmful drugs not intended for treatment) should have RESTRICTED uses (not banned) . I know how alcohol and tobacco are easy to get and very well legal, but what if marijuana was of this to? I know it isn't as deadly, but the other two substances are widely accepted. Take for example in the early 19th century, when selling alcohol became illegal in the USA. People where smuggling it left and right and the government eventually just gave up on the law and peace was restored. So that rules out alcoholic substances from being eliminated, but I think more strict laws should be made on the sale of alcohol. And I understand why illegal marijuana is more deadly, but it's not the death that is the only problem (although it certainly is a big one) it is also the fact that people would have another way to lower self esteem. Imagine if it was legalized today? It may stop riots from druggies, but could start ones involving people like me ( who want to stop substance abuse). It could also stop drug dealing, since it would be legal to sell, but it also would allow younger people to hurt there self esteems by being reduced to the level of drug abusers. I'm not saying everyone in the nation would start smoking it, but some people would definitely do so. Why say "we should add it because it isn't so bad", and instead think that "why add another drug people can abuse?" I will wrap this up saying that if you think that it wouldn't be fair not to legalize it, try to see the other side in that it could hurt the picture of our nation (just like alcohol and tobacco do!) Try using the cup analogy for this conflict. Is it half empty, or half full? Is it not fair for it to be legal, or will it just hurt us even further. In reality, it depends on how you look at it in a way. P.S. This debate only concerns the use of marijuana for the public legally, not for medical uses in hospitals.

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.

Marijuana is a WEED which means it steals water from other plants. Those who grow it are actually destroying hundreds of ecosystems around the world. For example, in Brasil, they have a problem with losing their rainforest. This is actually because many drug dealers around there grow their plants in the secrecy within the forest. All of the marijuana plants are actually killing trees that are hundreds of thousands of years old. Besides the environment, marijuana is terrible for you. When smoked, the smoke goes to your brain and kills billions of brain cells. Although they can grow back, these new brain cells don't have the same information, making your iq lower by on average 54 points, according to a study by Harvard University. Additionally, even though people use it "medically" (It DOES make you hungry, which is true) people just smoke it in hospitals and die from cancer. For the argument on why it would help the economy, well it would actually HURT it. The more it's legalized, the more people die. With less people to trade stocks, start businesses and take jobs, the legalization of marijuana would send us into another great depression.

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.

I believe in freedom for all. If you really are afraid of getting addicted to marijuana from others second hand smoke (LOL) my advice is to avoid such places. Especially cool cities such as Vancouver and Denver. I don't think your medieval thinking would go over that well. One would think if we truly did live in a democratic society the majority would have a say on the subject and we both fully understand that the overwhelming majority can think of better ways the police and courts could use their tax money. The law truly is as laughable as the rule of thumb law that was one day actually in writing. Do you believe marijuana to be a gateway DRUG ? (Lol)

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


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

Debate Topic - Recreational Marijuana should be made legal across the country
It's truly regrettable. I hope you recover quickly! By the way, medical marijuana could potentially be beneficial for your condition at this time. HaHaHa.

(Note: The laughter at the end is kept as it could be interpreted as a light-hearted way of suggesting an alternative treatment, not mocking the situation.)

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

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 affirming this topic today, because my view (at least for the purposes of this debate) is that laws prohibiting marijuana use are doing more harm than good. Here are my conditions for a successful debate: Round 1 - agreement to debate, introduction Round 2 - definitions, burdens, values, and contention-level arguments Round 3 - refutations to the arguments and conditions created in Round 2 Round 4 - summary and crystallization of the key arguments and voting issue Round 5 - final focus and comments, connection back to the impacts, conclusion Here are a couple of observations hat I have with respect to the previous structure. NEITHER PRO NOR CON MAY DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS. These should be automatic grounds for disqualification: 1. beginning contention-level arguments, definitions, values, burdens, or observations in Round 1 2. doing any refutations of the opponent's arguments in Round 2 (ex: Con cannot spend his/her Round 2 speech refuting my arguments from Round 2) 3. trolling, loitering, or being disrespectful to the opponent And finally, a couple of expectations for the round (so long as my opponent agrees to them): 1. use evidence, statistics, and examples to illustrate arguments 2. follow through with impacts to arguments, clearly defining how each links back to the values and burdens stated at the beginning of the Round 2 speeches 3. sign-post arguments (ex: using contentions or benefits) I will NOT make any definitions or specific arguments until the Con accepts this debate. I look forward to this debate!

