Legalization of Marijuana

My Opponent's argument is not factually backed My opponent says things, and I quote like;"marijuana is wasting money and causing wars,"Now, this is a very broad statement and is not factually based by any source, statistic, or even website. Therefore, for lack of evidence, presumed false. Another quote, "prescription drugs kill about 100,000 people in the world each year," May be true, but not backed up. I now ask my opponent to show me his sources when he states statistics and makes broad statements. Rebuttal to my opponent's argument in Round 2My opponents argument is not factual scientifically at all, and has no sources to back any assumptions up in his first opening argument. My main argument to my opponent is the fact that they assume that it will only be used as a medical drug. You have to understand that once legalized, people will have more access to get the drug. Whether they need it for medical use or not, once legalized for medical purposes it will be released in to the public through the government. Now, another theory is the abused system it will bring. With marijuana now being able to be given out for "pain removing" there will be "pot-heads" that abuse the system to get the drug that they think their body needs. My opponent says that when marijuana is legalized we will stop "wasting money" but I ask my opponent, what are we wasting money on? And how would marijuana being legalized make us stop, "wasting money" It makes no sense, for my opponent does not go into any further detail. My opponent just states it and move on. Now, my opponent tries to argue how if smoked safely, marijuana is safe. How is marijuana smoked safely? Earlier in the paragraph my opponent says, "Besides, Marijuana affect would have you pass out before you could try to overdose," [on prescription drugs]Yes, passing out seems perfectly safe to me, especially if I'm doing something with a group of people at a party, and I pass out. Seems very "safe," And also, my opponent claims that legalizing Marijuana would "stop the deaths caused by overdose on prescription drugs because they would pass out before they could overdose. " So, my opponent is saying that you wouldn't be able to abuse prescription drugs because you would be passed out because of marijuana. So if I just walked up to someone, knocked them out with a baseball bat, they wouldn't be able to abuse prescription drugs, simply because they are "passed out," The idea is ridiculous to assume because my opponent has to remember that when passed out, people do indeed wake up, and that is not going to stop them from overdosing. Therefore, no, marijuana does not help with prescription drug overdose. "There has not been any deaths directly related to marijuana," Now, this is one thing my opponent has a source cited for. Now, marijuana is considered by the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 as a gateway drug. Sure, marijuana may not be directly related to a persons death, but the drugs after such as cocaine definitely have been directly added to a persons death. According to Web definitions, a gateway drug is;"a habit-forming drug that is not addictive but its use may lead to the use of other addictive drugs; " So, according to the controlled substance act, marijuana is a habit forming drug, that may lead to the use of other addictive drugs. So yes, marijuana may not be directly the cause of someone's death, the drugs used because of marijuana do lead to death. In conclusion, marijuana is an indirect cause to death. My opponent goes in to a great effort to proclaim how dangerous and "toxic" prescription drugs are. In comparison, they are more regulated and researched than marijuana! Marijuana comes in a plastic bag from any dealer, a prescription drug comes in a certified package, with directions suitable for each patient written clearly, and in most cases they are prescribed by a doctor. Not only are they tested by numerous scientists, but also companies in the US such as The Food and Drug Administration, FDA. Therefore, making them more safe than marijuana. Final argument to my opponent In conclusion, my opponents opening argument was not based of scientific data or statistics. Causing no direct advantage to society by legalizing marijuana. As my opponent states no direct plan of action to legalize and the advantages it is, so I will state a few disadvantages. 1) A gateway drug, [as defined above] to extremely addictive and harmful drugs such as cocaine and heroin. 2) Leads to an unhealthy lifestyle. The use of marijuana may lead to what is socially claimed as a "pothead," Somebody always paying for marijuana and using it, usually spending a great deal of money on it, and not keeping a good hygiene. 3) Other terms of medical pain relief. There are many prescription drugs and even other plants that relieve pain in the body, so why do we pick a drug like marijuana, that causes unhealthy lifestyles and leads to further drugs, to relieve our pain when there are much other safer ways of going about it. 4) Controversial. A lot of people disagree and want nothing to do with marijuana, and would like to stay as far away with it as they could. I have yet to meet as person that would we ok with the idea of a marijuana store opening up next door or down the road. Many may even move! The basic idea is that people do not like it. 5) We just don't need it. We have survived as humans without it, and since it will only cause harm, why do we need it? It doesn't do things that other medicine wont do anyway, and really doesn't benefit society, so why do we need it? Now since I have responded to my opponents case and presented my own, I turn the debate over to my opponent. Sources; . http://civilliberty.about.com... . http://www.thefix.com...http://www.nytimes.com...Google Web Definitions