Legalization of Marijuana

My argument was not a stretch. Not only is your assertion that “alcohol is less likely to cause long-term damage on your body and has no chance of causing long-term damage on your brain” unsupported and false ([1]), but it still remains irrelevant because you have not demonstrated that prohibition decreases use (and I have demonstrated that it can even increase use). Also, if the government is to determine its policies on the premise that its responsibility is to prevent people from doing things that could cause themselves harm, then it does indeed imply authoritarianism because the government would have to ensure, among many other things, that everyone remains on a government-approved maximum of things like grams of fat, percentage of trans fat, percentage of saturated fat, grams of non-complex carbohydrates (sugars), etc. Your point about police not needing to deal with people driving while high since they already have to deal with people drunk driving is null and void because it assumes both that marijuana use would increase in general and that marijuana use while driving would increase. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more than 11 percent of weekend, nighttime drivers who were pulled over tested positive for illicit drugs. [2] People are already driving under the influence of drugs and you cannot presume that legalizing marijuana will increase the number of people already doing so. 1. You assert that the dangers of marijuana are relevant, but you didn't actually refute my argument that they are not. Rather, you merely contradicted me and moved on. The fact is, marijuana's dangers are only relevant if you can demonstrate that legalizing marijuana would increase its use, which you have not done. The dangers that you did elaborate, however, are untrue. You argued that unlike fast food, marijuana changes people permanently after long-term use, which has an impact on society as a whole. This couldn't be more untrue of fast food, which is a big contributor to the obesity epidemic in the United States today. To argue that marijuana is having a worse impact on society than fast food is simply dishonest. Your final point here was that parents wouldn't want their kids to see public smoking of marijuana. This is somewhat of a separate discussion, since tobacco use is legal but prohibited in public in many areas. However, in either case, it is the responsibility of the parent to allow their child to see or not see someone smoking in public. 2. You argue that legalizing prostitution or theft would reduce crime as well but only because the definition of crime has changed. This is a false comparison, however, because legalizing marijuana would not reduce crime simply because the definition has changed. Rather, crime would be reduced because there would be less gang violence and murder. Both before and after the legalization, murder and violence would be criminal. Also, drug cartels would find ways around a wall at the southern border. The only way to put them out of business is to eliminate their black market. That's how we got rid of the gang violence from the Al Capones, and that's the only way we're going to get rid of the violence from drug gangs. 3. You provide a solution consisting of enrollment in rehabilitation programs as an alternative to putting someone in jail. Ironically, this is the definition of decriminalization (the abolition of criminal penalties), which is the word you have been using to describe what you are arguing against. 4. I am glad we agree that THC-free strains of cannibis should be legal. However, currently the United States government makes no distinction between the many strains, which is an important note to be aware of when stating that you support the prohibition of cannibis. Your final point is that “it is not rational, wise, or honorable to use drugs recreationally for the purpose of getting high”. I agree with such a statement, but like I have said, such a statement is utterly irrelevant to our debate. Your argument presumes both that it is the government's responsibility to prohibit self-endangering behavior and that government prohibition will be effective in reducing such a behavior. Both of these things are untrue, as I have argued and demonstrated. Thanks to Con for the debate! [1] http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov... [2] http://www.drugabuse.gov...