legalize cannabis

I will begin by addressing my opponent's rebuttals. 'The main point is really that it will also put a number of people out of work because more people will be smoking the stuff and a percentage of them won't be able to be bothered to do things like go to work, because they are addicted to the drug. 'My opponent makes an unfounded bare assertion that people will not work because they are 'addicted' to cannabis. Not only have I elaborated that cannabis is, for the most part, a non-addictive substance, but I have also explained on how legalization will allow for the reallocation of public funds in order to fund addiction clinics and substance abuse centers which will minimize potential substance abuse. 'by increasing the number of people who are very likely to get addicted and need to be aware of the addiction dangers of cannabis. 'My opponent continues to hammer-on this unfounded concept that cannabis is somehow physically addictive even though there exists no evidence showing a genuine physical dependence of the compounds within cannabis. 'here and to try and claim that cannabis does not have this affect on people fools no one with any experience of the drug'My opponent claims people with experience with cannabis hold views that it is dangerous substance. This is, too, unsubstantiated. First, let's go into deeper speculation of the anti-cannabis cult. I'll start off a personal anecdote. Out of all the conservatives I know, all of them who hold negative views of cannabis have never consumed it in their lifetime. I'll provide some famous ones for example, some that do like it and some that don't. Peter Hitchens, renowned English conservative who has never consumed cannabis in his entire life exults in his dogma that cannabis is extremely dangerous (his other politics are just as tasteless. ) Now lets cross the Atlantic Ocean; next up, Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin admits to experimenting with cannabis. Although she says she did not personally like it (which is probably a lie in order to negate criticism from other conservatives), she believes that it should be legal on the grounds that it does no harm to others for one to consume it in his/her own place of home. Here is a genuine case of lack of experience and genuine experience with cannabis being directly correlated with ignorance out of social stigma in contrasts to sympathy. This problem not only arises out of the mere speculation of cannabis, it also seems to be a rampant problem for all social conservatives. I'd rather not go off-topic, but I will do so in order for the judges to further understand the inherent nature of my opponent's position. Let's take for example Dick Cheney; he is very much unlike to comrade Conservative Republicans due to that he holds, to his credit, views that include marriage equality. This occurrence arises from his experience with it due to the fact that his daughter is a lesbian and entered into a same-sex marriage. Another example; John McCain. Unlike his fellow Republicans, he is adamant against water-boarding due to that he has first hand experience with the evils of torture due to that he was tortured when he was a Prisoner of War in Vietnam. Once again, I'm not trying to go off topic but rather I am trying to give solid reasoning that my opponent is wrong on his stance that he holds the position of those who have experienced the drug. This is mere conjecture due to my establishment of the direct relation between experience and enlightenment. ' The facts are the more tax goes up the more call for cheaper goods'This is true for basic mainstream economic theory but my opponent is misrepresenting my position by assuming my position ensues heavy taxes. Although my position ensues taxes for cannabis, it does not advocate it in the sense my opinion makes it out to be. Even in California (where medical cannabis is legal) where it is taxed firmly, legal cannabis prices are still lower than street prices. I beg the question to my opponent, when is the last time you saw someone bootlegging alcohol? Cigarettes? Very rarely, if not never. There is no reason for the consumer to turn to the black market for a product they can purchase legally when it is not more economical to buy illegally. 'Yes which we're now wasting on the addiction centres that we increased the need for in the first place. 'There is no evidence suggesting that cannabis legalization will increase the rate of substance addiction across the board. However, it logically follows that if cannabis were to be legalized, people would be subject less to hard, addictive drugs like heroine/cocaine/meth (which is often sold by illegal cannabis dealers as well. ) Thus, it is coherent to assume, by current and projected supply/demand standards of cannabs, that the demand for alcohol, tobacco, and illegal hard drugs will drop greatly and there will be overall fewer addicts. "What about people in villages towns and areas that don't have a drug dealer whatsoever and have entirely no access to drugs? What about people who say I've always wanted to try it so here's my opportunity? "My opponent is citing to an impossible scenario. I beg the question, um, hello? Where have you been? Cannabis is found in virtually ever corner in the world. The only countries that have virtually no cannabis use are Third World nations that do not have the basic per capita income to pay for the essentials of life, let alone fund recreational drug use, or the countries that mainly produce it and export it (Latin America. ) This is an abysmal argument on my opponent's part. . http://www.nature.com... "So after all that we have an argument it will create a few jobs and it will make a few people happy. So let's legalize all drugs then? That will create a few jobs and it will make a few people happy. "This is clearly a fallacios misrepresentation of my position. It's an argument ensueing that it will create jobs, save public funds, end unjust criminalization of victimless crimes, lower crime rates"So it is more available then isn't it? 'No. Studies show that prohibition of substances start off with a low decline of use, then a huge jump in availability and usage rates. This can be shown with the Prohibition of Alcohol. (statistics found that alcohol consumption fell, at first, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level; but, over the next several years, increased to about 60-70 percent of its pre-prohibition level)The American Economic Review, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp. 242-247, (May 1991). 'we're just making it easier for these people to get it as it can be purchased legally by a third party and sold on to others. 'No, it is not in any sense making it easier to get. In the current status quo, CANNABIS is easier to get than ALCOHOL. This is also a strawman due to that my position does not bear the posibility of cannabis being sold via third party. My position is that cannabis would only be distributed/sold by state licensed or Federally licensed institutions. My opponent has not provided a contention in which I can genuinely attack. His only position is "There is no purpose" which is a poor contention because it is vague in context. I have expounded on how my opponent's assertions are unfounded, and that his rebuttals are nothing more than strawman arguments, logical fallacies and conjecture. My opponent has gained no ground in this debate for he has advanced on his position, but rather fruitlessly attacks mine in the least of genuine ways. My opponent has informally insulted governments abroad (which is contradictory in the light of the fact that he supports the War on Drugs policy, fully carried out by governments) and substantiated it with an article from Forbes, widely known to bear conservative bias. I have provided contentions ensuring fiscal benefits, societal benefits, and the overall virtue of pragmatism in my contentions and substantiated them with evidence and sound reasoning.