Cannabis should be fully legalised to over 18's.

Thank you for your patience. Firstly I would compliment you on your well structured and well written argument. In your opening paragraph, correct me if I'm wrong, you hint that punishments are not relevant to discuss. They are fundamental to this debate. What is a law without enforcement? The reason marijuana users are concerned is because of the law: it makes it ridiculously expensive; it means just having some means finding remote areas that don't exist in some cities; traveling abroad on a plane is a nightmare, potentially stopping your holiday; being unable to work a proffesional career, with children, politics, law, or in medicine is life changing and hugely constraining; also the general discrimination felt is also a continual life stress, meaning one has to hide away a part of their lives to all but those who also take it. So the 'punishments' of illegality are not necessarily incarceration, but far more complicated. Suddenly you have a section of the population severely discriminated by modern standards, criminalised and marginalised because they do something (as you put it) do something potentially harmful. I agree that it's best not to do get addicted to cannabis, but is this the best way to achieve this goal? You also mention alcohol, claiming that it does not impact marijuana legality. I argue it can, for the those who may have turned to cannabis, if it had been legal, may not have drank alcohol. Therefore perhaps, one of the 400 fatal domestic accidents per year, one third of the fires, 16% of the road deaths or one quarter of the work-based accidents may have been avoided (1). Overview of my opponents argument: My opponent applies a clear logic to a matter that may be more complicated. The notion that the government ought to ban practices that are potentially harmful seems reasonable at first sight, but in practice do good theories always work out when populations are involved? I would suggest socialism, prohibition and divorce: all make sense on paper but do not work out exactly how they were supposed to in practice. Notice also, that these three proved failures are examples of the state forcing behaviour on the populations personal lives as a result of an ideology of perfectionism. This is mirrored in cannabis prohibition. My opponents first argument. The U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from harm. I agree. However, the right balance freedom must be sought, the government should not incarcerate extreme sports athletes, footballers, rugby player, boxers etc. Nor those with a sweet tooth, those who enjoy a drink or even like driving a car. That would be absurd wouldn't you agree? Yet all are arguably more dangerous and some are definitely far more dangerous and damaging than even strong addictions to marijuana. My first argument counters this by suggesting that making it illegal actually causes more harm. Second argument. Cannabis can be harmful. Despite the absurd hints that cannabis can make you a murderor, which I fear discredit your position, your case for marijuana being harmful I do not dispute. Though your evidence is poor, as a result of the difficulty in studying the effects of marijuana outside the social context of those people more likely to turn to drugs, I will not entertain a long discussion about the health risks as it's widely accepted by authorities and science that cannabis is not even close to alcohol, tobacco and sugar in terms of health risks. This is significant because this debate is about the mortality of discrimination and prejudice on the grounds of an ideological standpoint. My arguments Making it illegal makes addiction worse and causes more harm, countering my opponents first argument. Firstly it makes it less possible that people will come forward for help with their addiction-resulting in more harm from addiction. Secondly, as I have mentioned above, users are marginalised, forced into lowly work and are discriminated by mainstream society. This oppression and marginalisation obviously increases depression and the likelihood of turning the drugs as a coping strategy, increasing addiction, increasing the chances of going onto dangerous drugs and thusly causing more harm to the individual and society at large. Being criminals makes people marginalised as I have repeatably mentioned, this is a causal factor in depression and other mental health problems. This means more harm will be inflicted on the individual and society. Overview My opponents argument works on paper. If cannabis could be eradicated then it would be different, but only incredibly harsh penalties and literal 'war' on drugs would be neccesary for this to be a reality. I'm sure my opponent would agree this would cause more harm than could be justified. However, even if cannbis could be eradicated, it wouldn't stop the problem of addiction which comes from the person not the drug or action. And, as cannabis is less harmful than many of the other potential addictive behaviours, maybe it would be be better they had that than others. (1) https://www.drinkaware.co.uk...