The use of cannabis for recreational use by those over 18 should be disallowed by the USG*

My opponent and I would like everybody to know that you should ignore his posted R1 and simply rely on the R1 he posted in the comments, thank you. I would like to thank my opponent, vohne, for accepting this debate and I would also like to wish him the best of luck in his arguments. My opponent starts off his first round with the argument that the use of cannabis will be a stepping stone to harder drugs. I challenge him to find a modern, legitimate study proving this effect. While the layman may have the idea that there is a logical connection, that logical connection is not likely casual. The layman might look at those addicted to "hard" drugs, such as heroin. Users of heroin have a strong chance of using pot at some time, perhaps even starting their drug history with pot. Does this mean that pot use will lead to heroin use? Logically, no. If pot use would lead to heroin use, using this line of thought, then so would other things that the drug user might have "started out with". For some examples, the drug Caffeine, tobacco or perhaps Alcohol. Is there really a connection between Caffeine, Alcohol, Cannabis, and heroin? The best way to examine if there really is a connection, we can look at some statistics. Research shows that at least 41.8% of people in the US have at least tried pot. This is a high number, yet the real number might be even higher given the nature of the subject. The users who have tried Alcohol, Tobacco, and Caffeine are likely higher than that. Whereas, the users of heroin (given the same statistical analysis as with pot) are much lower, only about 1.5% of the US population. Now, even given a 10, 15, 20, 30% error in accuracy, there is still no possible casual link. If it is truly a gateway drug, then why would so few people do harder drugs? Why would most of the nation not be on hard drugs? The burden is on you to prove the casual link. Even given the logical leap that cannabis use will lead to the user of harder drugs, I would still argue that that the use of harder drugs should not be limited. While I would highly recommend against using harder drugs, for the most part it will be the users choice whether or not they should do the drug. Given this choice, they thus take responsibility for all of the physical, psychological, or other damages that it causes. Just as one takes the responsibility for poor choices in careers, in spending money, and in their sex life they should also be able make decisions, including poor ones, about what they put into their bodies. There is certainly potential for consequences, however, those are limited to the user of the drug. Given this, unless the government is to regulate any possible negative thing that might go wrong with a person, including their sex life, financial life, and their life as a whole, the government has no part in restricting the use of harder drugs, despite negative consequences for users. The use of cannabis is a personal choice made by individuals who own their bodies. This choice should not be limited by the government for any reasons that the government might find negative. The duty of the government is to protect you from others, not yourself.