Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use

Introduction Thank you for your response. My opponent broke his arguments down into different sections, all to which I will respond to individually. I would like to urgently point out that my opponent didn’t even attempt to respond to my entire argument on personal choice, which in essence is the most important argument of this debate because if my opponent cannot show that Marijuana should be legalized despite it being a personal choice that does not inherently, negatively affect society as a whole, then he loses this debate. Since this is the last round my opponent has already dropped the argument. Marijuana Is Harmful and Addictive This argument is the most logically unstable argument of them all, for my opponent attempts to argue that humans should not be allowed to do dangerous things. My opponent goes on about all the negative affects marijuana has on users, and that many users do not tend to know the full affects marijuana may have on their system. The Argument from Individual Choice All humans have a right, granted through their basic human dignity, to make any choice that inherently affects themselves, even if that decision is dangerous. To not grant humans this right is to erode the basic human dignity we are born with, and to also erode are freedoms as individual beings. Not allowing a human to make a choice that inherently affects themselves, no matter how dangerous, is to take control of their lives, and to restrain them. The government’s job is to make a society that has a balance of individual freedom, allowing our human dignity to be respected, while allowing the society as a whole to be prosperous. Since marijuana inherently only affects the individual taking it of their own free will, it should therefore not be illegal. In addition to this, the government should not punish others because some are unaware of the dangers of marijuana. It is of their own decision to not study the effects it could have on their body. Legalizing marijuana would very likely increase the number of abusers manifold My opponent argues that the legalization would increase the number of abusers of marijuana. The problem with this argument is that even though the legalization of marijuana may increase the number of abusers, it is still of the individual freedom of these citizens that they choose to make a decision that inherently affects their own bodies, whether harmful or not. Once again, it is up to humans to know and be aware of what they are doing. It is not the government’s job to erode the personal choice humans have, whether harmful or not. Argument from History My opponent gives a story on a past Chinese addiction to Opium, destroying the society. This can’t even compare to marijuana legalization. Far too many questions arise, such as but not limited to: Did the government regulate this drug at all? How easy was it to get the drug? How addictive was this drug? Did the under-development of the science behind drugs attribute to this? How was the economy already? What other variables may have attributed to this? Then obviously, the biggest one of all: In the story it says the entire working class had basically been destroyed, therefore attributing to the downfall of China. This would make the bare assertion that if marijuana were to be legalized then the entire working class of America would too, be destroyed. This assertion is unrealistic. The Argument from Choice To blame the choices that individuals who use drugs make on the drugs, would be to give a man a free pass from being responsible for his own actions, for you are ultimately blaming his actions on the drug rather this man’s own personal choice to either take the drug, or make the decision the individual made while on the drug. “If an individual choice is the act of selecting an option from two or more possibilities, then because one may choose to use drugs or not to use drugs, drug use is an individual choice. However, if the choice to use drugs or not to use drugs is subject to external coercion by the force of law, then legislation and the legislature that passed it are constraining individual choice. By constraining individual choice, human dignity is the opportunity cost of the rule of law as the individual is coercively acted upon by the law maker. - drug use is an individual choice in which the agent making the choice is the subject acted upon and the only subject acted upon, the decision to use or not to use drugs is an individual’s right to make for themselves. ” - YYW My opponent presented some other arguments such as how many people are unaware of the harmful effects of marijuana, but I have already addressed the other point my opponent made. Conclusion My opponent’s key arguments seem to be that since marijuana has the potential to negatively affect the society, it should therefore be illegal. This reasoning is not sound, for many things have the potential to be dangerous, yet are not illegal for they are not inherently dangerous. Since marijuana is not inherently dangerous, it should therefore not be illegal.