TBD: To Be decided by Con.

I'm going to refute all the statements made by opponent and then mention all the points he failed to refute that I offered. I extend all those arguments. I am going to go line by line. I know this makes it larger and more likely to unread, but I don't want to miss any points. PRO said: Marijuana-Cannabis is not FDA approved because its so spasmodic with it's results. That's why Marinol is used instead. However, since Marijuana-Cannabis is illegal NOW, then my previous attack stands. My opponents central thesis is falwed. CON rebuts: Two points on this issue: a.The issue of this debate is /should/, meaning that the burden here is to show that the FDA shouldn't allow this form of medication. Using the fact that they don't to justify that they /shouldn't/ is illogical. b.My opponent has not shown any evidence of the ‘spasmodic' qualities of marijuana, simply making the statement that it is thus does not make it so PRO said: My opponent gives an example where you can buy Marinol for like $1,000. However, this site is if your buying DIRECTLY through that company. The 3 factors I have given brought the cost down to about $200 (According to the US Health Department) Thus you can drop her cost argument. CON rebuts: I refuted each of his arguments which were insurance- not all Americans have insurance, governmental assistance- most adults between 19-65 don't qualify, and type of disease already quantified as cancer in the resolution. My argument stands. PRO said: She wants to stop the nausea of a cancer patient. However, I believe there is a bigger issue. The PAIN a cancer patient goes through. My opponent says my 2 alternatives: A)Pill (Marinol) and B) Liquid for Marijuana should not be used because it doesn't treat nausea entirely. This is important to note. I provided the link to Marinol's website proving that the intended PUPROSE of the medication was to relieve nausea. It doesn't really matter what my opponent or I would LIKE to see relieved, smoked cannabis does the job Marinol is SUPPOSED to do better. Because of this fact the rest of his statement does not matter. PRO said (re: Marinol does a poorer job of relieving nausea than does inhaled cannabis): This may be true. CON rebuts: that, in my opinion counts as a concession. PRO said: Cannabis does have some medical benefits. However, it's extremely spasmodic. That's why the FDA won't approve of it. The FDA can't approve the use of Marijuana because the DEA has it listed as a schedule 1 drug with no medicinal uses. The AMA strongly fought against this classification in 1937 http://blogs.salon.com.... The FDA can not allow medical trials of the drug because of this classification. Due to the fact that PRO has conceded that there is in fact medical value to marijuana and that the lack of inclusion by the FDA is more related to the ‘war on drugs' than on competent testing that resulted in proof of ‘spasmodic' properties. The fact is that the FDA has absolutely no say in this issue until congress repeals the law classifying marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. PRO said: Making an artificial version would be much more effective. I.e. Pills and Liquid form. Also, expanding artificial marijuana use would open more jobs. =) Just wanted to through that in there. CON rebuts: it provides jobs at the expense of the patients receiving necessary medication. PRO's contention I: Marinol Pills, (a)Reduces pain and suffering, (b)Lasts longer, (c)Approved by the FDA CON rebuts A) irrelevant as that is not it's purpose (B) countered by the length of time it takes to take effect, basically this is one not a point for either side as it depends on what one would prefer, quick or long lasting (C) Irrelevant in a /should/ debate. In other words everything is a non issue. PRO's contention II: Liquid Form Marijuana A) Reduces pain and suffering B) Lasts longer C) Approved in Britain D) Cost effective CON rebuts: A) does nothing for nausea; b)see Ib c)irrelevant D) unproven. I asked PRO to provide a price list whereby we could determine the actual cost of the product. He did not do so; therefore his claim of reduced price is unsubstantiated and can not be counted. Points for CON that have gone unrefuted: I.The US government has provided cannabis to those in need in the past, and only stopped when the requests became so large as to be unsustainable for the government. II.My cost analysis of actually ordering the product stands as PRO was unable to prove there were lower cost options available to ALL cancer patients. III.Allowing marijuana to be available by prescription to cancer patients would not increase crime, nor is that a just consideration in determining the benefits of a medication. IV.Sativex does nothing to relieve the nausea and vomiting of cancer patients. Ladies and Gentlemen I would refer you back to the resolution: Cancer patients should not be allowed to smoke marijuana to relieve their symptoms I have shown 2 related symptoms, nausea and vomiting, which PRO admits CAN be relieved by the smoking of marijuana. I have also shown that these patients SHOULD have inhalation as an option of delivery method for 3 reasons: 1.it is more effective 2.It costs less 3.it acts faster My opponent has failed to rebut several of my points, and has failed to provide the evidence needed to make his case (ie cost of savitex, lower cost of marinol). In light of PRO's inability to defend his case with proof, and CON's ability to provide source information on every contention made, a CON vote is clearly the logical choice.