Topic: The legalization of Marijuana in the United States would a strong economy. 1. The distribution/use of alcohol is FAR more dangerous than the distribution/use of Marijuana. In 2005 alone, Border Patrol Agents encountered 773 attacks from smugglers trying to breach the U. S. border. In 2008 that number rose t 1,097, over 41%. Within the United States violence is encountered throughout all 50 states dealing with the distribution of Marijuana (I will be focusing on New York due to the amount of time it would take to collect all the information from each state). Marijuana distributors, particularly Jamaican posses, engage in violent crimes to protect their turf. Law enforcement agencies in Rochester, Buffalo, and Syracuse have reported an increase in drug-related violence resulting from an influx of Jamaican criminals who are challenging drug distribution areas long controlled by local marijuana distributors. Cannabis cultivation occasionally is associated with violent crime in New York. Typically, growers cultivate cannabis outdoors with booby traps situated among and around the plants. Reports indicate that traps closer to the cultivation site are more dangerous and sophisticated and target those who might steal the cannabis. Last time I checked, Anheuser Bush hasn't taken any shots at Marlboro. . http://www.fas.org... figure 11. . http://www.justice.gov... 2. The alcohol industries and tobacco industries have both flourished in any economy, why wouldn't the Marijuana industry flourish? Dutch sales of cannabis alone totaled 1.2 billion euros ($1.86 billion) in 2001, according to the most recent figures available from the nation's statistics bureau. While in 2003 annual alcohol sales were $115.9 billion and tobacco sales were $333.4 million in 2001. I'm no mathematician but a combined sales of $449.3 billion compared to $1.86 billion is just a little bit higher, in fact its over 242% more in sales. Considering we've spent $1.05 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to date, $1.86 billion isn't going to exactly make or break us as a nation. . http://www.dutchamsterdam.nl... . http://www.libraryindex.com... 3. Marijuana is already being distributed all over the United States, why not use it to help the economy? Simply because it is being distributed illegally, how many drug dealers do you think are gonna pay there taxes for there marijuana sales. Excuse me kid, that will be $10.00 for the dime bag and oh, .70 cents for sales tax, have a nice day! Yea not happening sorry. 4. There are an average of 0 Marijuana related deaths in the United States every year, however, there are 435,000 tobacco related deaths each year plus and additional 85,000 alcohol related deaths each year. This is 520,000 more deaths, on average, a year than deaths resulting from the use of Marijuana. Gang violence related to the distribution of marijuana as I stated in #1. 5. Not everybody would have to use Marijuana or buy Marijuana related products for the industry to flourish. The tobacco and alcohol industries flourish, and neither can boast 100% of American's behind them. Hell McDonald's annual sales in 2008 was $28 billion. As stated in #2, sales cant even begin to touch Alcohol or Tobacco alone, let alone added together. Hell McDonald's annual sales in 2008 was $28 billion. 6. The Marijuana industry would employ at least 200,000 Americans. I know this because we have already seen this trend in the tobacco industry. (. http://www.corpwatch.org......) Can't say this is exactly a factual assertion considering it is speculation based upon the Tobacco industry. As far as my standing on this, to say that there will be 200 Americans employed will be just as good as your "factual assertion" due to the fact that it is only speculation. All and all as you can tell through actual facts and numbers Marijuana sales taken from a country where it is actually legal and the sales are recorded, this would not "strongly" promote our economy or promote it anymore than Mcdonald's does. The legalization of Marijuana in the United States will have no strong or near strong promotion in our economy. Till next time, this is your Con argument host saying, thanks for playing, "Who Wants to Challenge Facts Against Speculation! "

