Cannabis Legalization

The videos to the right are my sources (11) an (15) respectively.1.a) First, I have already brought into question any DEA based sources.Association (as you said) does not place marijuana as the causative factor ofdepression, assuming it does is committing the fallacy of confusing associationwith causation (4). My source elaborates on this (1). There simply is noevidence that marijuana causes one to be depressed. I also point you to thefollowing sources for your comment on driving abilities (2), (3). Given theserefutations, I must ask, what is the difference between neglecting life to gethigh and neglecting life for the internet? What about someone damaging theirhealth and getting diabetes from a candy addiction? What difference does thefact that it is a drug make?c) Again, it should be recognized that the DEA is not a truly reliable sourcefor anything drug related they have special interest on the subject, as pointedout in the preceding round. Besides this, my opponent and his source (as seenin his quote) again confuse association with causation (4). They (and all otherrelated studies) fail to provide evidence proving marijuana as a causativefactor to the amotivational syndrome (5). His second quote on the subject makesthis same mistake with all the adversities they associate with weed. Is it notlogical that a personality type that would have poor grades, be lazy, and"low academic intentions," would also be the type that smokes weed?d) Again, con and his sources fail to provide a causative link between cannabisand other drugs which confuses association with causation (4). As a result, myclaim that there is NO evidence proving a CAUSUAL link stands. My sourcesupports this (I can provide millions more if needed) (6).e) Firstly, impaired perception and motor skills is a known and accepted sideeffect of getting intoxicated and I have addressed its effect on accidents. Howdo these affects adversely impact a responsible user? The paranoia is mild andoften is limited to whether or not the user will be caught (make it legal tofix that). Cannabis does not make one paranoid about aliens or other suchunreasonable things as prohibitionist would have you believe. My sourcecomments on the rare occurrence of psychosis; "Cannabis psychosis isself-limiting, disappearing in a few days with or without medical treatment. Toxic psychosis probably occurs more commonly in individuals with preexisting psychiatric disorders (7)." Panic is often caused by a user consuming more than they can handle, which is easily avoidable and responsibility of which falls onto the user. Refer to my source for support (it is the first myth) (8).f) Your whole fact paragraph is nothing but unsupported conjecture that we haveno reason to believe, you even acknowledge that it is theoretical at end. Evenstill, I must point out that the major flaw with your argument is that manyyouth are recruited by drug dealers to sell to their friends. The majority ofyouth purchases are between youth. Also, the age restriction prevents youthfrom easily purchasing from stores as you suggest. Your alcohol argument is laughable at best. Your source provides that 70% ofteens below 18 have had at least one drink in their lifetime, alcohol being aperfectly legal substance. However, with marijuana, “Marijuana is the mostcommonly used illicit drug in the United States, with nearly 17 millionAmericans age 12 and older reporting pastR08;month use” (9). About 17 millionusers a month, the two are not comparable with regards to prevalence. Onceagain I point con to my source on the matter for further support (10).2.a) You do not address the topic in your response so I assume you cannot addressit. However, all of your attacks on my sources are weak and invalid. This isfor two reasons. First, my opponent does not provide reason to doubt mysources, he only attacks their irrelevant past actions and affiliations thathave nothing to do with the topic, and therefore, commits the fallacy of Adhominem (4). Second, my sources do not present arguments; they present facts asthey stand (unlike your DEA sources). Regardless of one’s credential orcredibility, facts are constant. My attacks on con’s DEA sourcesare basedon facts that provide reason to doubt the motives/intentions of the agency andthe credibility of their claims.b) Agreed, however I would like to point out for the voters that my past roundsources specifically counter my opponent’s sources on the matter.c) A majority of studies are of the government or some anti-weed group tryingto find something wrong with cannabis. Very few studies truly help us understandand utilize this amazing plant and all its unbelievable potential, its illegalpractically everywhere anyway. Take the example I gave last round for instance.Or, the fact that cannabis naturally kills cancer cells, which I'm sure youdidn't know (give the video only 10 minutes of your time please) (11). Were itbetter studied, we would have fully utilized this amazing ability and all wouldbe aware of it.d) The question was not is weed illegal, the question was what about aresponsible adult using weed in their homes or in another accepted location(pot clubs or whatever) is criminal. Rather, what about those actions deservesfor it to be illegal. Also, legalizing weed would not somehow condone illegal activity;we have no reason to believe this. And, your claim of majority favoringprohibition is false (12). Even if it wasn't false, my opponent would be committingthe fallacy of argumentum ad populum (13). e) Finally, your connection to gambling is unfounded. Why would cannabis have thesame effect as gambling? We have no reason to believe such an absurdcomparison. Cannabis legalization would more than likely mimic there-legalization of alcohol because both are intoxicating substances, whilegambling is an act dealing with money. Besides we have much more sensible reason to believe the opposite as my source provides (15).g) This is the first Google result from "weed facts" (14). All of thenegative information is misleading, much of it I have addressed in this debate,and there is no mention of its many amazing benefits.3.Smoking is an act, but marijuana itself is a good. Putting salt on your food isan act, but salt itself is a good. It is a good, long before it is an act, andhas effect on society as such. A good has demand, while an act ITSELF does not.Sources(1) http://www.mayoclinic.com... (2) http://www.drugpolicy.org...(3) http://norml.org...(4) http://www.theskepticsguide.org...(5) http://www.drugscience.org...(6) http://www.drugwarfacts.org...(7) Lynn Zimmer, PhD, late Professor Emeritus at the Queens College, noted inher 1997 book Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts:(8) http://ssdp.truman.edu...(9) http://pioneerparticulars.areavoices.com...(10) http://www.erowid.org... (11) http://www.youtube.com...(12) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...(13) http://www.fallacyfiles.org...(14) http://www.abovetheinfluence.com...(15) http://www.youtube.com...