Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use

I would like to begin this round addressing my opponent's concern over my not directly refuting his arguments. I am not obligated to refute his argument. As long as I can present a coherent case in favor of marijuana legalization, any other case can be superseded by the validity of the ones I develop. My case my or may not directly conflict or address my opponent's case. As it stands, my contentions actually do refute those set by my opponent despite my not addressing my opponent's contentions directly. I will now bring up several points which my opponent has conceded: 1. Marijuana is harmful and addictive. It destroys worker productivity and potential. My opponent than defaults into the individual choice contention which I will show is irrelevant in a moment. 2. The number of marijuana smokers will increase manifold. I propose the estimate of 100million based on numbers presented in the previous round. This is easily 2/5 of our nation's population 3. Uninformed perspective: let me provide an analogy. A vendor offers a product that is pleasurable to use. This product works thus: users who gain first exposure of this product are implanted with an artificial urge (addiction) to reuse the product over and over again. The product also functions as a severely damaging agent to the user's ability to move or think clearly. The buying masses are completely unaware of the product's negative effects. The product's vendors allow the misconception that its product is harmless to spread. Many customers, some even directly opposed to addictive and harmful products, are tricked into first trying and then becoming addicted to the product. Addiction then factors in to the customer's choice to commit repeated patronization. This is choice? Really? As I have established, drugs like marijuana and opium are lethal to society. In terms of health-related mortality directly attributable to smoking it, marijuana is less harmful than tobacco, a legal substance. Marijuana's lethality is in its ability to severely and permanently detriment a user's motor and cognitive capabilities (conceded by my opponent), incapacitating the abuser's power to work (conceded by my opponent). Since the fact that a massive increase in the number marijuana abusers and the decrease in the abusers' abilities to work are conceded, my conclusion is uncontested: marijuana will severely detriment 2/5 of our economic productivity, effectively destroying our economy. (answer to my opponent's question on China's economic status prior to opium: China was the most powerful nation in the world. Its economic prowess was the largest in the world from the 14th to late 17th century[1].. how is this even relevant?) Opponent: "Then obviously, the biggest one of all: In the story it says the entire working class...." I never said this. 'Entire working class'? Quote me. Don't put words in my mouth. The China example was to show that the destruction of a nation's economy due to a single drug has happened before and is not unrealistic at all. -Marijuana impairs individuals' ability to function in society -Marijuana is addictive; many will smoke marijuana -Marijuana will impair many individuals' ability to function in society. -Marijuana will destroy our economy Uncontested: marijuana will destroy 2/5 our economy if legalized. Therefore, marijuana, contrary to my opponent's assertions, does in fact affect more than just the individuals who smoke it. The downfall of an economic output means an aggregate loss in productivity, purchase ability, and sales. Basic economics: decreased sales in one sector means decreased sales in another sector. I will present in detail EXACTLY the way marijuana will destroy our economy: Example 1: car companies losing millions of buyers will stop producing millions of cars and buy less material, affecting a large number of other companies: steel companies, rubber companies, etc. Now making less money, these companies will fire many workers. These workers are now unable to purchase, meaning less car sales, meaning less steel, rubber, gas, etc. needed. Less materials needed, more are fired, etc. etc. Example 2: car companies lose ability to produce millions of cars, will stop buying materials from other companies, same cyclical effect of example 1. Materials company lose ability to produce a massive quantity of materials (cotton company for example). To not lose money, these companies need to raise prices (and fire people).. raised prices and decreased production means companies whose products rely on the material will only be able to produce as much as they are able to buy. Increased prices means more money is needed. However, with decreased aggregate sales (marijuana causation) and productivity, the company needs to cut back, fire people, produce less. Many will lose jobs, lose the ability to get jobs, money will be in harsh demand; people will starve. On what basis does my opponent declare this unrealistic? My opponent refutes my contentions by assertively calling them 'illogical'. Opponent: "marijuana is not inherently dangerous" My opponent has been vaguely strewing the adverb 'inherently' everywhere and fails to establish what exactly he means when he does so. Opponent: "My opponent"s key arguments seem to be that since marijuana has the potential to negatively affect the society, it should therefore be illegal." Me: This refutation is completely ludicrous. Not only does marijuana have this potential, the probability of this potential being realized is, as according to facts (and my opponent's concessions to my several contentions), proven to be almost completely assured with legalization. How is this not sound? Conclusion: I've undermined my opponent's entire argument by solidifying the fact that marijuana WILL almost assuredly affect more than just those who smoke it; meeting my burden of proof against legalization On to the voters! [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...