Legalization of Marijuana

I would like to first apologize for the delayed response. I thank con for accepting this debate. In response to your comment on my previous debate. I simply wish to debate multiple people on the same subject (because I feel strongly about it). I hope this is not a problem. Also, many of your reference sites have a not found error, please try to make sure you are giving the correct links as to allow for clearer communication.1. A) Firstly, there are many reasons to doubt the accuracy of your studies. There are several underlying reasons that can cause the study results to be inaccurate with regards to the actual rates of "addiction.""There is only scant evidence that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans. When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms. Signs of withdrawal have been created in laboratory animals following the administration of very high doses. The most avid publicizers of marijuana's addictive nature are treatment providers who, in recent years, have increasingly admitted insured marijuana users to their programs. The increasing use of drug-detection technologies in the workplace, schools and elsewhere has also produced a group of marijuana users who identify themselves as "addicts" in order to receive treatment instead of punishment (1). Even assuming the credibility of your studies, it is proven that marijuana is less addictive than caffeine at a physical level (2) (10). Therefore, the issue cannot be against physical dependence, but physchological dependence. However, it is possible to become physchologically addicted to almost anything (i.e. sex, internet, candy). Unless all these things are also to be deemed "illegal and dangerous," I fail to see the relevance of marijuana's psychological dependence with regards to it's legalization.B) Yes, that is what I meant and thank you for agreeing. With regards to the adverse side effects. "It is conceivable that excessive use of cannabis sometimes contributes to acute schizophrenic episodes. But it is difficult to believe that cannabis is a strong risk factor for this disorder, because there is no evidence that the incidence of schizophrenia has risen dramatically over the past 50 years, in parallel with the huge increase in cannabis use. Young schizophrenic patients are often heavy cigarette smokers too, but no-one would suggest that tobacco causes schizophrenia (3)." This source comments similarly on psychosis,"Cannabis psychosis is self-limiting, disappearing in a few days with or without medical treatment. Toxic psychosis probably occurs more commonly in individuals with preexisting psychiatric disorders (4)."C) Your linked page was "not found." until you provide a working link your claim of the effects not being negligible is not credible.While many of the supposed serious adverse effects are questioned (5), the actual side effects are negligible (i.e. slight paranoia, short term memory loss).D) I was refering to the gateway theory as a statement, and it's logical foundation, as being flawed. It's basis is, afterall, a logical fallacy (Faulty Cause, the first one (6)).E) By "intoxicating effects," I am referring to changes in mood or perception (i.e. calmness, coordination). You have yet to touch on such effects being inherently harmful. And, thank you for agreeing with me on the other points.F) My claim cannot be a slippery slope fallacy seeing as how it is based on fact. Fact provide by studies from a country with much more sensible cannabis policies (7). While the credibility of your provided study is questionable seeing as how there is no way to accurately study youth use of a legal, age restricted, substance in a country where it is illegal.G) My statement cannot be considered a contradiction since the potency of cannabis's euphoric effects is not neccesarily linked to the negligible negative effects. Also, I found nothing on your site supporting your point, please quote what you specifically are pointing out.2. A) 1) What should happen and what has happened are two completely different things. Meaning that the government's misuse of revenue is irrelevant to the fact that the nation needs it. Besides, it could'nt hurt. 2) Within the context of government? Explain please. B) I fail to see the relevance of current procecess of receiving medical marijuana with regards to full legalization. And, it can in fact be determined that an increase in quality of life results from use in patients (8).C) It is strongly suggested by evidence that damage control is in fact more prevalent with more permissive policies leaning towards legalization (7) (9).D) How exactly does stating current policies and noting the government's mishandling of revenue refute my claim?E) Given that this debate has yet to be concluded, dubbing legalizations benefits as "variable and few" is presumptious. Especially if you have yet to refute my claims. And I am agreed with your second statement.F) You are corrcet as I misstated my point. Violent crime with regards to the black market dealings and underground cartels of marijuana would cease since they would soon loose there customers upon legalization. Consumers would much rather prefer a friendly neighborhood store to a dark alley (10). But glad to see you at least acknowledge the possibility for reduction.3.A) The specific definition of prohibition is irrelevant when considering the word's use on a political level. Marijuana prohibition was birthed from the war on drugs, the purpose of which was clearly to prevent use nationwide. B) When I said purposeless, I was referring to marijuana's prohibition in the United States, not the word prohibition. C) Regardless of the respective "effects and defects" of a drug, societal and political impacts of legalization/prohibition remain consistent (10). Marijuana prohibition pushed the drug into the underground market (because there will always be demand) exactly the same way it did with alcohol prohibition.4. A) Agreed, however, I must again stress that the past error's of the government have nothing to do with what should be. Contention Response An interesting standing, I firmly beleive that no adverse effects can come from marijuana legalization. This is not only because of the lack of risk or danger associated with marijuana but also because nationwide marijuana use is still very prevalent despite prohibition (as con agreed). Therefore any adversities legalization would present are already being presented to us through marijuana prohibition (as stated in point 3C). P.S. The videos are sources (8) (9) and (10) from top to bottom. (1) http://www.erowid.org...(2) http://www.procon.org...(3) Colin Blakemore, PhD, ScD, Chair of the Department of Physiology at the University of Oxford, wrote in a Dec. 27, 2002 email to ProCon.org:(4) Lynn Zimmer, PhD, late Professor Emeritus at the Queens College, noted in her 1997 book Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: (5) http://www.erowid.org...(6) http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu...(7) http://www.erowid.org...(8) http://www.youtube.com... (9) http://www.youtube.com...(10)http://www.youtube.com...