Autistic children should not be allowed to smoke marijuana.

1. Autistic Children To clarify, I said that I have no qualms with marijuana being legalized for those over the age of 18. Con never disputed that discrepancy. Because children - including autistic children - are not over 18, they should not be permitted to smoke marijuana. I gave a number of reasons for this, including but not limited to the fact that their parents are responsible for them. When an individual reaches 18 years of age and is seen as a legal adult in the eyes of the law (wholly responsible for their actions, and considered eligible for things like voting and the draft), then they should be allowed to legally smoke pot. Again, autistic children should be no exception strictly in terms of the law. Medical marijuana is a different story - but more about that later. For now, you'll notice that Con's only rebuttal here was that my opinion doesn't matter. As you can see, this is not enough to negate my point. 2. Marijuana's Harm and the Harm Principle I pointed out that parents should not make the decision to give their children medicinal marijuana unless it has been tested or predicted to be severely beneficial. Con's only argument was that (1) I'm in favor of legalization... however, how I really feel is irrelevant; this debate is not about past debates, my opinions, etc. I find it ironic that Con says my opinion doesn't matter in point #1, but then draws upon my opinion as evidence in point #2. Nevertheless, he also writes that (2) marijuana isn't considered severely harmful and (3) JSM's harm principle makes it okay for parents to experiment. Going back to his second point, I pointed out that medical marijuana has in fact known to draw up some severe mental problems, all of which I detailed and linked sources to in the last round. So, for one with a severe MENTAL ILLNESS or even retardation, it might not be the best idea to have them experiment with pot - a known hallucinogen [1]. That could have devastating mental effects on an individual. Con is right regarding marijuana being essentially harmless; however, he didn't take into consideration the harm that it might have on those who are already mentally ill. While one source did mention less irritability, it did absolutely nothing to discuss the child's mental health. Further, you'll notice that Con wrote, "The autistic children being allowed to receive pot are regularly reported as being violent and being a danger to their parents." So... autistic children smoking pot are violent and dangerous, and as such we should continue giving it to them? Hmm. Moving on, let's analyze what the harm principle actually says: That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. So a few things -- First, Con has not proven that autistic children are dangerous or harmful. Unruly and aggressive? Sure. But dangerous? No. Second, Con's only proof that marijuana even works is from a report of a stressed out mom whose kid has autism. So, ladies and gentlemen, if MY opinion doesn't count because it's just a regular opinion (I don't have a medical degree), then Con's lone example shouldn't count either. If you check his source, the example provided was by a mom who gave her 9 year old kid pot as a substitute for the medicine he was receiving prior to that. That's hardly proof or hard empirical data in his favor. 3. Alternatives I see absolutely no reason why my list of alternatives isn't an argument. How am I supposed to "explain them" as Con suggests? It's pretty obvious that the alternatives I listed were proven medical alternatives to treat autism and the symptoms that pot supposedly helps sure. Moreover, Con says that my alternatives haven't been 100% proven effective... however, he is advocating the legalization of pot for *experimental purposes* -- in other words, his solution isn't proven effective either. Once again, this is a hypocritical argument. My alternatives are healthier and safer because they don't require an already mentally challenged brain ingesting a hallucinogen, but rather making dietary changes and practicing other forms of therapy to help alleviate negative symptoms. Also, saying that the dietary changes are "controversial" does not mean that it's bad - it just means that a consensus hasn't been reached regarding precise data. Plus, just because there are "side effects" as Con pointed out doesn't mean that those side effects are negative. You'll notice that my alternatives (most of which are therapeutic - and Con only attacked the dietary one) have no known bad side effects according to the link and source, whereas pot does; links for proof can be found in my last round. 4. Legal and Auxiliary Issues As I said in the last round, it was never clarified in the resolution or R1 that this debate was about changing the current laws. So, under the current legalities, I maintain that autistic children should not be allowed to smoke pot as it is currently illegal. However, assuming that they could legally smoke utilizing a medical marijuana card (and using it was recommended by an esteemed physician), then I would not be against it... But, you'll notice that in R1, Con's argument was that autistic children should have access to marijuana that they could CUT, USE, and SELL FOR PROFIT. In that case, I am against the resolution... and you'll notice that Con absolutely did not defend that assertion, and instead has changed the debate entirely to be about whether or not autistic kids should be able to smoke marijuana legally for medicinal purposes. While I've adjusted to the new contentions, Con's altering of his stance in the debate is abusive in terms of debate etiquette. While Con thinks it's okay to simply "drop the point about the gangs" ... which by the way has nothing to do with the using and selling for profit, as you don't have to be in a gang to do that ... The reality is that Con ONLY brought other arguments into this which have nothing to do with his original intentions regarding the debate. So, I have been forced to debate something that was never accepted upon in the first round. While Con did clarify that he would add more arguments (and that's allowed), dropping the 1st and only presented argument in R1 to drastically alter the direction of your case is bad conduct. That said, I've also pointed out that even if pot WERE legal, it doesn't necessarily mean that people *should* smoke pot, let alone people with autism, let alone children with autism. If I can prove -- and I believe I have -- that KIDS with autism probably shouldn't be smoking pot, then I have won this debate. 5. Conclusion and Re-cap A) Con never specified that this debate was about changing the current laws. So, under the current laws, autistic children should not be allowed to smoke pot (it's illegal). B) Even if pot were legal, it's not good for child consumption - particularly children with mental illness. Con didn't provide substantial MEDICAL evidence that pot helps; only that it calmed 1 particular child down... which is useless information, as we already know that pot can work as a sedative. C) Pot can be potentially harmful to smoke for those with mental disorders. I linked information in the last round about how it can negatively impact the brain, and provided information as to why it's more likely to be harmful to one who is already experiencing medical difficulties. D) If a parent disagrees of their child using it, they shouldn't be allowed to. E) While parents do make most of the medical situations, they can not make all decisions; some can be overrided by doctors or the State. For instance, a parent cannot give consent for those under 18 to go sky diving because it's too risky. The same applies to autistic kids and pot, and The Harm Principle does not apply. Resolution affirmed. [1] http://www.acde.org...