Marijuana Legalization

I can see that before we continue we are going to have to define "Drugs". There are four scientific divisions: Narcotics, hallucinogens, stimulants and depressants. There are two modes of dependencies - psychoactive drugs and physical dependency drugs (many are both). Marijuana is officially classed as a "Psychoactive hallucinogen," though Wiki proclaims, "...cannabis exhibits a mix of all properties." Alcohol, on the other hand, does not fall under any of these classifications because it is NOT a drug. Tobacco also is NOT a drug. Hence, neither of these can be compared to marijuana because they do not apply. Hence, it is ludicrous to compare the two, since one is basically comparing a potent substance of a different class to both alcohol and tobacco (I am referring to tobacco in the essence, without nicotine or other additives). Does either alcohol or tobacco cause hallucinations? Of course not! Though an abuse of alcohol will alter brain functions, one will never hallucinate - though an image will become distorted. It would be most accurate to compare Opium to marijuana. Opium has been utilized longer and more frequently than marijuana - it was even children's medication under labels such as, "Mother's Helper" in the 1800s. When comparing, opium is found to be a less harmful substance - why not legalize opium and maintain marijuana at its illegal status? Because everybody wants marijuana. Why does everybody want marijuana? they want to feel only the unsteadiness and hallucinations of marijuana - because they're addicted. Why do people want to legalize it? To become high. Why do they want to become high? Because they're addicted. Why not choose something legal? Because only marijuana can satisfy the addiction. What happens when marijuana does not entice any longer? Move onto meth or cocaine. Let us ask one more question - Will legalizing marijuana better or benefit society as a whole? The only possible debate is that it will eliminate one small segment of the drug war (but not the rest of it). And I've already given reasonable debate that the drug wars will not cease but rather increase. Does marijuana benefit any healthy individual? No! One other point: note the two images at the beginning of the videos in the "history of weed". Do either of those two look like productive citizens? No, they both look like they're mentally dead, as does the woman in the first video who adamantly advocates marijuana (Looks like she's an abuser). The guy in history video one is obese, shaggy and high -likely also a vagrant. That is an accurate description of many marijuana abusers. I have been reading extensively about child soldiers, and there are two substances that are integral to the effectiveness of these children - marijuana and "Brown Brown". Once the children are dulled to the reality and pain, they become ruthless soldiers. But worse, when they are being rehabilitated, they endure tense withdrawal - they crave marijuana and will desperately attempt anything for a smoke - even rolling regular paper and imagining it, "I craved marijuana so badly that I would roll a plain sheet of paper and smoke it." (Beah, 139) Furthermore, it is ludicrous that any correlation be drawn between hemp farms and the practical reasons hemp is used for and smoking the harmful substance. Yes, Virginia etc etc etc. authorized hemp farms, but hemp has had and still does have dozens of practical uses that are not related to smoking whatsoever. In World War II, hemp was utilized for equipment and rope - it made camouflaged gear quite easily. Also, it is absurd to state, "So and so used it, so it must be okay." This is a folly that everybody should realize. This does not mean that marijuana does not have potent negative affects. Mark McGuire and Jose Canceco utilized steroids. does that make steroids acceptable and legal? Stephen King sniffed cocaine, Dr. Timothy Leary risked LSD. I suppose we should be legalizing the psychedelic mushrooms, then, eh? Dr. Burke can proclaim that he suspects George Washington, Andrew Jackson or President Reagan were users, but nowhere is there definitive proof of any of these people doing so. George Washington is primarily speculative - gained by two tidbits of information drudged up by hopefuls in an effort to advocate legalization. All of these are allegations are merely theories and hopes unless an account has been drudged up. Lincoln and Adam were definitely two who smoked "Sweet hemp", in their pipe, which would also mean that the amount of THC would be about 60% less than it is now. Furthermore, supposing that Washington and several of his other colleagues did smoke hemp on a regular basis (I am firmly convinced that he, Jefferson, Jackson and Madison, at least, did not. Or, if they did it was for "medicinal purposes". Washington complained of back pains and marijuana is likely to numb the feeling.), is it not wondrous that the other 31 did not compromise their morals and smoke hemp at all in their livelihoods? My opponent fails to assert why the cartels' expansion would be 'rubbish'. Do any of you actually believe that the cartels are going to give up the trade if it is legalized? Of course not! Chances are that they will forcibly assault or threaten legal dealers in order to maintain a monopoly. They would not allow "Regulated" marijuana to consume their market. This is a preposterous assertion. Rather, the cartels will just expand their war to include government dealers and legislators. Or, of course, the "regulation" will soon become corrupt as the Government agencies are infiltrated and "Legal" marijuana funnelled into black market sources. "The spending of money, which we don't have, to suppress the use of this substance that shouldn't be suppressed in the first place is insanity when we could actually be creating wealth from it's legalization." My opponent is hereby suggesting that we compromise our morals and create vast amounts of revenue by ruining lives. How many people will thence be applying for welfare, as they can't motivate themselves to work. How many people will be clogging the hospitals and clinics with the problems that marijuana will cause? How much harm will it do economically when quality decreases because nobody cares due to the fact that they're all "Stoned"? Furthermore, how many innocent or impressionable people will be purchasing this? How many families and relationships will be ruined? Alcohol already devastates families - lets not let marijuana do the same. Armies will easily gain marijuana and will brutally shoot civilians due to the fact that they know no morals while they're drugged. Child soldiers will be employed evermore because the marijuana supply to sustain them will be easier. Would you personally like to "aid the economy" by selling marijuana to a rebel group in Uganda? The Government already forces us to adhere to moral behaviour and decency. It is due to the proven fact that if people are left to their own devices, anarchy rules, murder and crime prevail. This is proven. Hence we need laws to remain a civilized society. These laws dictate careful behaviour, drug limitations, legal and illegal activities etc. In fact, the law is even beginning to interfere regarding obesity and health relevance due to the fact that people are too lazy to monitor themselves and their families - or care. The Government forces such proclamations such as "Peanuts added" into peanut butter jars, or "Hot" onto coffee cups because people find loopholes in the law and exploit it. Marijuana infringes the law and morality, and it is up to the government to prevent people from causing more harm to themselves, as they are too irresponsible or addicted to do it themselves. * http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... "A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier" by Ishmael Beah. http://www.cbc.ca...