Cannabis should be fully legalised to over 18's.

Rebuttals Point 1. He states: P1: The U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from harm. Pro says of my first premise "I agree." He does offer an absurd analogy in defense. I am not inclined to debate if athletes ought to roam free, or if candy ought to be banned, or if those who drive should be. This argument rests solely on if governments ought to protect from harm. My opponent agreed, Premise one stands. My opponent has dismissed a point that demonstrates his argument to be flawed by saying he "is not inclined to debate it." If the government ought to criminalise everything potentially harmful, for the sake of argument let"s say everything less harmful than weed, then many other "normal" practices would also have to be banned (driving, rock climbing, sky diving, boxing, rugby, alcohol, sugar: they are all just as harmful by all measures of harm). My opponent recognises this and has declined to address it. This point makes half of my opponents argument flawed, as if its applied to anything else in society that my opponent agrees with (alcohol, sugar, dangerous sports) then it"s clearly ludicrous. As I stated in my resolution: "its about why distinguishing cannabis users over other drug uses for discrimination is immoral." My opponent has not offered sufficient reason why its okay to discriminate cannabis uses because they are engaged in something a little harmful, whilst other people engaged in harmful practices are not discriminated. " His point does not stand if it cannot apply to anything in real-life. Point 2. My opponents point: "My opponent begins addressing my statesment by addressing my Observation. Specifically, ThewordofGod states that I "hint that punishments are not relevant to discuss." He goes on to say that "they (punishments) are fundamental to this debate." I had stated that It is feasible to argue, as many do, that something should be illegal and decriminalized, or to argue for less stringent punishments for violations. This is why we cannot feasibly consider punishments until we determine if something should or should not be illegal." I would like to remind us of the resolution: "Rules: first round con should justify the ruination of careers, families and lives for the use of something potentially harmful. Con should begin by saying why people who have smoked weed deserve such abuse and discrimination, when other drugs and substances, which are just as destructive, are tolerated (even promoted)." You say its "feasible to argue that something should be illegal", but "cannot consider punishments". This is the flaw in this way of dealing with social problems. Because you don"t give any thought to the repercussions of that illegality, only whether it should or should not be illegal based on insufficient logic. Repercussions in the real-world are not anticipated. The repercussions of weed being illegal are significant. I would ask my opponent is he knows what life is like as a weed smoker. Perhaps my opponent does not fully understand the effects of weeds illegality as he is not part of that culture. As a weed smoker you are significantly negatively discriminated, and this is incredibly unfair, harmful, and damaging to society and individual people"s lives alike. If we don"t consider the repercussions of illegality, then the judgement is based on inaccurate logic. A simple question of whether weed should be present or not can be quite easily answered. If all drugs could disappear for instance, then I might agree to that. But the reality is that making it illegal doesn"t make it go away, and additionally it harms disproportionally and unfairly, the percentage of the population who enjoy it. Therefore there is a case for its illegality, that which you have in fact made and I agree with, it"s just that the case for it not being illegal is stronger. Point 3 "Pro argues that having Marijuana illegal makes "it ridiculously expensive". This is unwarranted and I invite my opponent to support this statement" There are no peer reviewed journals that investigate the effect of illegality on price. Here is an article (1), it explains why illegality makes the price higher. It suggests that the high risks involved in the production, transportation and the distribution of the drug means that those taking the risks demand higher pay. This is quite logical when you consider it, also in addition to the risks of police, there is a great risk with being involved in a black market. Growing marijuana also is cheap and productive, for unlike other drugs including alcohol, no processes are required to make the drug consumable that cannot be achieved easily at home. Due to its illegality, the growing process is far more expensive as it must be discrete-a costly task on a large scale, and coupled with the high likelihood of a bust makes it even more costly as an investment. Point 4 The point about the domestic violence my opponent has misunderstood, its domestic accidents