legalization of cannabis and hemp

Should you sit in judgment of all and decide who is capable of self-governance and who needs a guiding light from above?" It is not a matter of selectively choosing who is "capable" of self governance. This statement is a false dichotomy in that it it is assumed that the government would judge who is capable of total self restraint and who must be completely controlled. This is untrue for several reasons. First and foremost, one or more restrictions on self governance is not equivalent to total restriction of self governance. Secondly, it is undeniable that the dilemma of rationality vs. morality exists, otherwise government would be almost entirely unnecessary. From a purely rational perspective, one need not apply basic moral code to the treatment of others if it will not effect one's self interest. Thus, the government's "guiding light" is in fact necessary in at least some cases. While this does not directly apply to your current argument, I am presenting it now, preemptively. "Your statement here suggests that somehow you know what is good for me better than I do for myself." This accusation attempts to provoke an emotional response to an issue I have already debunked. It can be empirically proved that there are net negative consequences to marijuana use. Therefore, one who chooses to partake in this unhealthy activity obviously does not understand what is "good for them" as well as those who understand even a fraction of the empirical evidence regarding the topic. Obviously people cannot be experts on every single subject. If they were, consumer rights laws and commercial regulations would not be necessary. These laws protect people from making poor choices they are not qualified make. It is easy to hide behind the false premise of "freedom", but in reality, there is no intrinsic value to society in allowing people to make choices they are not qualified to make. By my opponents logic, consumer safety regulations regarding automobile safety standards should be repealed. People should be allowed to drive the cheapest, most dangerous car they can find, even if it lacks basic safety features such as airbags (which DO exist in the global market, but cannot be imported due to said safety standards). The reality is that most people are not qualified to calculate the risk vs. reward ratio that entails such a choice. Forcing the standardization of consumer safety saved thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives. Clearly freedom was not working in this case. Clearly, the philosophy of having the freedom to make unqualified choices does not work, and has no intrinsic value to society. Sometimes (A.K.A. virtually all of the time) experts DO know what's better for people they they themselves do. This is why government policy should be based on secular, rational, scientific consensus that will provide the greatest net value to society. I say secular because blind belief in freedom is not a rational position to take. It rivals that of outright religion in it's self presumed requirements to be upheld despite concrete negative consequences. You mention that the founders believed that certain freedoms were self evidence as backing for your blind support of unlimited personal freedom. The founders attempted to justify the institution of unconditional freedom by claiming that these freedoms are self evident. I cannot fathom how anyone can look at that type of reasoning and conclude it to be logical. I can just as easily claim that the accuracy of the Bible is self evident, or that a nonspecific governmental authority is self evident, or that the right to complete and total freedom from any type of government at all is self evident. "But to rationalize control over what a person can do by comparing normally functioning persons to the mentally handicapped is ludicrous. There is absolutely a difference between preventing a handicapped person from harm they are absolutely unable to do themselves and preventing a totally rational person from making the choice based on facts and their own knowledge to participate in something that is potentially harmful to them." Not at all. My opponent once again presents a false dichotomy by implying that one is either rational or not rational. To be human is to be somewhat inherently irrational. People are not robots, and contain emotions and beliefs that are not rational, which lead to irrational and damaging choices. While the average person can usually be said to have more rationality than a person who is mentally or emotionally ill, rationality is measured on a sliding scale, not by a simple yes/no checkmark. The human mind is simply incapable of choosing the most rational and least destructive choice 100% of the time. Taking this into account, it makes logical sense to reduce the number of opportunities a person may make that are self destructive by nature, just as we reduce the destructive opportunities of the mentally ill. "I had brought up the point of the dystopian novels to demonstrate the fact that the government is in more control than people give them credit for." My opponent appears to take dystopian novels as historical or factual references. He also claims that the government is more in control than people give them credit for. This statement is misleading. Government has only as as much control as the people allow it too. This goes for every for of government, not simply democracy. Government cannot survive long term without the support or toleration of "the people". "The decision of the United States Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was based on hearings, reports and in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint." This is a wildly inaccurate portrayal of William Randolph Hearst. He almost fell into bankruptcy due to price hikes on paper (of which his newspaper chain was one of the countries largest consumers). He would have only served to gain from the supposed benefits of cheap hemp paper. It is an tragic circumstance, where one of the only American whistle-blowers of the rising atrocities of Nazism is slanderously accused of conspiring to conceal he truth for profit. http://www.alternet.org... My opponent references the La Gaurdia report, which I am familiar with. The La Gaurdia report is generally outdated, as it attempted to isolate social issues within a very limited area and time period. Points 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12 can be said to have been either debunked or have evolved well beyond the scope of he initial conclusion. Regardless, The La Gaurdia report does not even condone legalization. The rest of my opponent's citations are based on the testimony of Harry Anslinger, who was undoubtedly racist and irrational in his claims. However, it is a blatant red herring to use this as an argument for legalization. While the original rational may have been flawed, there are compelling reasons to keep cannabis illegal. The sum of these reasons is that cannabis use is inherently unhealthy. Getting out of bed entails risk, but is not inherently healthy. Getting out of bed is a required action in order to provide a net benefit to one-self's well being and to society. Cannabis usage is not. The idea that even if majority of people believe that cannabis was illegal for the wrong reasons does not make the position of cannabis prohibition wrong. "If you would like your revamp of society and our constitution, take it up with congress and let me know how it goes." The Supreme Court has already effectively dismissed most of the relevant parts of the Constitution that could theoretically be applied to alleged consumer freedoms. Even fast food prohibition could be justified through current legal precedent, and such an act is not unlikely.