Marijuana Should Be Legal

Rebuttals & DefenseGlaucoma"Curing" and lowering eye pressure are two different things. The source does not attest that it cures the illness, only that it lessens the effects. What it does say, though (and this is something my opponent ignored), is that it is unwise to prescribe marijuana as a treatment. Another ignored fact is that other things are more effective at lessening glaucoma's detriments and aren't accompanied by such harmful effects.BenefitsI apologize, I did mean to say marijuana, not tobacco. Yet, I don't think this alters the outcome as the intent was apparent and obvious. I'll reiterate my argument by amending my statement: "King also mentions other supposed "benefits" in smoking marijuana, but I won't bother rebutting these individually. Most of them have the same result as glaucoma A) they come with harmful side effects of smoking the drug, and B) there is almost always a superior method to use as an alternative to better help the problem at hand. Besides, arguing health benefits is largely illogical, as there are a plethora of harms including the following: Trouble thinking and remembering Bloodshot eyes Dry mouth (cotton mouth) Increased appetite (the "munchies") Fast heart rate Slowed coordination Harmed blood flow in the brain Less attention span Stifled brain development Anxiety Depression Suicidal thoughts Increased chance of heart attacks Cancer risks increased Unsteady walking [1. http://www.webmd.com...]This was not addressed, and that's problematic for Pro's case, as the drug still stands as harmful in terms of health.Cigarettes vs MarijuanaMy opponent's argument here is very unstable. Simply because marijuana may prevent *SOME* people from smoking cigarettes, that doesn't mean the alternative is good. I've already established strong grounds showing how harmful marijuana is, and these are essentially unrefuted by my opponent. Moreover, there's another attachment to this rebuttal, which indicates the "alternative" of marijuana is just as bad, if not worse, as smoking cigarettes. Marijuana is a gateway drug, and the age of that gateway extends even older than previously thought. [2. https://www.homeworkmarket.com...] It's also shown that non-marijuana users rarely try a more serious substance. [5. http://www.jsad.com...] Specifically, "those who had previously used marijuana were 2.5 times more likely to use prescription opioids." [3. http://www.narconon.org...] Overdose, this article indicates, can be caused by marijuana use. A solvency to this problem could be the following: "Prevention efforts targeting early substance abuse may help to curb the abuse of prescription opioids." [4. http://www.jahonline.org...(12)00231-5/abstract] Prevention won't be achieved if the substance is legalized. The best prevention is a) knowledge about the effects, and b) illegalization. Moreover, legalizing marijuana has some effects cigarettes do not, and some of those can be even worse by nature than others.EnvironmentPoint A was more of a pre-requisite to B, exemplifying how health effects and economic detriments were more important than environmental -- and B is still true. People wouldn't want to pay for any more than they had to, so they'd continue to grow it for themselves. That'd fulfill my point B as true, and harmful. Moreover, individuals growing the drug "[use] harmful pesticides to keep their plants healthy, which damages the surrounding environment." [6. http://www.ibtimes.com...] Even in controlled, professional environments, the negative impacts still reside. Growing marijuana costs the US $6 billion dollars annually in terms of environment [7. http://evanmills.lbl.gov...], completely offsetting my opponent's environment assertion as well has economic argument. Furthermore, these farms rampantly increase energy needs, producing a unsettling, large carbon footprint in terms of greenhouse gases as well as operations destroying wildlife. [8. http://lcb.wa.gov...] They also use $5 billion dollars in electricity to grow the substance [9. http://gizmodo.com...], and drain a lot of water from streams. [10. http://blogs.longwood.edu...] There's really a lot of environmental issues legally or illegally with marijuana.Conceded PointsThe biggest impact here is that my opponent conceded that marijuana is harmful and addictive -- other drugs can be either more or less harmful. It doesn't matter within the confines of this debate. My objective is to prove marijuana shouldn't be legal, and that's one reason why: it's harmful. The harms of other drugs doesn't mean they should be legal either, but it also doesn't mean it's justification for marijuana legalization.Moreover, his claim that I conceded legalizing marijuana has been successful is false. My quote "While many share success stories of the legalization, we find that more relevant are the detrimental effects that are widespread and prevailing" referred to others CLAIMING it had been successful. Besides, the title of my contention (Previous legalizations have had adverse effects.) should be a strong indicator that I don't believe they have been successful on net.Economic ImpactsFirst, go back to the environment rebuttal where I brought up figures there. That's quite a bit of money exclusively in one field: environmental costs ($6bn). Then add my economic impacts from my last rebuttal. Drug abuse, we'll cut down to only one fourth of the entirety, seeing as marijuana is one of the most common drugs ($45.225bn). Then, we'll cut out the cigarette impact (this is $170bn, assuming NO medical expenses come for marijuana). That's still a conservative estimate of $51 billion annually, WAY more than my opponent's maximum estimate of a mere $6 billion in economic stimulation. Economic detriment is sure to follow legalization of weed.MedicalMy opponent says this line: "Should we just ban anything that can't cure cancer, when in reality, it's impossible?" The obvious answer is no. But when something CAUSES cancer, it shouldn't be legal. I doubt my opponent would condone another substance that causes cancer.Conclusion:I've thoroughly rebutting my opponent's contentions and defended my arguments. Just as an underview, let's go over why I'm winning:-- Economic impact: It costs way too much either environmentally, policy-wise, or health-related to legalize weed.-- Environmental impact: It's harmful and costly-- Health impact: It's inherently harmful and causes increase in medical expenses as well as worse health for users and those around them.-- Past legalizations: These have proved fallible and unsuccessful because of economic, health, and environmental concerns.All of these things are harmful resultants of legalizing marijuana, and that is why I respectfully urge a vote in negation.