Marijuana should be decriminalized

My opponent starts off with a strange comparison. 'As with drunk driving, marijuana is far too dangerous to be legalized.' - smoking marijuana is less dangerous than driving around in a vehicle while drunk. -smoking marijuana in the comfort of ones house poses no harm to others in the outside environment as drunk driving does. And decriminalizing marijuana does not mean that it is now okay to drive while high. The same as it is not okay to drive while drunk. It is also important to point out that my opponent is arguing that marijuana should not be legalized, when the debate is about decriminalization not legalization. That is, someone should not get a criminal record for possessing pot or smoking in their homes or other allotted areas. Legalization regards the ability of cultivate, manufacture and distribute the drug without penalty. This is a step further than decriminalization and not the subject of this debate. My opponent is correct to point out that marijuana does in fact carry a greater number of toxins than tobacco, but failed to say that nicotine in tobacco is far more addictive than any of the toxins in marijuana, thus leading to far more cigarettes being smoked which causes it to be a much more deadlier drug. We cannot label a drug more dangerous than another based on the quantity of toxins in each. The addictive properties must also be taken into account. In fact, most marijuana smokers are less than 30, and never continue the activity for a long enough period for it to have destructive effects on their lungs. Also, my opponent makes a false claim that marijuana smokers develop lung cancer as much as 24 years earlier than tobacco users. In fact, Dr.Naughton said that marijuana smokers 'may' develop lung cancer earlier, and his study do not bear much weight as Dr.Naughton's full methods will not be released until January due to Blackwell Publishing restrictions. From the abstract of his study, we learn that only 10 subjects were used. This was 10 people that showed up to the lab with recent respiratory symptoms. The symptoms varied between the 10 subjects. There is no mention that these were strictly marijuana smokers. It is possible that they were compound smokers (tobacco + marijuana). Also, the study has not been replicated, is very recent, and has too few participants to draw final conclusions from. I should also point out that the 10 participants in the study were termed 'chronic regular smokers'. This likely means daily smokers, as chronic tobacco smokers are usually regarded as daily smokers. I feel that this is not a fair comparison. We should compare the reality of the situation. Daily chronic marijuana usage is a rarity in the real world. We should not compare someone that smokes 20 cigarettes a day vs someone that smokes 20 joints a day. This is unrealistic. In the real world, many people smokes 20 cigarettes a day, but I have heard of no one that smokes 20 joints a day. We should compare the realities, and the reality is that since tobacco is much more addictive, more of it is smoked, causing more disease. Though the evidence is scant for the linkage of marijuana to depression and schizophrenia, it should be mentioned that in no way does the meta-analysis published in the Lancet prove that there is a casual relationship. I have studied neurobiology for 4 years at Memorial University, and leaders in the field are very skeptical of these findings. It should also be noted that those that developed psychosis likely had a predisposition to the illness. Thus, it is impossible to know whether it was due to the drug or whether it was genetic. This is likely the confounding variable that the authors mention in the Lancet. It should also be noted that marijuana has many positive qualities which medical practices in Canada have now acknowledged. It is used to help pain relief in cancer and arthritis patients. It is also prescribed to those with glaucoma. Marijuana has also been shown to reduce nausea. -(Health Canada) I should also point out that Canada leads the industrialized world in marijuana use (2007 World Drug Report by the United Nations), and still has a far lower crime rate compared to the US. So it is preposterous to claim that marijuana use results in increased crime rate. I believe it is absolutely ridiculous to jail someone for a petty 'crime' such as marijuana usage. Tax paying dollars should not be spent on locking away pot smokers, when far worse crimes are being committed. There is far too much wasted time spent on tracking down marijuana smokers, which could be shifted toward more severe problems, such as finding serial murderers. Also, if my opponent thinks banning drugs is the way to reduce crime, he should be opting for the criminalization of alcohol. Who are you more likely to see acting violent, someone high on weed or a drunk? The answer is obvious. Again, I am not opting for the legalization of marijuana but it is completely hypocritical to legalize alcohol and tobacco, and criminalize marijuana. There is also no concrete evidence that marijuana is a gateway drug, in fact Dr. Naughton who my opponent cited earlier regarded tobacco as more of a gateway drug than marijuana. Sure it is true that those that happen to have done hard drugs, have previously smoked marijuana. But we should not leave out that they had also previously smoked cigarettes, drank beer, and ate hamburgers. Why put the burden on marijuana? Just because someone done something prior to something else, does not mean that the prior activity caused the 2nd activity. This is where my opponent commits a causal fallacy. The decriminalization of marijuana does not mean that it would go unregulated. Certainly the federal government would outlaw driving under the influence, underage usage, and smoking in public places. Thus, many of my opponents other arguments are irrelevant to the debate.