Marijuana Legalization

On to my opponents arguments (In round 2); 1. Substances "Please cite one scientific study that shows marijuana to be addictive. " . http://www.spencerrecovery.com... I would go on but my opponent states I must only provide one study in order to prove my point. Pro's source states there is no physical addiction, but mental addiction is just as dangerous as my link above shows. Therefore it is resolved that marijuana is indeed an addictive drug. "We shouldn't rely on what the government claims to know about marijuana. Just because a court flooded with years of legal precedent kept things the way they are is not an indictment of marijuana. Rather than relying on a government agency, we should look at concrete scientific evidence, which I have provided, to make a determination. " First off my opponent only offered one shady source as his "concrete scientific evidence" which I have stated only talked about the physical levels of addiction and totally avoids any mental studies. Thus, we should rely on the courts "legal precedent" because its the only "concrete" thing in this debate. "I realize there are negative health effects to smoking marijuana, just like there are with tobacco. Still, tobacco is infinitely more dangerous with thousands of chemical additives and a level of addiction that can hardly be matched in the casual drug culture. Also, people smoke less cannabis than cigarettes. While someone may get high on weekends, smokers choke down a pack a day or more. " OK so what my opponent is saying is that tobacco is only worse because its more addictive, and the quantity smoked is much greater. This argument is flawed, because first of all cannabis would be much more potent than it is now when people start investing in it and over time with legalization the govt. would allow R&D which would make the plant much more addictive. Also of course cigarettes are being used more than marijuana now, because marijuana isn't legal! My opponent spends less time talking about how legalization will affect us and more time talking about the current status-quo of the plants effects, never taking into account legalization's effect on these things. Also, it is Pro's burden to show proof, and Pro has mostly just pulled out facts from no where. Don't let this pass. "If you have ever partaken in cannabis, you will surely agree that alcohol impairs you exponentially more. " You can only give Pro this argument if he can prove that all cannabis users have the same opinion as him on this subject, which he has not. I'm sure that cannabis to alcohol impairment depends on the person you ask. "Both of these substances are legal, but because of legal precedent marijuana remains illegal. While the use of these drugs may be harmful, the legality of tobacco and alcohol demonstrate the civil liberties we should have in this country. A person should feel free to impair themselves in any way as long as it doesn't harm others, which I will address below. " Alcohol is legal because some types of it are actually good for you (i. e. red wine good for your heart) and because alcohol is ONLY dangerous when abused, never in moderation. You can under no circumstances say that "oh, a little marijuana is OK as long as I don't abuse it" which is how the two differ. As for tobacco, Marijuana isn't legal because the government can't control the growing of marijuana like they can with tobacco. It's alot easier to grow marijuana than tobacco. If the government could control it marijuana would be legal. Another reason marijuana is illegal, is that marijuana can kill you a lot faster then tobacco. 2. Economy "You don't provide any evidence that legalization would decrease employee productivity. " Yes, this is true because I already proved (and you conceded) that marijuana is health hazardous and it KILLS YOU. This would very likely decrease ones likeliness to work productively. "The only viable argument you make here is on health care costs. While your argument stands to reason; that more smokers means more sick people and higher health care costs, the cost is overwhelmingly offset by the money we would make and save by not having to enforce marijuana prohibition ($7.7 billion! !! ) and the tax revenue generated ($6.2 billion! !! ). Yes, that's billion, with a B. So, society would benefit incredibly financially. " My opponent concedes that marijuana would kill health care for everyone, therefore this cancels ANY arguments about smoking cannabis being our right, or freedom! Freedom stops at the point of harming bystanders! It doesn't matter if marijuana raises 7.7 billion and 6.2 billion if no one can afford health care! And while we're talking about those figures, is there any evidence? Once again, Pro is not utilizing the burden of proof but instead spouting random numbers and "facts". 3. Criminals There are so many more things criminals get money from, you can only grant Pro this argument if he proves that criminals would receive no funding for ANYTHING once marijuana is legalized, which is impossible. There is barely any solvency on this contention because it wouldn't even make a dent in criminal funds! 4. Quality/ Medical Pro concedes to my points that marijuana has no medicinal quality by never answering the arguments posted. 5. Civil Liberties My spiel about health care costs and the economic effects already ruled that the freedom to use cannabis is not enforced because it DOES harm bystanders, so it IS the governments job to protect the citizens from legalized effects of marijuana. Health care costs wouldn't "slightly" increase, with people dieing, diseases being accelerated, etc health care could cease to exist! Pro states other culprits of health care cost rises are to blame, but they haven't "killed" health care like legalization would, and you state that marijuana isn't as bad on health care costs but once again my opponent only accounts for the status-quo, never applying what might happen if marijuana is legalized. How much marijuana effects health care right now is irrelevant to its effects once legalized _______________________________________________________________________________________________ "You have provided NO evidence to lead me to believe that marijuana causes accelerated death or metal disorders and certainly not WWIII or the failure of humankind. The one citation you make is for the Department of Justice homepage and contains absolutely NO information relevant to the debate. " I will just concede this argument, I'm terribly sorry that the link didn't go to the right site! I will check my links more thoroughly in the future. As for the counter resolution, the nicotine replacement would work because it would replace the mental addictiveness of marijuana and spur a transition away from the drug. Prefer the counter resolution; #1: It stops all drug related deaths/ harms #2: Solves for Pro's spiel on criminal use #3: Would repair our health care systems #4: Takes away no civil liberties, and is already supported by the govt. no technological breakthroughs or massive funding is need. ====================================== Now I shall make one last argument; Whether we know it or not, the marijuana debate on legalization is hurting others outside the U. S. . http://www.latinalista.net... Marijuana legalization movements in the U. S. is fueling Mexican cartel violence, the link says all. I will end the debate here, no need to drag viewers on further. I thank my opponent for this debate again, and wish him luck in all future debates! This was a very educational round for me. I urge a vote for Con. Thank You!