Marijuana is harmless and is safer to use long-term than alcohol or tobacco.

Thanks for a great debate. I'm now going to conclude. Since I will only revisit arguments I've previously made or quote things my opponent has said, this round is referenced by my past sources. --------------------------------------Focusing on the resolution I am going to rebut all my opponent's responses in one final argument by revisiting and re-summarizing my original contentions from Round 1: tobacco and alcohol are more fatal than marijuana, and can cause death, whilst marijuana has not been proven as doing so. What has my opponent successfully done in this debate? He has proven that marijuana, when used in certain ways, has potentially adverse effects. Is this inherently relevant to the resolution in itself? No. Due to lack of a definition of what "marijuana" is, and how it is properly used, he cannot claim that only one form of marijuana administration - recreational - is viable to criticize because near all things can be used harmfully by humans. Marijuana in it's medical form and the relation to the resolutionI would first like to remind pro once more that this is a debate on the topic off the effects of recreational marijuana, as opposed to medical. Nowhere in the resolution of this debate is medical marijuana implied as being inviable for consideration, as my opponent states. Logically, let's look at which form of marijuana should be considered when judging if it is harmful or not:- The medically advised administration of marijuana - (as said by the creator/advocate of the product and by patient groups, sourced above). or- The widely more recognized alternative which is only used as a second option for scenarios in which it's benefits outweighs it's cons? My opponent has failed to supply that tobacco has a medically recommended or scientifically validated form of usage. Thus, the only possible usage of it that can be logically considered is the widespread recreational one. To assume that marijuana, which is little more than a medical herb in one sense, is harmful because some "dumb" human decides he wants to take a chance on ingesting smoke into his lungs as a result of using it in an improper fashion is fallacious in itself. Marijuana v Alcohol and TobaccoThe resolution referenced long term usage, of which my opponent has even admitted that lung cancer and debilitating diseases can be attributed. These diseases lead to. . I will repost this chart. This debate did not clarify to what standard, or to what exact context, "marijuana" applied. I henceforth assumed that it referred to it's medically/scientifically recommended standard. My arguments are not illegitimatized in doing so. A key part of the resolution was that Marijuana is more harmful than Tobacco and Alcohol. My opponent has indirectly admitted - through recognizing the "lack of studies" - that Marijuana can not be attributed or solidly proven as to having caused a single death in any form, even the improper one, but alcohol and tobacco can be attributed to having caused thousands. This makes alcohol and tobacco inherently more harmful, even if marijuana can be attributed to causing variations in the same part of the brain as schizophrenia would occur. Schizophrenia does not cause death upon long term usage, unlike lung cancer and liver cancer which my opponent has admitted can be associated to long-term usage of alcohol and tobacco. My opponent has not fulfilled the BOP in regard to the second half of the resolution. Proving that marijuana can cause some abnormal occurrences in the Nucleus Accumbens does not come close to 480,000 deaths as a direct result of tobacco each year. Compare having one proven negative effect on the Amygdala and Nucleus Accumbens to these, which my opponent has admitted can occur in at least some form: To highlight what is truly important:The BOP is at least partially on him to prove Marijuana is more harmful than alcohol or tobacco, and he has failed in this regard. Effects as debilitating as those illustrated above can cause fatal diseases and causes hundreds of thousands of death per year have been conceded as being possible by my opponent. The fact that marijuana has not been conclusively proven as causing a death has been conceded by my opponent due to a "lack of studies to prove it". So, I ask you, which possible effects listed are more harmful long-term? Imminent cancer or thousands of deaths? Or zero deaths and links to increases in brain density? The answer is the foremost. Marijuana is less harmful than both alcohol and tobacco as a raw result of lack of fatality associated to it, and causes little harm when used to a medical standard in itself. I have respectfully won this debate by fulfilling the resolution under the proper definitions.