Medical Marijuana

"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."So you concede at last that it does have side effects. And I concede that other medicines have side effects. But not as bad as marijuana. Side effects for marijuana:1. Deppressionthis is indefinatly linked to marijuana2. Smoking marijuana poses some risks. As hard as it may be for some of you to believe, no matter how much you want to believe it, marijuana isn't all good. Smoking anything physically hurts your body. Anything that burns gives off carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide kills brain cells.3. Gives lung cancer like tobacco. And is that used mediccally?4. Gives mouth cancer like tobacco. 5. As proved above causes anxiety6. Fear7. Shrinks brain. GO her if you don't belive me: http://www.webmd.com...So yes other medicines may have side effects, none this severe ost of the time. "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."We are not arguing the legality of the drug. "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."Cool ou brought in a doctor, the FDA is full of them. Their full of researchers too. Their job it to regulate medicines and have proof when needed to ban them. They have provided a lot of proof. So yes one doctor is mad, but a whoe team of scientists, doctors, and reasearchers agree with me. (I think I messpelled it lol). Here is the FDA on medical marijuana when asked the question in a sepere time:"Marijuana is listed in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the most restrictive schedule. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which administers the CSA, continues to support that placement and FDA concurred because marijuana met the three criteria for placement in Schedule I under 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1) (e.g., marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and has a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision). Furthermore, there is currently sound evidence that smoked marijuana is harmful. A past evaluation by several Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA), concluded that no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use." So they prove my abuse hery as well. So goverment +doctors+scientists=con med marijuana. "There 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." So he is the source...duh. Also accusing people of bad conduct when they havdone nothing wrong means you are the person with bad conduct. As I said, it is POSSIBLY linked to Schizophrenia. But as a patient would you really wanna take that chance? And by the way you are incorect, there is a source listed under it. "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. " I said POSSIBLY linked I belive somewhere. And once again, as a patient do you really want to take this chance? Also as a doctor is it does cause this and your patient comes back with testicular cancer, and this time with a lawyer do you really wan't to take this chance? So it is all about how much you value your life. "He 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." You just concede that there was relation. And my goverment sources said that it DOES cause aggression. "This rebuttal is going to be rather brief for I have already shot it down and he simply restated the same thing. " Yes I did repeat, I proved that it is bad for the immune system, the thing aids effects. So why worsen the desiese? I will provide another quote on that: Donald P. Tashkin, MD, in his 2001 article "Effects of Smoked Marijuana on the Lung and Its Immune Defenses: Implications for Medicinal Use in HIV-Infected Patients," published in the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, stated: "Frequent marijuana use can cause airway injury, lung inflammation and impaired pulmonary defense against infection. The major potential pulmonary consequences of habitual marijuana use of particular relevance to patients with AIDS is superimposed pulmonary infection, which could be life threatening in the seriously immonocompromised patient.In view of the immonosuppressive effect of THC, the possibility that regular marijuana use could enhance progression of HIV infection itself needs to be considered, although this possibility remains unexplored to date." "I 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." DO you understand medicine? As a son of a doctor I do. If you have a sickness you need a certian amount o the medicine, to much is bad, to little is bad too. So you contradict yourself. If it is a medicine then lowering the perscription would hurt the patient. Also under the drug laws passed undenixon it is addictive. Also the experts I quoted prove my point, it is addictive. "Con fails to justify any alternatives whatsoever and just posts links" I named them the first time. "Con fails to justify how Marijuana should be illegal" we still are not arguing the legality. "With his logic many drugs should be illegal and he never really refutes the benefits but rather spews out sources." I refuted the first time and you didn't even defend your arguments. I added on to mine to defend them. And since in debate dropsare concessions you conceded most of my rebutals and your rebuttals are just critisism. Talk about conduct. And since you said that we need to post arguments then actually quote your video. Conclusion: I am bad at debate so I may heve sucked, but this last round I destroed his rebutals and his obnoxious remarks. (sorry I need to use spell check but I do not). Also your sources are flawed as they are doctors that are not even specialists. My rebuttals are linked to profesionals and groups linked to the subject. Also carl sagan is a pro legalization advocate, biassed. VOTE CON! please. thanks for the debate =)