Marjuana should be legal with a few restrictions.

Rebuttals (#'s):#1. yes the social costs of alcohol are not representative of those of marijuana, because alcohol is a more harmful substance. It has greater influence in crime and auto accidents - a cost which marijuana does not share with alcohol."He then goes on to cite a biased (clearly pro-legalization) and quite outdated source which says that the correlation between marijuana and auto accidents is “scientifically unproven”.#2. Here is an except from Time (Dec 2011):"States that legalize medical marijuana see fewer fatal car accidents, according to a new study, in part because people may be substituting marijuana smoking for drinking alcohol."[1]"Furthermore, my opponent only recognizes car accidents as a social cost, while others exist, including non-driving related accidents caused by marijuana impairment, crimes committed while exhibiting poor judgment under the influence of marijuana, and again, lost workplace productivity, all of which would increase with the increased amount of users... it is unreasonable to believe these social costs wouldn’t occur with this substance as well. #3. I was giving an example of a large social cost of alcohol, which isn't shared with marijuana that you likened to it. 40% of all auto accidents are alcohol-related [2]. The same cannot be said for marijuana. You haven't cited any sources backing up your claims that a significant amount crimes are committed from being high on marijuana. I stated that marijuana should not be allowed in areas designated that it is not allowed - this includes the workplace. There would be no decrease in productivity. It is easy to see there is not a huge social cost here."It makes no difference whether alcohol is slightly more dangerous, or far ore dangerous than marijuana; this does not, in any way, shape or form, justify legalizing an ADDITIONAL substance with ADDITIONAL drawbacks for society. Again, the only point you seem to be communicating is that marijuana is safer than alcohol; I was under the assumption that this debate would be about the positive/negative results of legalization, not its pros/cons as compared with something else."#4. It puts the drug in context to other legal drugs which is very relevant. For example: computer brands are differentiated but they are all brands of computers. Why ban a brand that is better than another currently being sold?Marijuana is a drug that is currently illegal but is safer and less costly socially than alcohol, which is legal. It doesn't make logical sense to have it remain illegal.-"Very little revenue could be gained from legalization"#5. $8.7 billion dollars in federal and state tax revenue annually [3]. The supposed social costs you mentioned had no sources.-Marijuana indeed has adverse health effects including cancer and brain deterioration #6. Your source had no causation. There is no definitive evidence.-Legalization would increase the quantity of users; exacerbating its burden upon society.#7. If by burden you mean social costs, you have not shown it significant."less or more severe than that of alcohol is irrelevant; it is a bad outcome nonetheless."#8. It puts the drug in context with a legal drugProhibition can actually be highly effective if implemented properly, like in China to combat opium addiction [4].#9. 1) this is in China with an entirely different drug 2) we have tried Prohibition here in America-it failedThe excerpt you quote is nothing more than a disclaimer. #10. It is an explicit disclaimer in the article itself because of lacking significant evidence and causal proof in their study.“That such a loss does occur, however, is consistent with what we know from animal studies. [5]”“They have shown that exposure to cannabinoids during adolescent development can cause long-lasting changes in the brain’s reward system as well as the hippocampus, a brain area critical for learning and memory. [5]” #11. 1) animal studies do not show causality in humans. 2) "during adolescent development" would never occur, since I stated in the rules it would only be allowed for adults 18 and older."The evidence is significant, however the researcher adds disclaimers to avoid making definitive statements subject to attack."#12. I disagree, they use irrelevant evidence to prove their point which is aimed at different subjects (safety animals and adolescents vs. safety in adult humans) which is why they need explicit disclaimers."To ignore reliable evidence based on a couple of disclaimers designed to protect the study from naysayers would be a severe oversight."#13. Because they failed to take into account significant factors such as "child abuse, subclinical mental illness, mild learning disabilities...""The excerpt you site still maintains that the risk of accident among marijuana users is increased."#14. The risk of getting into an accident may increase while driving under the influence of marijuana, but since marijuana has been shown to substitute for alcohol use, overall driving accidents DECREASE in states where medical marijuana is legal."States that legalize medical marijuana see fewer fatal car accidents, according to a new study, in part because people may be substituting marijuana smoking for drinking alcohol."[1]"... at least 50 to 70 percent of the carcinogens in tobacco [6]. Sounds like a fairly compelling study to me."#15. I stated in the first round that marijuana has properties which decrease the amount of free radicals in the body, which cause cancer. Tobacco smoke doesn't have this. Here is an excerpt from my source in round 1."marijuana smoke also contains cannabinoids such as THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) and CBD (cannabidiol), which are non-carcinogenic and demonstrate anti-cancer properties in vivo and in vitro...""My opponent’s source later proceeds to comment on the link between marijuana and cancer/serious health issues."“However, Tashkin's (2005) research at UCLA-MC showed increased redness, swelling, and white blood cell count in regular marijuana users. Furthermore, because marijuana smoke is very similar to cigarette smoke, it seems quite likely that long term effects may be the same. [7]”#16. It fails to take into account that THC reduces cancer causing free radicals. See source [5] 1st round.You should have specified earlier [that you meant psychological dependence].#17. You should not have made the assumption I was talking about physical dependence."While it’s often assumed that marijuana is not physically addictive, this could be inaccurate. The existence of physical symptoms (i.e. not psychological) such as headache and nausea [8], could be an argument for it indeed being physically addictive..."#18. You can get withdrawals from non-addictive anti-depressant medication [3]."...marijuana withdrawal as opposed to caffeine withdrawal. They are actually not all that similar... and those of marijuana are no doubt more severe, as evidenced by the large number of people who need rehab to help cope with them."#19. Caffeine and marijuana withdrawal are virtually identical sharing:Marijuana withdrawal: physical tension, sleep problems, anxiety, depression, mood swings ...[5, 6]3.9 million people are admitted to drug rehabilitation each year [9]. 16.1% of this is 627,900. Regardless of its proportion to the total amount of marijuana users, it is significant number...17.4 million people are regular users. Or 0.036% of users.Benefits of legalization: tax revenue, personal freedom, safer than legal drugs and tobacco, weak criticism.sources:http://healthland.time.com...[1]http://alcoholism.about.com...[2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[3]http://www.mayoclinic.com... [4]http://www.foxnews.com... [5]http://coffeetea.about.com... [6]