Big pharmaceutical companies don't want cannabis legalized.

AvePro's argument is predicated on an unjustified assumption. Pro tells us that members of Congress receive funding from pharmaceutical companies, and implicitly assumes that this funding must be given out so that the legalization of marijuana can be prevented. However, there are numerous reasons that one could think of, besides opposition to marijuana, for why a pharmaceutical company would lobby members of Congress. Aside from thousands of other examples of pharmaceutical companies lobying on non-marijuana related legislation, one could point to lobbying in support of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. Pro believes that we should conclude that this lobbying is done for the purpose of keeping marijuana illegal due to his assertion that those who are lobbied by the industry oppose it. Pro claims that all of the top recepients of money from pharmaceutical industries oppose the legalization of marijuana, but this claim is false. Harry Reid, who is the top recepient of funds from pharmaceutical companies according to Pro's source, has publicly spoken out in favor of medical marijuana. The second, Senator Ed Markey, is generally anti-marijuana, but voted in favor of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment that would make it illegal for the federal government from arresting medical marijuana patients in states with medical marijuana. I could perform a similar analysis for many more people, but I do not wish to drag out the point. We can clearly see that the pharmaceutical companies give money to politicians that advance medical marijuana, refuting Pro's contention that they are doing so in order to stop marijuana from being legalized. The fact that the pharmaceutical industry gives money to those who support medical marijuana also ties into my assertion that lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry goes beyond marijuana, for if the companies are not paying these senators to oppose marijuana, then they must be paying them for a different interest.The reasons why pharmaceutical companies do not speak out against opiods, despite the fact that many people overdose on them, is for the simple reason that pharmaceutical industries do not prescribe medications, dispense them, or enforce laws requiring one to take their medications as prescribed. When taking at therapeutic doses, opiods do not kill healthy human beings. If somebody overdoses on an opiod, then they are not taking therapeutic doses, making it a matter for law enforcement to handle rather than an industry responsible for the manufacturing of prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are no more responsible for overdoses than Ford is for car accidents.Pro over-emphasizes the fact that cannabis is still a Schedule I drug. Despite this status, states continue to pass medical marijuana laws, and the federal government has stopped enforcing marijuana laws. Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that one would try to fight medical marijuana by keeping it a Schedule 1 drug, since this status has clearly done nothing to stop medical marijuana from becoming a reality. A law that is not enforced is really no law at all, so considering that the federal government no longer enforces marijuana laws, the official status of cannabis becomes a moot point. This effectively demolishes Pro's contention that pharmaceutical companies have a practical interest in keeping cannabis a Schedule I drug.The crux of Pro's thesis is that pharmaceutical companies want to stop cannabis from being legalized because they will lose money. Pro seems to be forgetting what the point of these companies even is. Pharmaceutical companies make money by manufacturing drugs that have medicinal value. If cannabis has medicinal value, then pharmaceutical companies only stand to gain from these potential sales. Indeed, many pharmaceutical companies have started to benefit from medical cannabis. For example, the pharmaceutical company Unimed, which claims revenue of twelve billion Euros per year, manufactures cannabis-based drugs such as Dronabinol. While I understand that this is a European company, they have American counterparts, and the salient point is that a pharmaceutical company can benefit from legalized cannabis.Pro's argument makes many illogical assumptions about the motives and interests of pharmaceutical companies, and indeed, at some places, fails to grasp their purpose in the first place. At many points, he makes erroneous assertions, telling us that the top twenty recepients of money from pharmaceutical companies do not support marijuana legalization, even though many of them do. Furthermore, Pro forfeited all of his rounds except for one, only giving me one round to refute his thesis. For these reasons, a Con vote is the most justified.Vale