legalization of marijuana

"1.) My opponent has stated that legalizing marijuana will contribute to our economic position or the recession. He stated that marijuana profits going to the government and not to the drug lords will make a large difference than if we were to ban it. This might be true in some cases." Please name one case where billions of dollars taken from drug dealers and given to the Government will be bad for society, or you'll have to concede this point. "Then again we need to consider what effects it will have on our society. Now put it in these terms. Like my opponent said, the US has about a total of 75 million smokers a day. Legalizing marijuana will only increase the number of consumers." This is simply not true, or at least not necessarily so. The Netherlands decriminalized cannabis in the 1980s, and cannabis use there is around the same as its been for 30 years. [1] Also of interesting note in that article is that in 1976, the Dutch authorities started tolerating so-called 'house dealers', who were essentially legal marijuana dealers who sold at youth centres and so-forth, to stop kids going to back alleys to score. With this, the first stage of decriminalization in the Netherlands, marijuana use DROPPED, as though the ease of acquisition of pot actually made users want to smoke less. Note also that pot usage for EVERY age demographic is higher, per capita, in England, France and Ireland than in the Netherlands, despite heavy penalties in the former three countries and no penalities in the Netherlands. This quashes your argument completely. "If that 75 million were to increase to about between 100 to 150 million, think of how many people will be effected by it. Out of the people who are effected, many will go under the influence and simply turn to be degenerates of our society. That leads to unemployment. That means that more and more people will be unemployed not for the fact they do not posses the capability of getting a job, but for the simple fact they do not want to get one. Now consider out that 100 million, 90 million do not want to work. Out of a total of about 300 million people in the US, almost a third of the population will be employed. The drug money will not make even the slightest difference in the crisis the economy faces." First, as I've shown, the number of steady smokers needn't, and probably wouldn't, increase with legalization. Second, this is pure stereotypical garbage. In my personal experience (which trumps your conjecture, until you provide evidence), pot smokers are, on the whole, a group of people who are self-motivated, creative, funny, nice, hard-working, eager to please, good listeners, good talkers, knowledgable, in a constant state of self-betterment. The perfect employee. This 'pot-smoking = unemployment' crap really gets on my nerves, because it is a stereotype borne entirely from the media (Left [Cheech and Chong] AND Right [THIS is your brain...]) that all stoners sit around and stare at shiny things all day. It's just not true. "What makes our people think that a child of a marijuana consumer would be anymore safe with the parent rather then being put in a foster home?" Are you saying that a child is better off in a foster home than with parents who love and care for them, feed them, read them stories, teach them things, buy them things, take them to school, help with their homework, provide a home and a warm bed.... and just so happen to smoke a joint before bed every now and then? It's not as though dope-smokers sit there blowing their blunt hit into their child's face. Most children never find out their parents smoke, let alone get affected by it. "If the consumers are willing to break the law in order to buy the drug, what makes anyone think that they aren't going to do the same with that idea. I and many others have witnessed consumers in public like for instance. One day I was with my family at the mall. Now please keep in mind that I have a little sister around the age of 10. Just as I am walking outside one of the stores, we noticed two marijuana consumers walking about the mall. That just there put me and my family in a very dangerous situation due to the exposure of the drug. If they have the capability to break the law with consuming it, there is now question that they are going to do the same with the "Red Light District" idea." What do you mean you noticed two marijuana consumers in the mall? They were smoking pot in the middle of the mall? Ballsy guys! Seriously though, I never suggested a Red-Light District area, and I don't believe smoking pot should be legal in public. Just like alcohol, someone should be able to possess pot on the street, but not consume it. What they do in their own home, though, is fair game. "Now please who ever is to view this, ALL people have their own opinions and ALL people have different mind sets. Now, the people who are already against it, the chances of them turning to it maybe slim. Then again, people might only not consume marijuana just simply because the government makes it illegal. If the government were to make it a legal product, that person's mindset will change and they will consume the product. That is only an example of what can happen to somebody. But regardless, people definitely have their own opinions of things." I think my opponent's own admission in the comments section that, were marijuana completely legalized, he would still never smoke it says a lot here. My opponent has stated the possibility that legalizing it will turn non-smokers into smokers, but I see no reason for this. If you currently don't smoke pot but wish to, you will smoke that pot whether its legal or not. If you currently don't smoke pot and don't wish to, the law-change will not affect you at all. Note also that I've provided evidence above to show no direct correlation between marijuana's legality and its prevalance of use. Thanks to my opponent. [1] - http://www.parl.gc.ca...