most states should not yet legalize pot

I accept. With a normative resolution, we obviously have a shared burden of proof. RebuttalsPro says, "pot can cause problems such as mental health issues." Pro provides zero evidence for this claim, and fails to explain why, even if this were the case, states shouldn't legalize pot. Pro says, "they've done studies on this. this just causes disability and welfare spending to increase a lot more." If they have done studies on this subject, why hasn't Pro provided any? She is doing nothing more than making baseless assertions, and fails to connect her points to why states shouldn't legalize pot. Pro says, "most states should be monitoring colorado and washington to see how much the bad effects arise in those states." Note that she does nothing more than assume that there will be negative effects in Washington and Colorado, but provides no evidence that there is or will be. Monitoring these states is not a bad idea; it would allow states to effectively come to a consensus on the proper implementation of policy and what regulations would be effective at curbing any potential negative impact. But that is far different than maintaining current restrictive laws prohibiting pot. My Case C1) Bodily Autonomy Via Murray Rothbard: "The right to self-ownership asserts the absolute right of each man, by virtue of his (or her) being a human being, to “own” his or her own body; that is, to control that body free of coercive interference. Since each individual must think, learn, value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation" [1].This principle, which asserts a natural right to dominion over our own bodies, is important for several reasons. First, if we rightfully own ourselves, meaning that we are free from the coercion which would result from someone else owning or exercising constraint on us, we have the liberty to choose what goes into our bodies. Second, it treats people as fundamentally, intrinsicly valuable individuals capable of deciding for themselves whether it is best to engage in potentially harmful activites, such as using marijuana. Therefore, the government has no business in prohibiting substances in spite of whether or not it deems them to be dangerous.C2) Black Market The core problem with Pro's proposal, and the primary reason that you should vote negative, is that it only deals with legality. Keeping pot illegal has had much the same effect that illegalizing alcohol did: it drives people to black markets. It doesn't erase the demand for these substances, so necessarily people are going to look for other, more dangerous ways to sell and obtain pot, but it's even more dangerous in this way because the government isn't able to regulate it and prevent whoever sells it from spiking it with more dangerous drugs. C3) Victimless Crime Pro's proposal is, at its core, fundamentally unjust because it seeks to place people in jail for a victimless crime. Smoking marijuana does not in any way harm another person or impinge on their freedom. The government cannot and should not seek to protect people from themselves, as this would be a blatant disregard for the self-ownership principle. C4) Medicinal Value Pro's proposal suggests that states should not at all legalize pot, which fails to account for the fact that pot has medicinal value, particularly for cancer patients or people with severe pain. "Modern research suggests that cannabis is a valuable aid in the treatment of a wide range of clinical applications. These include pain relief -- particularly of a neuropathic pain (pain for nerve damage) -- nausea, spasticity, glaucoma, and movement disorders. Marijuana is also a powerful appetitte stimulant, specifically for patients suffering from HIV, the AIDS wasting syndrome, or dementia. Emerging research suggests that marijuana's medicinal properties may protect the body against some types of malignant tumors and are neuroprotective. Currently, more than 60 U.S. and international health organizations support granting patients immediate legal access to medicinal marijuana under a physician's supervision. [2]." C5) Economic Value of Legalization Dr. Miron from Harvard, in his paper entitled "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition," found the following [3]: -Replacing prohibition of pot with regulation would save a total of $7.7 billion on enforcement costs, $2.4 of which at the federal level and $5.3 at the state and local level. -It would generate a significant amount of revenue -- $2.4 billion if taxed like a regular consumer good, or $6.2 billion if it were taxed like alcohol or tobacco. Sources [1] http://utahliberty.org...;[2] http://norml.org...;[3] http://www.in.gov...;