Marijuana\Cannabis should be legalised for both medical and recreational purposes in the U.S.

"After looking at his links, [2] and [4] can be discarded as irrelevant. [2] simply cite some short-term effects of Marijuana, some of which (Feeling of well being, increased Appetite) are positive and some are irrelevant or trivial (Reddened eyes. Talkativeness). " The links were a list of short term health risks, however I also provided a list of long term health risks along with these links. [2] Had a list of long term risks. The claim that "feeling of well being" was a good thing was ludicrous. In the drug world, this would be called a "high". When abusers are in this state they are prone to taking risks and can often indulge in dangerous behaviour. It is also well known that any drug induced high is followed by a "low". This low may involve depressive thoughts and paranoia. My opponent states that I provide no evidence for any of my claims so on this post, I will include numerous sources. "However, even if his other claims were in fact true, it still does not warrant a ban of Marijuana, seeing as all harm is to the user and the user only. " This is a ridiculous claim. Just because a drug only affects the user directly, does it actually make it a victimless crime? Would the person held in its ,grip not be a victim? How about the friends and family of the abuser? Cannabis can cause an individual to push away previously close figures. [7][8][9][10] "I will not dispute the claim Marijuana can make one more unproductive, it is to the detriment of the Marijuana user if his employer fires them over missed days or productivity issues. " Here my opponent admits to the negative influence marijuana use can have on an abusers working life. My opponent also makes an attempt to debunk the "gateway drug" theory that I presented in my first argument. His quote from his source [4] does not deny marijuana as a gateway drug but rather uses an irrelevant statistic of cannabis users who use other drugs in comparison to cannabis users who don't. If my opponent meant to make a relevant point, then I ask him to clarify this. In his source [5] I am yet to find a gateway reference. Rather than refuting the gateway theory, my opponents source[6] admits it is a gateway drug. "In the sense that marijuana use typically precedes rather than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a "gateway" drug. But because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is rarely the first, "gateway" to illicit drug use. " His source [7] claims to cast doubt on the gateway theory and that is all it does. It only points out the doubt that any reasonable mind should feel when presented with a claim. I myself never claimed it was without doubt a gateway drug, but only claimed it might be. Even if it was not a stepping stone drug for all uses, It is irrefutable that some abusers of harder drugs may have made the transition through the use of cannabis. Next my opponent claims that legalizing cannabis would be a bad thing for drug lords as competition would rise in their line of business. "Furthermore, if Marijuana ales are regulated then these "drug lords" have the choice of entering a taxed, legitimate form of business, or remaining in an illegal business with risks. " Which is exactly my point. These drug lords will no longer have to do their "fundraising" behind the scenes. Under the proposed laws they can perform their work wherever they want to without fear of arrest. "My opponent assumes drug lords will have a monopoly on the Cannabis supply, which they won't. Marijuana can be imported by anyone to be sold in a business. " I make this assumption on the following projections 1) These drug lords have a head start on newcomers to the "industry". They already have well established, reliable producers of this drug. 2)The drug lords can expand their business without fear of arrests so it is in fact very easy to maintain a monopoly over the cannabis "industry. " Also, the producers of this drug would have field day, many of whom are hardened criminals and that have shady business outside of cannabis sale Of course these are only assumptions and I do not present this as evidence "Firstly, because Marijuana has health risks to the user does not mean it is not a victimless crime. The effects are restricted to the user and the user only. Secondly, Marijuana is used by a large portion of the US [8], and while Marijuana usage would probably increase with legalisation, the effects of the economy by Marijuana aren't detrimental as it stands. Furthermore, should a Marijuana user be unproductive and unpunctual they can be fired by their employer. " -As I pointed out earlier in my reply, cannabis addiction has multiple victims. -The effects on the economy may not be detrimental, but that does not mean it is a good thing. -Yet again my opponent shows the terrible affects on an individuals life marijuana use can have what if the abuser however, owns a business or a franchise? What if other people depend on the abuser? In conclusion, cannabis is indeed a very harmful drug and damaging to more than just the user, and my opponents claims of it being a victimless crime are nothing but incorrect. Marijuana/Cannabis should not be legalised. I eagerly await my opponents last post on this debate. . http://www.youtube.com... . http://drugabuse.gov... [2] . http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com... [3] . http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com... [4] . http://alcoholism.about.com... [5] . http://www.talkingaboutcannabis.com... [6] . http://www.nhs.uk... [7] . http://www.adequacy.org... [8] . http://www.talkingaboutcannabis.com... [9] . http://www.talkingaboutcannabis.com... [10]