Cannabis Legalization

I will start my rebuttal by reviewing my opponents case and from there, make clarifications on my points. First, I will accept my opponents definition of Cannabis. I will start my rebuttal my reviewing the lack of proper evidence my opponent has en stiled, they have used sites such as "thegooddrug.com" and "newcannabisclub.net" in my mind, these sources are unreliable so I will dismiss this point from my opponent for lack of proper evidence. My opponents Second point (Sub point A) states: "The industrialization of cannabis, will bring about a heartless, faceless, lifeless, machine." Tobacco is legal to persons over the age of 18, my opponent goes on to state that this action has already happened to tobacco. If tobacco (a more harmful substance then cannabis) is legal, then why can't Cannabis? My opponent's second sub-point goes on to state how the united states exploits weaker cultures and markets for a profit, however, this ties into this debate in no way whatsoever, so it is pointless to attack it. My opponent attacked my first point by going into morale's, and goes onto state " Is it right to make money off of something that is harming that person" when in reality, Cannabis is a non-addictive drug (as proven by multiple medical studies) and is less harmless to pregnant women, some of the most fragile people of all, aside from the elderly, infants, and physically disabled. My opponent has again failed to recognize the positive affects of cannabis and instead has decided to use falsified evidence in an attempt to re-butte my case. On my opponents attack on my second point, they have lacked proper evidence to support their theory that cannabis is worse for your health then cigarettes. However, I can provide evidence (from The Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Drugs, Series 2, (c) 1998) that states the following: " It is quite clear from survey data that most people do not become physically dependent on marijuana. The majority use it as others use alcohol - to relax occasionally and to indulge a festive mood. How can a mild intoxicant, taken less than once a day by most users, be seen as a public threat?" I have provided evidence that Cannabis is NOT addictive, rather, other illegal substances in it (such as cocaine) are what may cause it to become addictive. It's not the cannabis itself. As for the Evidence to back my first point, Adams, Leon; "Marijuana". Encyclopedia International. Vol 11. pp. 365-347. Lexicon Publications. Philippines, 1979: "The federal budget would benefit in two ways, Federal revenues would increase, because marijuana cigarettes would be taxed at the point of sale. The companies that make the cigarettes would also pay income taxes, adding to the federal coffers. Seconds, there would be a reduction in the amount spent on law enforcement efforts to apprehend and prosecute users and sellers of marijuana. The drug enforcement authorities might reduce their budget requests, or, more likely, focus more intensely on hard drugs and violent crimes. The courts would be relieved of hearing some drug cases, as well. The most important gain would be in the quality of government. The sorts of temptations and opportunities that lead to corruption would be significantly minimized. The illogical pattern of law enforcement, which now considers marijuana as being more dangerous than alcohol, would end. It would set more achievable goals for law enforcement, and this would lend strength and credibility to the government." So, I have reviewed all evidence and come to the conclusion that cannabis legalization is truly in the United States' best interest. So fourth, I strongly urge a pro ballot.