Medical Marijuana

Now let's move on to my final rebuttal and conclusion. R1: Terrible Health DefectsThis seems to be what my opponent's case essentially revolves around. It should be noted that while marijuana does have side effects and a potential for harm, almost every drug does as well. The only sources that my opponent has nonchalantly thrown out that are actually against marijuana don't even discuss medical use. The credible sources that he provides actually advocate for medical marijuana which my opponent does not even realize. My opponent fails to establish why morphine or novocaine should be legal in that case as well. As I stated earlier, numerous medical programs recognize marijuana as relatively safe for medical use. Let's go in depth and see what they say. According to an approved statement from the US Department of Justice in 1988, "Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity. " [1] From January 1997 to June 2005, the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported zero deaths caused by the primary use of marijuana. Through that time period, 279 deaths were reported where marijuana was a possible "concomitant" drug used in conjunction with other drugs at the time of death. In contrast, common FDA-approved drugs which are often prescribed in lieu of marijuana (such as anti-emetics and anti-psychotics), were the primary cause of 10,008 deaths. [2]R2: FDA Statement? ?So yes apparently the FDA did issue a blanket statement disregarding all medicinal values of medical marijuana. This does not by any means mean it should be illegal. In fact many medical institutions have been negatively stigmatizing the FDA for making such lavish claims. To help prove the ridiculousness of this claim, I refer to Stephen Sidney, MD, Associate Director for Clinical Research for Kaiser Permanente. The FDA's pronouncement tells us little about medical marijuana, but it says much about how politics appears to be trumping science at the agency we all depend on to protect our health. .. .The federal government has not only refused to fund medical marijuana research, it has put in place a set of legal and bureaucratic obstacles that have kept the flow of even privately funded medical marijuana studies to a trickle. So with one hand, our government tells us 'there's no data,' while with the other hand it works to ensure there will never be enough data. So why did the FDA issue this questionable document, containing no new information whatever, at this particular moment? The only apparent explanation is politics. .. . Science, it appears, took a back seat. For the FDA to do its job as protector of our nation's health, it must be free from commercial or political pressure. When politics trumps science at the FDA, we are all in danger. " [3] Let's now have a look at to what NY Times had to say about this: "The Bush administration's habit of politicizing its scientific agencies was on display again this week when the Food and Drug Administration, for no compelling reason, unexpectedly issued a brief, poorly documented statement disputing the therapeutic value of marijuana. The statement was described as a response to numerous inquiries from Capitol Hill, but its likely intent was to buttress a crackdown on people who smoke marijuana for medical purposes and to counteract state efforts to legalize the practice. Ordinarily, when the F. D. A. addresses a thorny issue, it convenes a panel of experts who wade through the latest evidence and then render an opinion as to whether a substance is safe and effective to use. This time the agency simply issued a skimpy one-page statement asserting that 'no sound scientific studies' supported the medical use of marijuana. ." [4] Thus it is not at all a valid scientifical standpoint but rather a whimsical attempt by politicians to attack the marijuana user party. R3: Schizophrenia and Testicular CancerThere is really no solidification of this contention as he agrees so this has successfully been shot down because marijuana never causes Schizophrenia. Con then goes on to helplessly try to justify this by bringing up some "Pro marijuana legilizaation dude" (nobody knows what legilizaation is) and states how he believes it is true. This is bad conduct because there is no explanation, no source, and no credibility. I think it is clear to the readers and will move on. As far as the testicular cancer issue goes, I have significantly shot this down yet again and Con just spews out another source but I have proven that this is just another confusion of correlation and causation so we shall move on now. R4: Withdrawal and AggressionHe states that there is a possibility for one to be aggressive but there is no evidence that this has caused aggression but there is some relation. It is generally considered that marijuana has soothed and calmed people, not made them aggressive. "When the system is hyper-aroused, as in today’s lifestyle, marijuana calms. The significance of this fact cannot be ignored. It explains the increased creativity reported as a part of the marijuana experience, because when both sides of brain processes are heightened, both types of brain activity are greater. The left brain notices more, while the right brain receives more. This is the unification of logic and intuition. The term “expansion of consciousness” is explained physiologically as a “shifting of brain emphasis from one-sidedness to balance” (Sugarmena and Tarter, 1978), which fits precisely with the feeling called “high. " [5] Here's another statement: "At low doses, most marijuana users report a sense of calm, well-being and relaxation—the exact opposite of anxiety. Recent scientific investigation reveals that in addition to a sense of calm, low doses of marijuana produce a loss of temporal awareness (time), slight mental confusion, a slowing of the thought processes, impairment of short-term memory and sometimes an awareness of attaining special insights or knowledge. " [6] We can not come to the conclusion that it will increase aggression but perhaps if you smoke extensively it will. Even so, many other drugs cause far more aggression and they should be illegal as well. R5: AIDS/HIVThis rebuttal is going to be rather brief for I have already shot it down and he simply restated the same thing. I urge readers to refer back to my last rebuttal. He states there is a possibility of T-cells to fight off infections but there is simply no definite cause while I have provided that there is a definite benefit on HIV/AIDSR6: Alzheimer'sThis ongoing project is only working towards achieving tangible results but has not even came close. With his evidence we can not come to any conclusions but only a rather possibility of there being side-effects, no definite harm here and can be completely disregarded. NO WARRANT! R7: Addiction and AlternativesI am begginning to run out of space but first off addiction can simply be solved with less prescription and I have already proven that it is not addictive and it is never considered addictive anymore. It is a myth that has been disproven time after time. Con fails to justify any alternatives whatsoever and just posts links. .this is not debate but a link competition. Conclusion: Con fails to justify how Marijuana should be illegal (arguments), uses unreliable sources such as his Dad (sources), and spells things terribly such as 'rubuttal' and 'legilizaation' (spelling). With his logic many drugs should be illegal and he never really refutes the benefits but rather spews out sources. To end this I refer to Carl Sagan's video and vote PRO. . http://www.youtube.com...