TBD: To Be decided by Con.

PRO: My opponents essential thesis is flawed because smoking cannabis is illegal. […] CON : All prescription medicines are illegal without a prescription. Using your logic we should ban all prescription drugs. There's precedent. And who has allowed ill patients to smoke cannabis? Why the federal government of course. Not only allowed it, they PROVIDED it. . http://www.alternet.org.... This program was killed in the 90's as AIDS patients began flooding the government with requests for compassionate use. PRO: My opponent then says that marinol knocks people out. […] This gives very strong reliever of pain. Thus marinol relieves more pain. CON : The primary purpose of cannabis for cancer patients is it's affects on nausea, not pain. There are several drugs available that more adequately provide pain relief than cannabis. . http://www.marinol.com.... Pro's opinion not withstanding, the side effect of being knocked out and relieving more pain is mute in that the PURPOSE of the medication is to relieve NAUSEA, which is done better by joint than pill. PRO: She then goes on to say that marinol is too expensive. This is indeed false. According to the US department of Health, marinol, used for cancer patients cost at the most $200. CON : My source was a pharmacy that actually sells the product, not a publication about what it SHOULD cost. I showed proof of what the drug actually costs to real people. PRO fails to rebut the actual, rather than projected, cost of the medication. My point stands up to $3,500 per month. PRO says: My opponent then says its not effective for this reason. Marinol lasts longer because it's digested, thus more pain is relieved in comparison to smoking it. Thus, it is indeed more effective because it relieves pain. CON : I said it was less effective because every person questioned that had taken both said that the pill was less effective. What I said was that it was slower to act because it must be digested- slower to act is not less effective, though it is difficult for one suffering to wait on relief. I concede my opponents point about side effects. I was not aware, thank you Xera. You are most welcome :D PRO: However, it doesn't really matter because most of these side effects help in the pain relieving process. Also, I never mentioned damaging lungs. CON : I apologize for putting words into your mouth. However, PRO's defense of the pain relieving qualities of Marinol only show he is either intentionally misleading the audience, or has done insufficient research to understand this issue. The primary purpose of Marinol and medical cannabis is nausea and vomiting, not pain. PRO: My opponent then cites a source refuting my crime prevention point. This is flawed because never before has smoking been used. CON : The method of medication administration is irrelevant. According to this logic, we should ban all forms of medication that are new and innovative. I will point out; that ‘smoking' per se has not been used before, but inhaling solutions has, Xopenex for asthma patients for example. Pretty much the same theories would apply. PRO: My FBI point is not a stat[…]. The FBI is just using logic. If smoking cannabis is available by hospitals. Criminals would somehow get a hold of them Thus more cannabis is available. CON : Cannabis is easier to grow than steal. Why would anyone want to steal what is already very common and easy to grow? I have an anecdote about this I will share later in comments. PRO: Furthermore, a lot of deadly crimes are committed over drugs, if the supply increases then more people would be looking, and more crime would occur. CON : Drug crimes are bad. I know in my community Xanex has caused the police a lot of trouble, likewise for OxyContin. . http://www.webmd.com.... So what? Again I repeat, "this question is beyond the issues normally considered for medical uses of drugs, and should not be a factor in evaluating the therapeutic potential of cannabis or cannabinoids. " Link above. The fact that some might misuse the drug is no cause to deny it to those in need. Think about this carefully: PRO is basically saying we should allow hoodlums of society (drug dealers) to decide what medications we allow our ill to be given. PRO: This is a valid point. However, most hospitals would induce depressants on the patient to temporarily stop vomiting. This would give them time to give them the pill and time for it to start digesting. Thus, you can drop my opponents point. CON : This IS the medication that is supposed to stop the body from vomiting. There are others to use instead, but then patients wouldn't need Marinol. My point stands . http://www3.interscience.wiley.com... PRO: My opponent first of all is not including the following: A) Insurance B) Type of Illness C) Government help These 3 factors decrease the cost significantly. As I brought up before, sometimes less then $200. CON : I have already rebutted the cost of the medication. PRO is free to shop around and find an actual pharmacy that sells it cheaper. As for PRO's issues only two of those need be addressed as the type of illness is cancer, it's in the resolution. Insurance- Not everyone in the US has insurance. 22% of working adults lacked health insurance for at least part of 2007; 14% were uninsured for over a year. . http://www.medscape.com.... I don't know about the rest of the states, but in Oklahoma there is no government help for adults between the ages of 19-65 with ANY disease unless they are permanently disabled or qualify for TANF (temporary assistance to needy families – a welfare check. ) Neither of the contentions PRO makes actually shows that there is hope to reduce the cost of expensive medications. My point stands. Contention I. Con: already refuted above. PRO: Contention II. Liquid form cannabis. A new form of cannabis that has started in Britain is moving to the US. Its cannabis taken through a dipper. I. e. a needle attached to a machine that drips a liquid into the blood stream. Or taken as a Spray through the mouth. It has also been approved in Canada. This new method takes the pros of pill cannabis and smoking cannabis. It has all the benefits, with limited side effects. It is also cost efficient. It beats pill and smoke on: Cost, efficiency, etc. CON : This is only be tested to relieve pain- not the primary purpose of cannabis, hence no results were shown regarding the drugs effectiveness in treating nausea. . http://www.drugdevelopment-technology.com... One of the side effects of this drug? Nausea. Kind of defeats the purpose don't you think? Additionally, there is no evidence that this drug will be cheaper, I have looked and been completely unable to find any pharmacy, even in Canada, that offers this drug for sale that has the price listed on the internet. If PRO is going to claim this will be cheaper I would like to see his source, considering that the source he used for the Marinol was so far off, I think I would like to review this myself. Conclusion: By his own evidence Pro proved that cannabis has medical benefits. He has, in fact conceded that cannabis usage in cancer patients is justifiable. Our only argument seems to be method of delivery. The government & pharmaceutical companies have tried to emulate what nature already does. What is the purpose of offering medications to the seriously ill that can be bought easier and cheaper in its most natural state? The only benefit I see from these methods of delivery is that drug companies will make a LOT of money off of something that /could/ be grown in a closet with a black light and a coke bottle. Thank you ladies and gentlemen for your time and patience.