Resolved: The possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U.S.

I will spend this time refuting them and then highlighting the impacts of the arguments I provided. My opponent starts out by claiming that cannabis is dangerous. Just because a chemical is dangerous does NOT mean that it should be illegal. Legality and morality do not inform one another. One could argue that prostitution, excessive alcohol, and fatty food are all "dangerous" in some sense, but no American citizen has ever argued to make all of these activities illegal. Being an American means having the discretion and liberty to take risks and to choose activities that the moral actor is comfortable with and agreeable to. This is going to be an issue with my opponent's case for the rest of this debate. Then, even if the voter still believes that morality (whether it's dangerous/harmful) should dictate legality (whether it becomes legalized), my opponent does not successfully show the dangers of cannabis. There are none. He/she states that cannabis can make you panic or give you anxiety. This is a negative side effect called paranoia, but not all strains (varieties) of marijuana result in this effect. Furthermore, the smoker has to use a large amount of marijuana in order to experience these effects. Much more frequently, people claim using marijuana because it REDUCES their anxiety and provides medical BENEFITS. My opponent says that cannabis can kill you. However, to the contrary, there have been no deaths due to marijuana use. His/her argument is not only speculative but also a slippery-slope, as he/she first needs to prove that marijuana substantially increases the rate of heartbeat and THEN that an increase in the rate of heartbeat leads to death. Neither of these have been proven. Please do not believe this ridiculous statement. My opponent brings up some more speculative arguments about what cannabis COULD do to a moral actor (i. e. someone who chooses to use it), but the problem is again that just because something is harmful does not mean that it should be illegal. He/she keeps using words like "can" and "could" and then "can" again. These arguments are speculative and are not substantiated with the evidence that my opponent tried to provide. Marijuana does not create these harmful consequences, and even if it did, these effects would not develop until decades of heavy marijuana use had occurred. My opponent also attempts to compare marijuana to tobacco and says that marijuana is five times as unhealthy, however this is nonsense. Marijuana does not have the carcinogens and nasty chemicals that comprise a regular cigarette, and while 400,000 people die from tobacco each year, zero die from marijuana use. My opponent continues with speculative arguments that might have been proposed by some biased, anti-drug group, but they are not rooted in true empirical statistics. The only other argument that my opponent tries to form is that marijuana increases crime rates. Evidence to the contrary shows the opposite. In fact, when Washington D. C. legalized cannabis in 2015, the crime rate decreased by 99% (so was just about eliminated). Why? First of all, when marijuana is legalized, police officers spend their time fighting serious crimes like murder and rape, rather than nonviolent crimes like marijuana use. This allows more violent crimes to be deterred, and therefore their rates are reduced. Perhaps a more convincing refutation is that, under my opponent's world, marijuana is ITSELF a crime. So, if marijuana were legalized, then no one who smoked pot ever again wouold be committing a crime. Quite obviously, this would reduce the crime rate, since the action in question is no longer a crime. So, in summary, here is what is wrong with my opponent's contentions:1. Just because something is harmful does not mean that it should be illegal.2. Marijuana is not harmful, and consumers use it for medicinal or at least stress-relieving reasons. My opponent's speculative claims should not be considered substantial evidence.3. Legalizing marijuana reduces or eliminates the crmie rate rather than increases it. The evidence can be substantial but is also simply intuitive: if marijuana is no longer a crime, then the "crime" goes down. I will now highlight my arguments and explain how they tie back to the framework of this debate, which is net benefits to society. Recall that the side that better demonstrates whether legalizing/criminalizing marijuana is better to society should win this debate. Contention 1: Economic benefits. Legalizing pot would create money and jobs, because we would be able to collect valuable tax revenue on something that people will use regardless of whether or not the laws allow for it. This revenue is used for health care and education. Furthermore, legalizing pot saves money, because there will be fewer prisoners that drain tax dollars due to long years of imprisonment. Contention 2: Social benefits. Legalizing pot means that police officers channel their time and attention on violent crimes, such as rape and murder, rather than silly nonviolent crimes like smoking weed. This clearly reduces the crime rate and allows for a safer society in which citizens can enjoy freedoms rather than be locked up in jail for much of their lives. Contention 3: Racial benefits. The enforcement of marijuana laws has been extremely racist and discriminatory. Author Michelle Alexander calls it "a new Jim Crow", meaning that blacks continue to have it much harder than whites when it comes to the criminal justice system, even though they are no more likely to use pot than their white counterparts. Legalizing pot prevents police officers from being able to continue with and conduct these racist enforcement procedures. Contention 4: Safer marijuana. Kepeing cannabis illegal DOES NOT DETER citizens from using it. This will be the most challenging argument for my opponent to respond to. He/she says that cannabis is harmful; even if it were, keeping it illegal does not stop people from its use. At least, with legalizing pot, we can verify that the cannabis is as safe as possible and that no sketchy drug dealers or cartels are entering the country with weed that could be laced with PCP or some truly dangerous chemical. Contention 5: Freedom of choice. Americans should be able to do whatever they want so long as their actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. This is the nation that the Founding Fathers intended, and to the most extent we let people make their own decisions. Since we let people smoke cigarettes and eat unhealthy food, they should also be able to smoke cannabis. Nothing about cannabis is harmful to the user, let alone to those who do not use it. My opponent will be expected to refute all five of these contentions with substantial evidence and reasons to believe otherwise. It is hard to argue against a legalization procedure that would create money, save money, reduce violent crimes, incerase health and safety, reduce racism, and promote the freedom of choice that responsible Americans deserve. My opponent also needs to return to his/her contentions and show why my refutations of them do not hold. Finally, he/she must tie his/her arugments back to the framework of net benefits to society. Unless my opponent is successfully able to show that the disadvantages to society of legalization overwhelmingly outweigh the advantages, the voter should vote Pro. My opponent has 48 hours to accomplish these tasks. Evidence:. http://www.drugpolicy.org...http://people.wku.edu... . http://www.drugpolicy.org...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...https://www.mpp.org...;