The legalization of Marijuana in the United States would promote a strong economy.

1. Okay. I see what you mean by figure 11 now. In the table of contents, "figure 11" is basically like chapter 11. The figure 11 in the table of contents contains figure 8. This is kind of oddly set up. ANYWAYS, these attacks have increased, BUT this is only true due to the fact that Marijuana is illegal. If Marijuana was legal, there would be no "smugglers"; there would be no reason to attack border patrol officers for they would not fear being caught. ANYHOW, this debate is on how Marijuana would promote a strong economy, not how dangerous it is while it is illegal. Once again pro has made the assumption that because it is legal, there are no guidelines to how its controlled, sold, or distributed. You claim that marijuana would be regulated like alcohol and tobacco. To transport alcohol or tobacco from one state to another without the proper licensing and permits is ILLEGAL and punishable by fines and jail time. For smugglers to bring marijuana into the country from an outside source other than the U. S. would be ILLEGAL. If it is brought into the country illegally then there is no way to track that amount of marijuana and anyone could sell it without having to pay the tax on it, once again no tax revenue. Con, I do not believe you know what you are talking about and I do not believe you understand fully this topic enough to dispute it properly but I will continue on. I provided the source? Maybe you skipped over it. It's at the end. That's what the [1] corresponds to. You have not provided an argument in favor of pro for this round, as I stated before you are using estimations, I provided facts and actual numbers of sales by a country where it is legal. My opponent failed to counter my argument properly in round two and not at all in round three, I will claim victor of this point in the matter. 3. ". http://www.cigoutlet.net......... (you can buy cigarettes online in case you were wondering)" Exactly. You can buy cigarettes online, and you would be able to buy Marijuana online. They would STILL be taxed in the same manner. . Because my opponent has chopped my argument I will restate my point as so the readers are not confused. "Buying cigarettes and buying marijuana are two totally different things. People buy and smoke multiple packs of cigarettes each day, while marijuana users only smoke marijuana cigarettes in much less quantities and very much less often. Also, you are able to buy almost anything over the internet, ebay, amazon, etc. If you do not live in the state where you are buying from, there is no sales tax, there would be no profit for the government. " With this said, there is NO sales tax on online goods which are bought from other states = no tax revenue for that product. Also my opponent also did not take the time to read the source I provided due to the fact that it clearly states that, "All orders are processed and shipped from out of the US. Therefore We don't report tax or customer information to any government agency or other entity. " No taxes mean no revenue which means no promotion in the economy. You didn't say DRUG DEALERS, you said GANG MEMBERS. Here is what you stated. . "Gang violence related to the distribution of marijuana as I stated in #1. " My opponent has once again not provided an argument for me to counter rather he has quoted my own argument. 5. "Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug among youth in the United States" AH, now this can be VERY misleading. .. What it says is that Marijuana is THE MOST COMMONLY USED ILLICIT DRUG among youth in the United States. What is DOESN'T say is that Marijuana is most commonly used among the youth in the United States. So this has not relevance. If it IS the most commonly used drug among the youth, it has no relevance to how it would affect the economy. **Because of this "setup statement", if you will, being totally misread, the rest of this argument is void. At this point in round 3 I am in complete aw at your intelligence, you have once again cut down my statement to one sentence that explains that marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug among youth in the U. S. I also provided numbers that explained that the use of marijuana has gone down 7% which would cut profits. I have no idea where my opponent is going with this argument but in his argument he stated, "AH, now this can be VERY misleading. .. What it says is that Marijuana is THE MOST COMMONLY USED ILLICIT DRUG among youth in the United States. What is DOESN'T say is that Marijuana is most commonly used among the youth in the United States. So this has not relevance. If it IS the most commonly used drug among the youth, it has no relevance to how it would affect the economy. " In sentences one and two you stated the same thing twice and claimed the first sentence to be "misleading" when both sentences are exactly the same. The last two sentences claiming there is no relevance? What are you talking about? I am so confused of where you are getting all of this, if youths pay for it then it would affect the economy just as if youth buy food, school clothes etc. To say that it makes no relevance is to say myself buying a vehicle has no relevance to the economy. Dylan, you baffle me with your stupidity. I would just like to say that I said, " Not everybody would have to use Marijuana or buy Marijuana related products for the industry to flourish. The tobacco and alcohol industries flourish, and neither can boast 100% of American's behind them. " The Marijuana industry may or may not be as successful as either of the industries, but it's still raking in A LOT of extra money, therefore promoting a strong economy. Once again con has not provided an argument for me to counter, but instead claimed that, "The Marijuana industry may or may not be as successful as either of the industries, but it's still raking in A LOT of extra money, therefore promoting a strong economy. " What money? What amount? Con has failed to give any type of numbers, I have provided numbers and facts based on ACTUAL numbers while my opponent has continued to claim, assume and assert with no source of reference. Marijuana will not rake i "A LOT" of extra money as I have stated several times throughout this argument. "Advocates and opponents . .. . This entire argument makes no except for the last part about the employment. You have said yourself "The Marijuana industry may or may not be as successful as either of the industries", so how would it compare to an industry that has been around for hundreds of years in the U. S. ? The trend would not be at all similar and to compare a extremely successful corporation to that of a illegal trade is irrelevant. To give any number as to how many would be employed is anyone's guess. Amsterdam is CONSIDERABLY smaller than we, comparing the two is like comparing Texas and Massachusetts for the number of people living in either. The total population does not matter, as stated before marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug used by YOUTHS, you must take the population of youth to get your number. People do not smoke marijuana nearly as often as people that smoke tobacco. Tobacco unlike marijuana doesn't affect the state of mind and you are able to function properly, marijuana on the other hand makes you very lazy, tired and laid back. If as many people that smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana as often as they smoke cigarettes it would actually hurt the economy due to the fact that no one would properly do there job, or anything for that matter. Throughout the entire debate I have given numbers, facts and statistics and time and time again disproved my opponents arguments, if he even made one.