I was referring to. Indeed though the point was made lightly, it"s arguable. People become dependent on drugs because of their personality (2), meaning that it"s possible that those deterred from marijuana because of its illegality will use the other popular drug, alcohol. Considered one the most addictive, poisonous and dangerous drugs on the planet (3), it would be a problem if more people took it. If I may use myself an example, alcohol makes me rather crazy and I have done a list of stupid and dangerous things whilst drunk-including things that have jeopardised my marriage. Now I don"t blame anything but myself, but there"s no doubt that I wouldn"t have done such things sober. I don"t drink alcohol but instead smoke weed, if I had carried on drinking the national drug, who knows what problems could have arisen, or what dangerous addictions I may now suffer from. The figures of the damage done by just people acting drunk are staggering. I have listed them in my last argument. So if you don"t believe me, just look at those. It"s clear that alcohol use is incredibly destructive in people"s lives, more so than cannabis, so turning people away from cannabis could result in more alcohol drinkers. Point 5 A note on my opponents second premise: Cannabis is harmful. The harm caused by cannabis is complicated. I have let my opponent off with this point as its so difficult for researchers to rule out the effects of poverty, dropping out of school and anti-establishment personalities on the studies of the effects of weed. As the demographic of weed smokers (at least admittedly) are of lower socio-economic status, it distorts the sample making weed smokers look less able when really it"s because lower-socioeconomic cultures are more likely to smoke it. There is no doubt the inhaling plant matter in your lungs is bad for you, though as far as we know it cannot cause cancer, which is the main worry of smoking. Eating shows no health effects, unlike any drug. Indeed weed is less poisonous than water (). But addiction to any mind altering drug is not a good idea, though many people smoke weed everyday of their entire lives and remain perfectly psychologically stable. Addiction however is largely misunderstood: recent research has shown how dependence is a personality issue and not a drug issue. Traditional mentality has been that which my opponent demonstrates; drugs cause addiction-get rid of them. However the truth is that people are already addicts before the drug and any behaviour or drug is potentially addictive. Cannabis is not addictive, however 1 in ten people develop an addiction. This highlights the fact that the people are the cause and not the cannabis, as 9 out of ten users do not develop dependency. If the harm caused by cannabis is only to long term users, and addiction comes from the person, then it"s probable that these people would have been addicted to something else if cannabis wasn"t an option. My point is that to alleviate harm we must tackle the problem of addiction and not be overly focused on removing a drug that 9 out ten uses enjoy responsibly. Conclusion. -Making cannabis illegal causes more harm than good. -Making cannabis illegal doesn"t do much to stop weed smoking, but at a great cost to everybody and especially the weed smoking community. -My opponent"s point that government ought to protect society from harm is unsubstantial and doesn"t consider the implications of the law, or the influence of prejudice that may be instilled into it. -Cannabis is not harmful to the majority of people, those who would be susceptible to marijuana would be susceptible to any addiction-meaning that its no less harmful than the practices of the rest of society. -The government have no right destroying the lives of, and discriminating against, this section of the community on the grounds of them smoking weed. Most other people engage in a practice just as harmful, and my opponent has still not offered a reason why this is okay. Main Point " My opponent has not offered reasonable cause for the ruination of lives, discrimination, and the breach of human rights and freedom (which come with any criminalisation) for the use of weed when other substances are just as harmful. He has offered no point that makes cannabis so significantly different that it warrants a breach of human rights. He as only stated that its bad for you, which I have reminded him that many other things are more so, that we both agree should be legal. If it should only be illegal because it"s potentially harmful, which is what my opponent has said, then all the other things listed should also be illegal. Im sure we don"t need to demonstrate why making rugby or sugar or alcohol illegal would he the wrong thing to do, so there"s no reason the same isn"t true for cannabis. Therefore the premise my opponent has produced for the justification of the discrimination of cannabis uses, I have demonstrated to be unsubstantial and flawed when applied to many aspects of s