Cannabis Legalization

Thank you for your reply! Welcome to the DDO, I hope you are enjoying this debate. The reason why I made a difference between Cannabis and Marijuana, though Marijuana is always Cannabis, Cannabis is not always Marijuana. It makes it simpler with terms if we just call the whole thing Cannabis, the drug plant Marijuana and the product plant Hemp. Rebuttal: Pro's opinion on the topic seems to be that no one is getting hurt by Marijuana use. As I have displayed in my opening statement, smoking marijuana is harmful, it can cause cancer and is scientifically proven to cause things like Schizophrenia, memory loss, cognition impairment, bronchitis and many more. As it also is proven, teenagers using marijuana are actually comparably dumber than their non-smoking counterparts. This means that Marijuana does indeed cause harm, thus making a statement of 'no one is getting hurt' incorrect. Having concluded this, I will immediately get into one of pros later points, that people should be allowed to use Marijuana if they are not hurting anyone. This might be correct in theory, but they are hurting themselves, causing mental health issues. Now, even if we assume that it would not be wrong to hurt yourself, we still have the issue that when you hurt yourself you are indirectly hurting the people around you, family, friends and society in general. Thus meaning that Marijuana causes harm. Just to add a fun statistic, Colorado, pre legalization had a road accident fatality % of 7% involving Marijuana while post legalization had a % of 16%. Over 100% increase. I do not think this is a coincidence.. Especially if considered that there was a 14.8 percent decrease of road fatalities during the same time! Furthermore, marijuana users are twice as likely as non marijuana users to have suicidal thoughts. (http://www.rmhidta.org...) As I have pointed out, a marijuana legalization would most likely have a negative effect on economy. I would have no problem with hemp legalization, but I do have a grand problem with Marijuana legalization, as this would not have any positive impact. There might be a decrease in enforcement fees, though you would not see that money as it would be spent on things like hospital visits due to marijuana (Colorado experiencing a 82% increase of hospital visits due to marijuana), decreased workforce (Drug-related student suspensions/expulsions increased 32 percent from school years 2008-09 through 2012-13, the vast majority were for marijuana violations, this will affect the workforce), more vehicle accidents, substance abuse help, higher crime rate ( crime in Denver increased 6.7 percent from the first six months of 2013 to the first six months of 2014, In 2013, 48.4 percent of Denver adult arrestees tested positive for marijuana, which is a 16 percent increase from 2008). This seems to all come back to us, hitting the U.S. with a decrease in economy, not an increase as quoted by so many pro-legalization supporters. Colorado's statistics once again support this. Next up is the well favored argument that smoking marijuana is not lethal, nor harmful if used correctly. Statistics regarding schizophrenia, decreased capabilities as well as cancer beg to differ. Also stating that smoking marijuana is not lethal is stupid. I could say that speeding is not lethal, what kills you is the crash. It is the stupidity that kills you, not the action. If someone is high and crashes their car, was it lethal then? Or was it the car accident that killed them? Think about it, if they weren't under the influence they most likely would not have crashed. Thus rendering this incorrect. As for the next point, that there is a large numbers of medical uses. Yes, that may be correct, but the number of disadvantages is higher than the number of advantages. Furthermore, this statement "and if you get medicated and fall asleep chances are when you wake up your not medicated anymore so these drug testing laws do more bad than good too since many lose their jobs to this." makes no linguistic nor logical sense. I think it is most certainly appropriate, living myself in a country with a large mining industry in which the workers are tested regularly and if tested positive will loose their job as they are endangering others, that there is a penalty for driving under marijuana influence, as it is as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol. I agree that synthetic marijuana is dangerous, but so is the real stuff. Also, as I have proven above, marijuana has killed plenty of people, indirectly. On the other hand there is a supposed increase of 75-289%, also including many kids. Stating that kids would not have access is incorrect, as shown once again by the case of Colorado, with an 26% increase in youth (12-17 years old) marijuana use since legalization. As I have also already stated there was an increase of 32% drug related suspensions since legalization. As I also have already stated, there is a difference in marijuana usage in legalized states to non legalized states, a 40% difference, meaning that there are 40% more teen marijuana users in states were marijuana is legalized than in other states. Also to note, that the top 16 states with monthly teenage marijuana use in 2012 were all states in which medical marijuana was legalized, with many having an over 100% difference than non medical marijuana states. This should prove the statement of restricted sale incorrect. In fact, teen users would increase dramatically. I will not argue that drug education is far from perfect, but this is often caused by uneducated pro marijuana advocates as well as their con counterparts. The thing is that experience does not necessarily create knowledge, meaning that only because you have smoked marijuana a couple of times does not mean you know anything about health issues or anything else like that, though this seems to be the opinion of many pro marijuana advocates. As for your Mexican statement, marijuana has been in U.S. history since as early as 1619 when by decree of King James I every colonist had to plant 100 plants for export. Marijuana was not brought from mexico, it was well present in society and used. The prohibition in the 1930's was a response to apparent increased usage of marijuana by teenagers of the time. And I am sure that teens pre the 20th century would have used it. The main source I used for this was a case analysis of the Colorado legalization. This is an unbiased source providing statistical evidence. (http://www.rmhidta.org...) In conclusion pro was not able to refute any of my statements brought forward in my opening statement and seemingly acted more with opinion than actual scientific evidence. Furthermore he was not able to dismiss the economics I proposed in my opening statement, nor had any comment about any of the health issues proven by science but seemingly just put out opinion, which thus refuted the majority comments he made in the 2nd round already in my opening statement without pros comments even been having made at the time.