My opponent, Myzory, has made only one, single assumptive argument. He asserts that marijuana use should be classified as a personal right. This however, is not so -- the government is obligated to step in. When events get so out of control that local and state governments are not able to do what's best for the people, the federal government must step in. Not wearing a seat belt for instance, is illegal. Instead, it is a mandatory action even though some may think it to be a violation of personal rights. However, the evidence to prove that it saves lives is conclusive, and so it stays. That is assuming, however, that marijuana is bad for you. And it is. The Health Canada team reported in December 2007 that cannabis has more toxins than tobacco, another drug that The World Health Organization says accounts for 26% of male deaths in developed countries. In fact, the study concluded that marijuana smoke contained 20 times more ammonia, and five times more hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides than tobacco smoke. In January 2008, Dr. Matthew Naughto and his team reported that marijuana smokers tended to develop lung cancer as much as 24 years earlier than tobacco users. In July 2007, the popular medical research journal, The Lancet, published an article that concluded that cannabis users had a 41% increased chance to suffer from phycosis. Not to mention, marijuana use has also been linked to depression, schizophrenia, bronchitis, and emphysema. The experts agree too. Bob Weiner, a Drug Issue Strategist at the Office of National Drug Control Policy, says that, "(The movement against Marijuana has) done a lot to make us safer and it's one of the reasons why we have record low crime numbers, and why we have record low drug abuse." He continues, "Marijuana is the number one drug where teens must seek treatment in hospitals... it's the number two cause of car crashes." Marijuana is not bad for you? Preposterous! Marijuana, as I have proven, is more harmful than tobacco, a drug that kills 26% of male deaths in developed countries. Thank God marijuana is not more widespread then it is! Thank God not as many people have died. The government needs to step in, just as steps in for cocaine and heroin. You, the audience, must vote for me thus far because I have successfully defeated my opponent's only arguments, and have provided significant proof as to why marijuana should stay illegal.

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...

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

Pretty simple. Marijuana should be legal. Think you can prove me wrong?

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...

First, my opponent says that I neglected his argument but where is the argument in round one? I can not spell, It is a hit or miss subject for me, if my spell check can fix it then good. My last debates have been more of testing ground for me, so I hope I can do better.legal legalize the plant, should it or should it not be mad legal is the qushtin.I will try to avoid the brick wall layout as most of the voters complained about that. so have fun guys and remember I can not spell to good so if you want clean writhing with out spelling arers then I am not it.This is his round one. It has no argument. Also legal legalize the plant makes no sense.I didn't post an argument because he is pro and I usually allow Pro to go first. How am I rude? He is showing rudeness and aggression by saying I am aggressive. I am going to do something different today. I will post my refutations and then my argument. Youtube video- for some reason youtube doesn't work on my computer, so I can't watch it. More or less, you can't post a video, expect people to watch and use it as evidence. You must type out your evidence.My opponent says that it make many people happy, but less use some deductive logic. If money can't bring you happiness and you use money to buy weed, then weed can't bring happiness. Weed only kills brain cells and makes people less reactant to their emotions. Also happy is an opinionated word, and can't be proven by facts. Also just because it makes people happy doesn't mean it should be legal. Killing people makes some people happy but it's illegal. Bigamy makes people happy, but it is illegal.My opponent says that this will keep jails free for the rapist murderers and robbers, but murderers, rapists, and robbers go to prison, not jail. My argument Weed causes health problems- weed can cause many problems, hindering the ability to learn, causes lung problems, and brain damage, making them unable to be productive in society. It also can make people get sick by lowering their immune health.http://www.theantidrug.com... Weed impairs motor usage- when marijuana users drive cars, they lose reaction ability. This could endanger the user and people around. By the way, if you do hit somebody, you could get a manslaughter charge, and that might send you to jail. Weed can cause cancer, birth defects, and hormone problems. These reasons and more are reasons why weed should be kept illegal. http://debatepedia.idebate.org...