Legalization of Marijuana

As I have done in previous debates, I will begin with my refutations and then make my claim. "1. There will be little to no negative effects to the country/society from marijuana's legalization. "A) "Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction; that is, people have difficulty controlling their drug use and cannot stop even though it interferes with many aspects of their lives. It is estimated that 9 percent of people who use marijuana will become dependent on it. The number goes up to about 1 in 6 in those who start using young (in their teens) and to 25-50 percent among daily users. Moreover, a study of over 300 fraternal and identical twin pairs found that the twin who had used marijuana before the age of 17 had elevated rates of other drug use and drug problems later on, compared with their twin who did not use before age 17. " (1) This statement ipso facto disproves Pro's absolute claim of addiction. B) The term overdose in this sense asks "if used too much, can you die? " The answer is no, but there are severe side affects such as anxiety attacks and psychosis (2). C) The effects of marijuana have been proven and the effects, while at first minimal compared to continued use, are not exactly negligible (3). D) While there have been several studies observing the idea behind Gateway Theory, it is still a theory, and thus cannot necessarily be coined as "fundamentally flawed. " That being said, there have been successful studies finding that - to an extent - the theory has been useful (4). E) The "intoxicating effects" of marijuana can harm the user if overused (as mentioned before), however the "responsibility" of the user and the non-harmful effects on others are both points that are evident and agreeable. F) The claim that legalization will help decrease the youth access to the drug is a slippery slope and cannot be regarded as true. That said there have been studies that have shown youth has received more access to the drug (5). G) "The negative effects remain unchanged" is incorrect and is also a contradiction to the previous statement of increasing potency. Look at the history of marijuana and you will see why (6). "2. There will be a plethora of positive effects resulting from marjuana's legalization. " A) In a 2010 Cato Institute study, they show how the government would create rough $8.7 billion upon the legalization of country (7). While this is a good idea consider two items: 1) the government and its resource allocation throughout the last thirteen years alone have been all over the chart and have spent on unwise resources that have affected the economy several ways [8] and 2) the liabilities far outweigh the benefits within the context of the government. B) While there are medical benefits of marijuana, the process of receiving medicinal marijuana requires a fee as well as a condition that allows for medicinal marijuana (9). The idea that it would create a "greater quality of life for many" cannot be determined. C) The legalization would allow for the regulation of cannabis, but that does not necessarily mean it will be regulated and by extension create a greater degree of damamge control. D) The legalization and legality of marijuana fall hand-in-hand, but the fact remains that certain states still consider it illegal and is thus prosecutable unless for medicinal purposes. Regardless of the reasons behind recreational use, marijuana is illegal - under set guidelines - in many places. If the reason for putting this under the economic activity is due to the lessening of litigation, refer to point A above in regards to government spending. E) "Cannabis integration" and its benefits are continuing factors in the debate for legalization, but are variable and few. As for the rights of the nation, that can be a completely different topic for discussion and I will not refute it here due to make this debate more consistent. F) Claiming violent crime will cease with regards to marijuana is an absolute and cannot be accounted. It is possible that some, or much crime will end, but to claim the absolute is fallacious. "3. Marijuana Prohibition altogether is a colossal failure. "A) While I agree marijuana use is "very pevalent," the definition of prohibition is not to "prevent use nationwide," prohibition is defined as "the act of prohibiting by authority" (10). B) In extension to point (A), prohibition is not "purposeless" because it is not limited to marijuana, alcohol, or any legal matter. C) To say that marijuana prohibition is similar to the alcohol prohibition is both irrelevant and fallacious. Marijuana and alcohol are two seperate entities and both have their own effects and defects. "4. It is not the governments place to tell us how to live, but to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all. "A) While I completely agree with you on the above statement, the government has been telling how to live even before the alcohol prohibition (i. e. slavery, ownership of land, etc. ) and there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers would be shocked (for many reasons) at how America has evolved. ContentionThe legalization of marijuana is one of the few legal arguments that I, personally, do not lean to one side or another; but rather, I hold the belief there is a fine line between the prohibiting of marijuana and its legalization and how it is detrimental and how it it can be beneficial. There is no doubting that marijuana is beneficial in its medicinal purposes (9) and that the legalization can very well create a vast income for the nation (7). However, as I mentioned earlier, the government has made many expenditures in the past (e. g. defense vs. budgetary, health vs. defense, etc. ) where many have become upset. Even with the legalization of marijuana, there is still a risk for the youth access regardless of regulation or not, and there will continue to be both postive and negative effects. A main question at hand is how much will the benefits outweight the liabilities and vice versa. With all that has been mentioned, there will still exist the argument for how much legalization can be made and where, when, and why. It is thus that I believe the government should weigh the liabilities and benefits and take in to account the results and make a decision based on all that has been mentioned by Pro and and myself. (1) . http://www.drugabuse.gov...;(2) . http://drugfactsweek.drugabuse.gov...;(3) . http://www.drugabuse.gov...;(4) . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;(5) . http://www.nber.org...(6) . http://www.narconon.org...(7) . http://www.cato.org...(8) . http://www.usaspending.gov...?(9) . http://www.state.nj.us...(10) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...