Marijuana\Cannabis should be legalised for both medical and recreational purposes in the U.S.

I thank Con for this debate. Firstly, his source [1] is from the TV Comedy Show the Dead Donkey, and it is visible this is a fake video through the use of the looped laughter track. It therefore holds no relevance in this debate. "he claim that "feeling of well being" was a good thing was ludicrous. In the drug world, this would be called a "high". ......My opponent states that I provide no evidence for any of my claims so on this post, I will include numerous sources." --> Firstly, the feeling of well being is a positive thing. My opponent claims there are "lows" associated with Marijuana use in his sources which state the short term use of Marijuana, there is no mention of any form of "low". Furthermore, the feeling of well being is positive in anything, and even if such lows did exist the feeling of well-being would mean the effect is balanced out. Also, my opponents claims of paranoia is false. While some Marijuana users may suffer feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia, this is only temporary and when the user is not exposed to such experiences beforehand. "This is a ridiculous claim. Just because a drug only affects the user directly, does it actually make it a victimless crime...Cannabis can cause an individual to push away previously close figures." --> To start, the fact Marijuana may make the user unsociable does not refute at is a victimless crime. It is not a crime to be unsociable, at least not in the US. Indeed, there is no obligation to the Marijuana user to be sociable and remain in contact with friends and family. Furthermore, its effect of making people unsociable is still not enough to warrant a ban of it. "Here my opponent admits to the negative influence marijuana use can have on an abusers working life." --> Which I said was detriment to the user, and no-one else. A minor inconvenience to the employer, but they can of course test potential employees for Marijuana us, which many do. There is really no issue for society that Marijuana may make its user less productive. "His quote from his source [4] does not deny marijuana as a gateway drug......if my opponent meant to make a relevant point, then I ask him to clarify this." --> The source cites the flaw in saying Marijuana is a gateway drug. Most drug users use Marijuana before they use "hard" drugs, but the majority don't. Indeed, evidence shows most Marijuana users use nicotine and alcohol fore they use Marijuana, so Nicotine and Alcohol are the true gateway drugs [2]. "In his source [5] I am yet to find a gateway reference." --> O rly? "There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping stone on the basis of its particular physiological effect. One might argue that marijuana is generally used before other illicit mood-altering drugs, in part, because its effects are milder; in that case, marijuana is a stepping stone only in the same sense as taking a small dose of a particular drug and then increasing that dose over time is a stepping stone to increased drug use." [2]. That's the exact same source As for Con's criticism of my 6th source, his quote explicitly states Marijuana is not a gateway drug insofar as that alcohol and nicotine use typically precede it. Furthermore, the first sentence from the source is "Recent research suggests that recreationally used cannabis does not act as a gateway drug to harder drugs such as alcohol, cocaine and heroine." Ergo, my 6th source does not support the gateway theory. The 7th source explicitly states "But the authors say their study should raise questions about the legitimacy of basing national drug policy decisions on the assumption that one of the harmful effects of marijuana use is the increased risk of using more dangerous drugs". It casts doubt on the use of the Gateway theory as a legitimate argument in favour of the prohibition of Marijuana. My opponents criticism of my Gateway theory sources no longer stand. All of my 4 sources do not support the Gateway theory and show varied evidence against it. "I myself never claimed it was without doubt a gateway drug, but only claimed it might be." --> My opponent is contradicting himself, as he blatantly claimed in the first round "marijuana is a gateway drug.". There's no room for plausibility here,my opponent was resolute in his stance that Marijuana is a gateway. "It is irrefutable that some abusers of harder drugs may have made the transition through the use of cannabis." --> And as shown, most of these users use nicotine and alcohol as the real gateway drugs. The criminalisation of Marijuana isn't cutting out the starting point, it's cutting out one of the many stepping stones. Furthermore, the ban of Marijuana has not been effective in stopping Marijuana as a gateway drug as my opponent claims it is. "Which is exactly my point. These drug lords will no longer have to do their "fundraising" behind the scenes. Under the proposed laws they can perform their work wherever they want to without fear of arrest." --> And my opponents issue with these men turning to legitimate business men is? Indeed, my opponent admits this is likely, as by doing these were removing drug lords from criminal activity to legitimate business activity. My proponent may state "drug lords" will use these as a source of revenue, but many forms of business are already used by criminals as a source of revenue. By saying furniture shops are used by drug lords as a form of revenue does not mean all furniture shops should be shut down. Shut down the ones with proven criminal owners, yes. As for my opponents points on drug dealers advantages, he's first contention may be true, but Marijuana will have quality controls. Indeed, a lot of Marijuana is home grown [3], so individual farmers and cultivators may sell their product. Indeed, many legitimate companies such as HortaPharm, which develops medical Marijuana, have developed in the Netherlands [4]. so there is an opportunity for legitimate companies to be founded in the Marijuana market or pre-existing companies adapting to sell Marijuana. As for his second point, these drug lords are no longer in a criminal business. Drugs is their business, they commit cries to eliminate the competition or get funding. And neither of the latter will no longer be necessary in a legitimate market. As for his 3rd point, roughly half of drug producer are Americans, and the rest are mostly poor farmers in South America [3] who will benefit from being able to sell their product legally. "Of course these are only assumptions and I do not present this as evidence" --> And unless my opponent can show evidence to help prove these assumptions then they hold no weight in this debate. As for my opponents closing comments, I have shown consuming cannabis is a victimless crime and the fact it may make some users unsociable is not itself a crime, nor is it enough to warrant a ban of Cannabis. As for his comment on the economy, I have shown the Marijuana industry has the potential to bring the US more than $14 billion in revenue. As for my opponent final comment about dependency on the abuser, the people depend on the user by choice of using Marijuana, however, it is extremely unlikely someone can be addicted to Marijuana and become dependent, and this is limited to long term, daily Marijuana users [5], and if my opponent states Marijuana users will increase with legalisation, there is little evidence for that either [6]. To conclude, Marijuana is a victimless crime, has beneficial economic effects, has curative abilities, and minimal health risks. In relation to the resolution, I have proven its medical purpose and why it should be legalised for recreational use. Resolution affirmed. [1] = http://tinyurl.com... [2] = http://tinyurl.com... [3] = http://tinyurl.com... [4] = http://tinyurl.com... [5] = http://tinyurl.com... [6] = http://tinyurl.com...