Recreational Marijuana Legalization

My opponent starts off by criticizing my sources because they are news sites while she used the Washington Post more than once in her starting argument, which is quite unethical. She instructs me to " keep most sources to actual studies or an article with links to the study and use the most recent study of it's kind" while she herself does not heed these instructions. My opponent uses the "Tu Quoque" fallacy (hypocrisy) in doing this, since it is permissible for her to use news sites yet scolds me for using such sources and labels them as not "actual studies". Seeing as we both have used news sites, which are valid sources, I shall continue to use them. Furthermore, my opponent claims my "sources [are] from the [1970's] and 80's" and that they are "severely outdated". All of the sources I have used are recent, not one is even from the 90's. My opponent told a blatant lie to attack my sources which are all credible and recent. In reality, my opponent attack her own source. If you read her first source in round 2, the first section of that source is the quote she attacked as "outdated": ""It has been widely claimed that marijuana substantially increases users' risk of contracting various infectious diseases. First emerging in the 1970s, this claim took on new significance in the 1980s, following reports of marijuana use by people suffering from AIDS." This is not my source, my opponent attacks her own source in an attempt to pass it off as mine to mislead the reader. Also, to my opponent: I noticed you copy and pasted the majority of one of your sources. If you could please cite it, it would make it easier to differentiate the article from your argument. My opponent asserts that marijuana's benefits outweigh the risks on the grounds that there are multiple ways to ingest it. Smoking it is the most common way of ingesting it, and it causes very severe damage. But even without smoking it, it is a harmful drug. Although it has some medical benefits to people with lupus and multiple sclerosis, "researchers found that marijuana triggered the production of a massive number of myeloid-derived suppressor cells leading to immune suppression and cancer growth by activating cells that respond to the cannabinoids found in marijuana"[1]. Unless someone has a severe medical condition that requires treatment with marijuana, it should not be used. This has devastating side effects and like prescription medication, should not be taken recreationally for the purpose of intoxicating oneself. Next, my opponent claims that marijuana does not cause an increase in violent crime. That is a true statement. However, it must be taken into account that marijuana is a gateway drug. The vast majority of hard drug users started out by using marijuana. Children aged "12 to 17 years old who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than kids who do not use pot, and that 60% of the kids who smoke pot before the age of 15 move on to cocaine"[2]. When one builds up a tolerance for marijuana, it may influence the individual to try hard drugs in order to achieve the same high. The hard drug users, of whom the vast majority started on marijuana, are the ones committing the majority of the crimes caused by drug users. My opponent addressed her 4th point in the second round as well so I will address them both here. My opponent next used my source from fusion.net, which shows that cartels are rapidly increasing their output of methamphetamine and heroin to the U.S. because of marijuana being readily available to Coloradans and Washingtonians. It also shows that the cartels smuggle U.S. marijuana back into mexico to make profits as well. My opponent used my source, which only furthers my argument that cartels are not willing to lose their profits, they are making up for it by increasing output of meth and heroin to the U.S. while smuggling back U.S. marijuana. This study furthermore invalidates her original point. My opponent also asserts that because of the cost of the war on drugs, marijuana should be legal. However, she only offers that topic sentence and a source. She then proceeds to change the topic, victimizing law breakers. My opponent claims that one's "life can be completely ruined". While I don't agree with a prison sentence for first or second time marijuana possession, this doesn't justify the users' actions. If someone knows something is illegal and still willingly commits the crime, are they guilty? The answer is yes. Although you may not agree with a certain law, you still must follow it. My opponent says getting arrested for marijuana is "damaging", yet users are willingly breaking the law, so it is self-inflicted. If you willingly break a law, whose fault is it? My opponent next delivers no argument or point but insists that I read an article. Technically, alcohol should be illegal; the Volstead Act was repealed due to violence[3]. Second Round: My opponent says "And for your last claim, the real claim is saying that 'marijuana is safer than those 2 legal substances so why shouldn't it be legal.'" That isn't my claim at all. I'm not exactly sure what to make of this, but my claim is that the dangers of alcohol and tobacco do not justify legalizing another dangerous substance for recreational use. My opponent further recognizes that "there is no doubt that it impairs your memory ", another harmful effect of marijuana use. My opponent next makes a series of claims on what would happen if marijuana was legal for recreational use: 1.) Marijuana arrests only would drop, as a result of its legality. But as I have previously explained, it is a public health risk. Not only for the users, but also for the innocent people getting in car accidents with stoned drivers. Perhaps issuing heavy fines for use would be more beneficial for the state. This would allow police to focus on violent crimes and jail space to be freed up without us encouraging drug use. 2.) It is illogical that fewer kids would try it. In fact, marijuana use is rising. "Among 12th graders, 36.4 percent reported using marijuana at least once in the past year, up from 31.5 percent 5 years ago"[4]. Increasing the availability to the public would increase its availability to children. 3&4.) Earlier my opponent claimed that there is no correlation between marijuana and crime [excluding its legal status]. These essentially invalidate her previous argument as they are precise contradictions. 5.) My opponent acknowledges that "[a]ccidents and emergency room visits may increase" which is true, it is an intoxicating substance and is harmful. There is no need to add another substance in the mix. She then uses the "Guilt by association" fallacy by negatively associating recreational alcohol users to those who commit acts of violence to their spouse. While it may be true that fewer adults use marijuana in the Netherlands than the US, the number of those who tried it is most likely significantly higher, which is not safe. Also, Colombia allows its citizens to grow up to 15 plants and their crime rate and doesn't have very favorable living conditions for the most part[5]. 6.) If you want to tax it, prices will go up. 7.) My opponent has contradicted herself on this stance, I have already rebutted this. [1] http://www.livescience.com... [2] http://www.drugfreeworld.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://teens.drugabuse.gov... [5] http://www.nationmaster.com...