Marijuana Should Be Legal For Medicinal Purposes

My opponent raises various criticisms against my arguments, particularly concerning the medical benefits of the substance; he also presents contentions against the relativity of my alcohol/tobacco argument; therefore, I shall attempt address all such arguments herein.Alcohol and Tobacco:As my opponent rightly states, using the dangerous effects of alcohol and tobacco alone to advocate the medical legality of a particular substance is certainly insufficient to make my case; however, the point I am trying to make is that given marijuana's medical advantages, it should be a legal medical substance, especially considering that alcohol and tobacco are legal for recreational use.Obviously if my opponent effectively demonstrates that marijuana possesses no legitimate medical benefits, then his point is valid; however, seeing as how my position advocates the medically advantageous nature of marijuana, my argument should stand to be considered.Medical Benefits of Marijuana:Cancer:Here my opponent asserts that my original source took medical information out of context; however, I believe such a claim is simply incorrect. The medical article from which my source asserts the beneficial effects of marijuana on cancer states that "CBD [cannabidiol] represents the first nontoxic exogenous agent that can significantly decrease Id-1 expression in metastatic breast cancer cells leading to the down-regulation of tumor aggressiveness [1]."Given such information, it's perfectly accurate to claim that marijuana, which contains cannabidiol, provides beneficial effects for individuals suffering from cancer; moreover, contrary to what my opponent claims, CBD is indeed found in marijuana; in fact, it constitutes about 40% of its extracts [2].Moreover, as I've stated before, marijuana doesn't just help with breast cancer; rather, THC (a primary chemical found in marijuana) also helps destroy brain cancer cells [3], and research has provided immensely compelling evidence of marijuana's ability to reduce up to 50% of tumor growth in common lung cancer, as well as prevent the spread of the cancer significantly [4]. All of these studies have been conducted and confirmed by esteemed and authoritative universities, including Harvard, UCLA, and the University in Madrid, Spain.Not only does this information provide convincing evidence of marijuana's ability to prevent and treat cancer, but also puts my opponent's assertion that marijuana only serves as an anesthetic in serious doubt.Alzheimer's:Here my opponent again claims at marijuana is only an anesthetic, and asserts that the substance has no beneficial effects on individuals suffering from Alzheimer's; however, contrary my opponent's claims, marijuana has been found to inhibit amyloid plaque (a primary pathological marker) much more effectively than other currently medically approved substances. In fact, a study conducted by Scripps Research Institute and published in the Journal of Molecular Pharmaceutics states that THC is a "considerably superior inhibitor of [amyloid plaque] aggregation [5]."This information again refutes my opponent's claim that marijuana is only an anesthetic, as well as effectively demonstrates that individuals suffering from Alzheimer's do in fact experience medically beneficial effect as a result of using marijuana.My opponent also raises contentions concerning the fact that marijuana results in increased heart rate, as well as the fact that it contains up to 50-70% more carcinogens than tobacco; however, what my opponent has failed to mention is that no one has ever been reported to have died directly from marijuana use [6]; as such, my opponent has failed to establish that these side-effects present any real potential danger for users of the substance. Moreover, in 2006, a research team from UCLA found that marijuana did not exhibit any apparent risk of raising the chance of lung cancer in users [7].Multiple Sclerosis:Here my opponent contends that for individuals suffering from Multiple Sclerosis, marijuana doesn't actually treat the disease itself; but rather, one of its symptoms (spastic movement). Unfortunately, I don't see how this is a valid point when arguing against the position that marijuana should be legalized as a medical substance. Is my opponent asserting that medications which treat symptoms should not be legal for medical use? Surely he doesn't believe that there are no such things as medications which seek to treat the symptoms of diseases, rather than the diseases themselves.My opponent also raises further contentions concerning the "cognitive effects" which may result from marijuana use; however, as I've already stated my previous rounds, the evidence is not at all conclusive that there is any correlation between marijuana use and negative cognitive side-effects.Arthritis:Again, how is the fact that marijuana can't heal every single aspect of an ailment a valid argument against it being legalized as medical substance? Simply because marijuana works as a pain-killer in the case of arthritis (not as an end-all solution) is no reason to say that it shouldn't be legalized for medicinal use, especially considering the positive effects which have been reported as a result of marijuana use from people suffering from arthritis [8].Negative Side-Effects Associated With Marijuana:Carcinogens:As I've stated before, there are many ways to consume marijuana which do not include smoking it; therefore, this argument is moot. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier in this round, a research team from UCLA was unable to identify any apparent risk of increased chances of lung cancer in people who used marijuana.Immune-System Deficiency:My opponent again raises the contention that marijuana presents risks to an individual's immune system; however, I have already addressed this claim in the previous round. Allow me to quote myself:"Just as heart disease, the claim that marijuana use results in immune system deficiency is unsupported by any conclusive evidence. A review by Dr. Leo Hollister states that 'the evidence [on immune suppression] has been contradictory and is more supportive of some degree of immunosuppression only when one considers in vitro studies. These have been seriously flawed by the very high concentrations of drug used to produce immunosuppression. The closer that experimental studies have been to actual clinical situations, the less compelling has been the evidence.'"I also provided an interesting quote from norml.org last round on this matter. I encourage my opponent to read it again.Impaired Cognitive Functions:Many legal medications result in impaired cognitive functions, especially in various types of sleeping medications. As a report on pubmed.org states, "iatrogenically induced cognitive deficits are common with pharmacological therapy [9]."Unsafe Production:Unsafe production is the result of lacking regulation. With marijuana fully legalized as a medical substance and regulated by the food and drug administration, such a problem would no longer present a problem; therefore, I submit that my opponent's point is moot.I am not saying marijuana has no side-effects at all -- most medications do. But the benefits of marijuana far outweigh its faults.Given this information, I encourage voters to vote in favor of the resolution.________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...[4] http://www.sciencedaily.com...[5] http://www.scripps.edu...[6] http://www.webmd.com...[7] http://www.webmd.com...[8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[9] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...