marijuana legalized

Given that con has not stated for which country, we can assume that this is discussing the law in a general sense. Therefore, as some country's have legalized marijuana whilst others haven't, the burden of proof is shared, as neither of us are arguing for the status quo. I will be arguing that on balance it is beneficial for a country to not have a law preventing the ownership or use of marijuana, whilst my opponent will be arguing that on balance having the law would be beneficial. I shall first provide my arguments and then address my opponents. In this first round I shall be brief in outlining my arguments. 1. Prohibition increases crime rates By prohibiting marijuana it eliminates legal supply without affecting demand, thus creating a black market. This means that criminal activity can be funded by the sale of marijuana, thus allowing for the expansion of drug cartels into other areas, increasing crime. "If you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true." —Milton Friedman By making marijuana illegal, we make smuggling profitable. Making marijuana illegal also leads to police corruption [http://www.ichrp.org...] and causes people to commit crime in order to aquire the finances to illegally purchase the drugs [Duke, Steven B (21 Dec 1993). How Legalization Would Cut Crime.] [Trebach, Arnold S.; Kevin B. Zeese, Milton Friedman (1992). Friedman and Szasz on Liberty and Drugs: Essays on the Free Market and Prohibition] 2. Prohibition is incredibly expensive The cost of enforcing such a law is very expensive. As an example the US has spends 44 billion dollars on enforceing this law. Furthermore the oportunity cost of being unable to tax the drugs is costing somewhere around 7 billion more. [http://blogs.reuters.com...] 3. It is not the role of government to prevent someone from harming oneself through marijuana use The government's role is not to make us make healthy choices, otherwise they would ban fast-food, which is far more ruinous to one's health. The use of law in government is to protect individuals being harmed by others. Given that the only one harmed by the useage of marijuana used sensibly (the government can't legalize against stupidity - just because I can endanger other road users by wearing a tv on my head whilst driving doesn't mean the govt. should make tvs illegal) is one's self, a law restricting use is unjustified. 4. Marijuana is actually a very safe drug comparitively Many studies have shown that the risks of marijuana are very low, even when compared to legal drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, or caffiene [http://www.guardian.co.uk...] Con's arguments. 1. The high is too powerful for most people to control. This is an assertion without warrent. As I have already demonstrated [argument 4] the harm to one's self is minimal. However, even granting that the harm was severe, so what? Does that mean governments should interfere with civil liberties? Why should a government prevent one from harming one's self if it does not harm others? 2. Medical alternatives It is true there are other ways to relieve pain, though seeing as I support non-medical usuage of marijuana, this is irrelevent. I await your response.