Marijuana should be legalized

In this round I will conclude and explain why all of my opponent's rebuttals have entirely failed. I'm not going to tell you how to vote on anything, but I will say that I did not intentionally misrepresent any of my sources - indeed, I didn't even unintentionally misrepresent them. Rather than give in to pro's rant, readers should check sources for themselves. I did make one honest error in round one but that was cleared up in the comments. Additionally, aside from sources, the second way to back statements up is logic. I've been using plenty of logic to substantiate my case. Many of my opponent's statements, however, has neither logic nor sources. I'll be counting all the unsubstantiated assertions my opponent made last round. Additionally, many of my opponent's sources were from lobby groups (ie drugwarfacts) and are thus unreliable and should be ignored (although I'll refute their wild claims anyway). I would like voters to take note, however, that while I addressed every one of my opponent's points in this debate, my opponent refuses to address many of mine. For instance, he ignored second-hand smoke, increasing insurance charges, higher taxes for non-users, and the moral reprehensibility of cannabis in many communities, among many others. That's not fair to me. That shows he fears confronting the issues. I specifically asked him to use the last round to rebut the remainder of my points, and despite the opportunity, introduced no new arguments as a gesture to help him. All this my opponent ignored. I can't debate if my opponent won't respond to what I say. Economic BenefitI've given half a paragraph of logic, and multiple sources, stating why marijuana has never raised tax revenue. I even quoted one of these sources in round two. My opponent, on the basis of a single source with estimates and some maths even he admits is probably shaky, has determined marijuana will raise millions. However, estimates can be wrong. My sources both explain why the estimate is wrong and give evidence for it, such as the experience of Amsterdam. Oh, wait, Amsterdam is a different country, so they'll be different, right? UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION. Not only that, but I provided 3 examples from very different economies, one of which was Alaska. My sources had even more examples I could have used. The result has always been the same everywhere. Finally, yes, law enforcement costs are a cost of marijuana. On to employment. The reason why the number of marijuana dealers and growers isn't reported is because the government doesn't know how many people are doing crime. My opponent tries to counter that by saying the only marijuana growers today are medicinal. UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION. Plus I told you job gains in one sector will be met by losses in another. Then he states there is no correlation between marijuana use and a long list of stuff, such as sick days. UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION. Plus I gave you sources to the contrary. Note I didn't state marijuana users eat less, I said they will be able to spend less if they give up some of their income on marijuana. Maybe they'll go to McDonald's instead of buying from the local organics shop. That has health harms too, but it mainly hurts certain sectors of the economy. To refute that logic, my opponent states businesses won't suffer. UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION, refuted by my logic. Personal AutonomyThis last round my opponent argues the US constitution gives everyone absolute personal liberty, with no restrictions on what I can do with body. UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION. I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure the constitution does NOT say people have absolute personal liberty. Indeed, if I remember correctly, the articles of the constitution do not mention "liberty" at all. That's the declaration of independence. I invite readers to check the constitution for themselves, I might be wrong. My opponent talks at length about the need to be consistent with legislation, and how the government can't pick and choose. I've already told you I agree, and that we should ban all industries that cause excessive harm, rather than legalise them all. That's yet another point pro ignored. Health BenefitsMy opponent states you need all of marijuana to fight cancer. UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION. I also cited 3 scientific studies proving THC can do it on its own. My opponent also states marijuana cannot be abused. UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION. My opponent keeps ignoring the side effects and talking of zero deaths, a figure taken from a source that was itself making an unsubstantiated assertion. I'll bet the figure for road deaths caused by Benedril is much lower than for cannabis. Note my opponent has dropped cancer self-medication. On AIDS self-medication, that's my point exactly, when people SELF medicate they often don't know the smoke is harmful so they smoke it. Not to mention that getting cancer is a life sentence if you have AIDS. Individual harmsI've already proven why an age limit won't be effective. My opponent has continuously asserted it will work, ignoring all my sources, evidence, and logic. Looks like I've found another UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION. My opponent states anything can be mentally addictive. UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION. My source makes it clear marijuana is much more mentally addictive than most other drugs. My opponent notes his source states people don't lose concentration so don't suffer in education. My source contradicts that. Think about it logically: if you have less time to study because you can't really study when you're high, will your grades go up or down? He then states the gateway effect is nonsense because creepy drug dealers go away. UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION. What incentive does the creepy drug dealer have to go away? I've provided several examples refuting my opponent's claim, several sources refuting his claim, and explained all this several times. Also, I've already explained the numbers were not too small to be statistically significant. Family/FriendsApparently there is no link between stealing and marijuana. UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION. If anyone should know if there's a link, it would be the police. Take a look at what police say in my source. Also, my family and friends point was much bigger than that, but my opponent doesn't seem to see the need to refute the rest of my points. Indeed both this point and the next are only briefly thrown in to the conclusion. SocietyLobbying and corruption in every industry? UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION. The fishing industry has been around for much longer than the tobacco industry, but one is much more corrupt than the other. ConclusionMy opponent has not only completely ignored my points, but even dropped several of his own. When he did refute my points, this was inevitably with a series of premises that I had often already refuted. I have not dropped a single point in this debate. I have used a combination of clear sources, multiple real-life case studies and unrefuted logic to rebut my opponent's arguments. Just look at how many unsubstantiated assertions my opponent made last round. When it comes to voting for sources, arguments or conduct, take none of the lies my opponent said about me or my links for granted. This is an important debate. Most of my opponent's arguments - personal autonomy, economic benefit etc - could be used to legalise heroin or methamphetamine. My opponent constantly reiterates the need to be consistent, so let's make a choice. Do we want to live in a society with drugs completely legalised? A world run by the mafia? A world of disease and poverty, where (in defence of "liberty") millions are made mind slaves to invasive, dangerous plants and synthetic drugs? Or do we want to learn from our mistakes of the past? Do we want to learn that marijuana is neither necessary nor desirable, for it taxes the people and the government alike? I know which option I would prefer. The choice is yours.