Recreational Marijuana Legalization

I thank you for stating your starting arguement. I will start the second round to rebuttal your claims. However before i start i would like to mention than most of your sources are news cites. Please keep most sources to actual studies or an article with links to the study and use the most recent study of it's kind. Use mostly 2015 and sometimes 2014 dated journals if possible. Since i am busy and pressed for time i will be posting quotes and full articles to rebuttal your arguments. For your first claim your sources from the 1970 and 80's. It is severely outdated.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. THE FACTS The principal study fueling the original claim of immune impairment involved preparations created with white blood cells that had been removed from marijuana smokers and controls. After exposing the cells to known immune activators, researchers reported a lower rate of "transformation" in those taken from marijuana smokers. 26 However, numerous groups of scientists, using similar techniques, have failed to confirm this original study. 27 In fact, a 1988 study demonstrated an increase in responsiveness when white blood cells from marijuana smokers were exposed to immunological activators. 28 Studies involving laboratory animals have shown immune impairment following administration of THC, but only with the use of extremely high doses. For example, one study demonstrated an increase in herpes infection in rodents given doses of 100 mg/kg/day - a dose approximately 1000 times the dose necessary to produce a psychoactive effect in humans. 29 There have been no clinical or epidemiological studies showing an increase in bacterial, viral, or parasitic infection among human marijuana users. In three large field studies conducted in the 1970s, in Jamaica, Costa Rica and Greece, researchers found no differences in disease susceptibility between marijuana users and matched controls. 30 Marijuana use does not increase the risk of HIV infection; nor does it increase the onset or intensity of symptoms among AIDS patients. 31 In fact, the FDA decision to approve the use of Marinol (synthetic THC) for use in HIV-wasting syndrome relied upon the absence of any immunopathology due to THC. 32 Today, thousands of people with AIDS are smoking marijuana daily to combat nausea and increase appetite. There is no scientific basis for claims that this practice compromises their immune responses. Indeed, the recent discovery of a peripheral cannabinoid receptor associated with lymphatic tissue should encourage aggressive exploration of THC's potential use as an immune-system stimulant. 33". (Source: https://www.erowid.org... ) The fact that marijuana was legalized is NOT the reason that those 2 markets increased. I used your source too. Mexican cartels are also diversifying the types of drugs they smuggle. The 2014 UN World Drug Report found a "large increase" in the number of methamphetamine laboratories seized in Mexico and the United States. In 2012 "Mexico dismantled 259 methamphetamine laboratories, up from a few dozen a few years earlier, and it reported the world"s largest aggregate amount of seizures of methamphetamine for the period 2010-2012," the report found. The increased availability of methamphetamine drugs in the U.S. is "directly related to high levels of methamphetamine production in Mexico," according to the DEA and U.S. Department of Justice 2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary. The report notes that meth and heroin seizures have increased dramatically along the border while marijuana busts remained stable from 2010 to 2013. "Between 2013 and 2014, U.S. Customs and Border Protection saw an increase in seizures of heroin, up 5.2 percent, and methamphetamine, up 9.8 percent," U.S. Customs and Border Protection media spokesman Carlos Lazo told Fusion. "During the same time, CBP saw a decrease in seizures of 20.9 percent in marijuana, a decrease of 3 percent in cocaine, and a decrease of 87.7 percent in ecstasy." (Source: http://fusion.net... ) 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." There is no doubt that it impairs your memory but your brain doesn't turn into mush. Theres no doubt that if you smoke it directly from a blunt or joint it causes lung damage. But there are ways around that. Here's an article, with sources embedded throughout, that prove that it isn't a bad thing to legalize and would be very fair to most if not all American citizens. 1)Drug arrests would drop and prison space would open for violent offenders. As it stands now, there is a drug arrest made every 18 seconds in America. Now, not all of these arrests are marijuana related, and in fact, marijuana arrests have declined. However, there were more than 800,000 pot-related arrests in 2008, and there are still a number of these arrests taking place as we speak. If marijuana were legalized, these drug-related arrests would drop immensely, freeing up jail space and allowing police to focus on violent crimes. 2) Fewer kids would try marijuana. It may be counter-intuitive, but legalizing marijuana for adults could lead to less pot use by kids. Why? Studies have shown that even though pot is currently illegal, kids find it more easily than beer and cigarettes. Legalizing marijuana would put street dealers out of business who don"t care about the age of their customers. 3)Street violence would drop. According to Jeffrey A. Miron, director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University"s economics department, street violence would drop. The problem with pot being illegal is that it forces people to resolve disputes themselves, often with violence. If pot were legal, buyers and sellers could resolve their business disputes just like everyone else " in court. 4)Gang violence, which is due in part to the illegal marijuana trade, would decrease as well. State governments would have a lot more money. If pot were legal, state governments could heavily tax it just like alcohol and tobacco, creating a new stream of revenue. For example, estimates show California could rake in over $1 billion per year in pot taxes. What"s more, according to The Budgetary Effects of Marijuana Prohibition, taxpayers are spending about $14 billion each year on the war against marijuana. That"s money that would be saved if marijuana were legal. 5)Accidents and emergency room visits may increase. Although marijuana doesn"t conjure up images of wife beating and recklessness like alcohol, it does impair motor skills and judgment, which could lead to more accidents. However, this assumes legalizing marijuana would lead to more people using it, which isn"t necessarily true. In Holland, where marijuana is legal for everyone over 18, the percentage of adults using it is less than half of that in America. Is this just a cultural difference between the Dutch and Americans? Perhaps, but even in Europe, the French, Italians, Spaniards and Britons all use more pot than the Dutch, even though it"s illegal in all those countries. 6)The price of marijuana would drop and corporations would profit. In areas where medical marijuana is legal, the increased supply has already caused prices to plummet. If pot were legal for everyone, prices would drop even further as large companies grew, cultivated and distributed marijuana on an industrial scale. Such large companies and their shareholders would make billions in additional profit (a part of which goes back to the government in the form of taxes) and they would need to hire more workers. Of course, some small-scale growers could also thrive, much like some microbreweries thrive in the face of Bud Light. 7)Mexican drug cartels would be crippled. Marijuana accounts for as much as half of Mexican drug cartel revenue, which means legalizing it would cripple their business. This would free up the border patrol, the forest service and local law enforcement to worry about deadly drugs like meth, cocaine and heroin, not to mention terrorism. A financial blow to Mexican drug cartels would also weaken their control over American street and prison gangs. (Source: http://nakedlaw.avvo.com... ) You may rebuttal all of my claims listed in my first and second arguments.