Cannabis Legalization

1)does not place marijuana as the causativefactor of....On this note Con seeks to introduce a new angle in the presentation of the argument . Although the use of marijuana is not explicitly mentioned as a causative factor of depression and other negative health implications Pro purports to disregard it is important to notethe use of Marijuana has been, according to a medical research, linked with an increased risk in the development of symptoms of schizophrenia http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Ofcourse one could argue that tobacco is also harmful, possibly (but debatably) more harmful than marijuana yet it is legal. That is true, however legalizing something potentially harmful just because there are other things that are legally available in the marke that are harmful does not make any legal senseWhat about someone damaging their health and getting diabetes from a candy addiction? Con also seeks to look at the law itself and how its very foundation favours Con's position"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"http://www.constitution.org...The underlined words imply that every American, the government included (i use this term loosely to refer solely to the U.S.A) has a duty to give protection to everyone in need. Such a duty places an obgligation on the Government protect its citizens against potentially the abuse of potentially harmful substances such as marijuana and to protect the children of America against the abuse of such substances."In 1997 police reported that 33% of homicide victims and 47% of accused persons had consumed alcohol and/or DRUGS at the time of the offence consistent with patterns since 1991"Furthermore one in ten homicides reported where drug relatedhttp://publications.gc.ca...Pro seeks to trivialize the use of marijuana into something as harmless and playful as candyWhat about someone damaging their health and getting diabetes from a candy addiction? Similarly to all the statistical and factual evidence Con provided in past responses i expect Pro to argue that there is no evidence that Marijuana is the actualf this crime as other factors have to be taken into consideration. However the statistics speak for themselves, these are indicative of the fact that drugs such as Marijuana play a part in the commission of criminal activities.For further clarity please refer to : http://www.nber.org... Pro fails to understand that there can never be direct evidence linking the use of marijuana to factors such as crime, laziness and complacency. However statistics offer strong evidence supporting Con's remark. We live in a statistical world, and on a balance of probabilities we must rule in favour of Con's assertionHow do these affects adversely impact a responsible user?The "responsible user" argument is irrelevant, we cannot establish for starters who the average marijuana user is. For all we know the "responsible user" could be an exception as opposed to the rule. Cannabis psychosis is self-limiting, disappearing in a few days with or without medical treatment."Cannabis use can cause drug-induced psychosis, trigger the first episode of a psychotic illness, or make a pre-existing psychotic illness worse"http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au... "Epidemiological studies have shown that as the frequency of cannabis abuse increases, so does the risk for a psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Again this is purely a battle of factual sources at is at the discretion of the voter to choose which sources are more reliable, factual and persuasiveYour whole fact paragraph is nothing but unsupported conjectureThis is rather ironic because your paragraph is unsupported and merely an opinion whereas my argument provided a rational calculation.Your alcohol argument is laughable at best...alcohol being a perfectly legal substancePro finds something as serious as a law laughable and failed to understand Con's point of argument, consuming alcohol under the age of 18 is not "perfectly legal". Furthermore the point of the argument is that the use of alcohol is supposedly regulated (with regards to people under the age of 21), however) 70% have found a way to circumvent this regulation, this serves as evidence to prove that any attempt to regulate the use of marijuana, as Pro argues in argument 2 part 2c "basically, with legalization, regulation necessarily follows", would be futileYou do not address the topic in your response so I assume you cannot address it.Con will not address a topic backed by evidence which is not credible. The fact that the source is not credible renders the evidence used in support of Pro's argument to be inadmissible for the purposes of this argument.. One's past actions defines one present. As such "irrelevant" past actions and affiliations of Pro's sources serve to define the lack of credibility one sh on the purpoted knowledge these sources are supposed to possess. We back our arguments up with sources in order to make our arguments more factual based (not opinion based, let alone the opinions of non-professionals). "facts are constant" Which is very ironic, because we both have presented certain facts, yet they differ immensely. Furthermore "supposed facts" from a non credible source should be taken with a pinch of saltVery few studies truly help us understand and utilize this amazing plant and all its unbelievable potentialDid Pro ever consider the fact that very few studies do so, because this so called amazing plant, does not have unbelievable potential.We liv a capilastic world, where people are always looking for an opportunity to make the next big breakthrough, for the purposes of this argument we will refer to the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Had marijuana really had the potential Pro asserts it to have, there would not be "very few" studies. Legal or not, profits are the order of the day and pharmaceuticals would have been working day and night to end prohibiting legislation against marijuana by providing tonnes of research on the chemical contents within it, which could be benefitial. Or is this Pro inadvertently acknowledging that the plant isn't truly amazing as Pro purports?the question was what about a responsible adult using weed in their homes or in another accepted locationThat was not the question this is:Hello all, I will be arguing for the legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational use in the United States As you can see, there is no mention of a responsible adult, furthermore how do you propose we legalize the use of marijuana specifically for a "responsible" adult using weed in "their homes", should legislation be phrased in that manner, what exactly would constitute a "reasonable adult"Furthermore the illegality of it is relevant, because in order for your argument to prevail you must prove that there is something inherentlyg with its illegality.Furthermore, the constitution places an obligation on the state to protect its citizens liberties and to maintain law and order. As cited in prior paragraphs, the use of marijuana is linked with higher crime.Why would cannabis have the same effect as gambling?- as stated in the source listed government tax would push weed prices up and in turn fuel a blackmarket of cheap unregulated marijuana much like the gambling scenarioSadly i may not be able to post my final round, as there is a high possibility that i will not have access to wifi where i am going over the next few days, feel free to post your rebuttals. I enjoyed this argument and hope you did too