Medical Marijuana

Thanks to my opponent for his rebuttal. REBUTTALS TO REBUTTALS ------------ 1) //The main chemical used in "medical marijuana" that helps to manage disease is Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, more commonly known as THC. While THC can be helpful in the treatment of certain diseases, the parts of the cannabis plant used to make "medical marijuana" contain only 3% THC. In order to intake this measly amount of THC, the patient must also assume the numerous harms of taking marijuana itself, including the intake over 400 hazardous chemicals and numerous psychological and physiological hazards.// And that is the user's choice. None of these other 'hazardous' chemicals have ever been proved to be harmful whatsoever. I ask my opponent to source his claims to relevant studies. 2) //Not only that but the few good things that marijuana brings to the medical industry have already been isolated and incorporated into a FDA-approved pharmaceutical drug called Marinol. Marinol preserves the benefits of THC while lessening or eliminating the harms brought about by Marijuana consumption.// There are some very serious problems with my opponent's arguments. (S)He has refused to show how studies contradict his statement. In 1980, when Marinol was released, there were six State-sponsored studies running alongside the distribution of the drug. All of the studies had conclusive evidence, namely the thousands of patients who participated in the studies, that naturally grown marijuana was safer, and more effective than Marinol. (1) One study had a subject accuse his/her doctor of trying to poison him. This patient was one of the experimental trials for Marinol, not marijuana. Might I also add that tobacco and alcohol, while infinitely more harmful to the user than marijuana, are still legal? Why should marijuana be illegal, when it actually provides benefits to the user? 3) //Medical professionals have noticed the notable effects of certain narcotics in the suppression of pain. Does that mean that they legalize opium or heroin? No, they don't. However, as noted in my fifth and sixth arguments, which you tried to hide away, I noted that it was the user's choice, and that the government should have no say in what you can and cannot consume. If you want to eat very greasy food, go right ahead. If you want to smoke marijuana or inject yourself with heroin, go ahead. And if you want to consume rat poison for breakfast, who am I to stop you? 4) //Obviously no because pharmacists can isolate the positive effects of pain suppression and reduce the rather negative effects of extreme addiction and potential for homicidal rage.// Your point? Opium and heroin ought to be legal for the simple reason that it is not the government's role to tell you what to consume. If it is harmful, then the consequences are upon you, and you alone. 5) //Instead of sending those people to prison, we could just make them pay a citation and the citation would depend on how much marijuana the person possesses. This would also help the recession while keeping marijuana illegal.// This wouldn't be a proper replacement for marijuana at all. The criminals would only get harder to catch, and the citations wouldn't be as nearly as good a revenue as it would should marijuana be legalized and taxed. 6) //This is obviously false. Depending on the user Marijuana usually causes the user to become hungry, lazy, paranoid, etc...// Cite sources. Marijuana -may- cause the user to have those symptoms. Anyways, just because marijuana makes you hungry, lazy, or paranoid, this makes the drug so bad it needs to be illegal? That's just inane. And stupid. 7) //Marijuana could cause obesity from hunger and that's if the user can get food. If the user can't get food in time, they will die of starvation.// So, because marijuana may cause someone to be hungry, they will automatically become obese. This assumes that the user smokes marijuana 24/7, and becomes hungry while using it. And then you randomly say, '..IF the user can get food.' What does that even mean? That smoking marijuana will cause you to either become obese, or suddenly become unable to purchase food? That's just foolish. What's with the last statement, anyways? If ANYONE can't consume edible food within a certain amount of time, they will die. That's just common sense, and applies to everything, really. 8) //Marijuana could cause people to be lazy and therefore if marijuana was legal, The recession would actually be worse.// Let's put your argument into a syllogism. P1: Marijuana may make you lazy (not evidenced). P2: If someone consumes marijuana, they WILL be lazy. (False.) Conclusion: Consuming marijuana will make the recession worse. (Non-sequitur, and just a point blank wtf.) Obviously, I need not say anything else. 9) //Marijuana could cause people to be paranoid and lose trust in others// Okay.. //causing them to go insane// Losing trust makes you go insane. What? //and crime rate may possibly go up and Going insane ups the crime rate. Why? //thus, this would do harm to others.// More crime= More harm to others. Somehow. All of this argument is a big non-sequitur chain of fail. Voters, take note that my opponent dropped contention 6. REBUTTALS TO ARGUMENT ------------------------------- 1) //People say that marijuana can make the user "happy." Unnecessary and harmful freedoms are not handed out to the terminally ill simply to ensure that they have a pleasant trip out of life. Doing such sets an unneeded and negative precedent to the rest of society. Not negative. Even if it is, it is the user's choice to use said drug. //Honestly, "happiness" isn't an idea that falls under the umbrella of medicine,// Have you ever heard of an anti-depressant? //and the Affirmative plan draws no line if happiness was an acceptable use for medical marijuana. If I had a bad day at work, would I be justified in using harmful drugs as an escapism?// Of course! If you have the facts available to you on what the drug does, then you can consume it no matter what! The government ought not control what you ingest.// //The use of medical marijuana as a means to achieve happiness by escaping from life's problems is neither a just reason for assuming that societal harms achieved by legalizing marijuana, This argument doesn't even make sense. It's missing lots and lots of words to make it work. //nor does it even fall under the concept of medical marijuana in the first place.// The use you are describing is called an anti-depressant. Marijuana is an anti-depressant. Look at that, it does fall under the concept of medical marijuana. 2) //What we must see is that current treatment options are far superior to the suggested use of medical marijuana, and any minuscule benefits are far outweighed by the harms of making marijuana easily available.// Disproved that one a while ago. Anyways, legalizing marijuana will lower crime rates. 3) //It's obvious that the legalization of medical marijuana has been abused on a widespread basis. // How? //Taking the action suggested by Pro provides little to no benefit to those actually sick,/ Yes, it does. Multiple studies demonstrating that it does. //while simultaneously harming society as a whole.// How? Show me. It is beneficial in health, helps the economy, and lowers crime rate. 4) //Marinol is a better alternative to medical marijuana.// I call bullsh!t.(1)(2) Thanks to my opponent, and now I turn the debate over to him. SOURCES ----------- http://www.letfreedomgrow.com... (1) http://dying.about.com... (2)