Resolved: The Federal Government can legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp

Basically what the resolutional analysis comes down to in this round, is my opponent has to show to the judging pool how he is without a doubt proving the resolution in its entirety true. My opponent states that the DEA lumped both [marijuana and hemp] together under their prohibition of marijuana. So realistically he must prove that both can be legalized, or else I win this round. The contentions that I have provided are completely topical, for the United States is morally bound to protect its citizens from harm. To sustain it's legitimacy, the United States government must place the protection of its citizens above all else. Thus, if the legalization of medical marijuana is threatening the lives or proves to be malicious against the citizens, the United States is morally obliged to prohibit that thing to ensure the safety of its citizens. My opponent's attack against my governmental legitimacy argument is not valid, for the examples of harmful substances that have been legalized are tobacco, alcohol, and morphine. In the current U.S. medical practices, nowhere is the use of tobacco or alcohol implemented to ensure patient care. Since we are discussing MEDICAL Marijuana, the term itself denotes that it is being prescribed for a medical purpose. Additionally, morphine, does not carry better-known carcinogens than tobacco, and is not notorious for it's effects on the short-term memory and the reproductive system, as marijuana is. (p.s. i would really like to see the source that indicates cocaine is used regularly in contemporary medical practice, if you could provide that it would be great) My Opponent concedes the fact that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, which is one of the criteria classifying it as a substance 1 drug, as he stated in his first speech. Acknowledge the fact that when it comes to my second contention, my opponent did not directly clash with this argument once so ever. He states from several sources that claiming a variety of things and their personal feelings of marijuana, but does not once negate or even address the fact that marijuana has dangerous carcinogens that have been proven to lead to an unexpectedly high number of users among patients with cancers of the head and neck region, including the mouth, tongue, throat, and larynx. Additionally, users of marijuana have 2-3 times the chance of cancer in this area than non-users. (Look to contention 2 rd 1 for the analytics and evidence) how is the government fulfilling its obligations to protect its citizens when it allows doctor's to prescribe cancer-causing medications? My opponent has failed to clash with my third contention by completely dropping it, so extend this argument, and look to this point for it even further substantiates the notion that the marijuana is severely dangerous; and cannot be taken from it's categorization of a substance 1 drug. To sum up the remainder of my opponents arguments made in his second rebuttal, he asserts that The United States has the power to legalize marijuana through "House bills, rescheduling, or a Supreme Court ruling against the constitutionality of drug prohibition" HOWEVER: to state that the USFG has this power, is like stating, " I could rule the world if I had all the power, resources, arms, and support to do it. While hypothetically if I had these things I could accomplish these goals, however in the real world, I don't have these things, so I cant. The reality of this country is that the USFG does not have this power. In order for a house bill to be passed, it has to be constitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that the legalization of marijuana is not constitutional, nor does it connote it. What's more, is There is no clause within the constitution that discusses drugs in any way, the 21st amendment is pertaining to liquor solely. This decision is left for the states to make through the tenth amendment where –to paraphrase- it states, " all powers not enumerated within the constitution are reserved for the states." THUS the Supreme Court could not rule against drug constitutionality for there is nowhere in the constitution that mentions drugs. I must reiterate again for the sake of being concrete (but hopefully not monotonous) THE STATES CAN PASS THESE LAWS, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT So for all reasons presented, I advocate a vote for the CON, thanks.