Marijuana Should Be Legal

Rebuttals: (ugghh. Another rushed argument.) "He references glaucoma, and asserts marijuana can help those affected by this. However, the assertion is incredibly false. On glaucoma's website, Henry D. Jampel, MD, MHS, (the Odd Fellows Professor of Ophthalmology at the Wilmer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins, and a practicing glaucoma specialist) explains "Although marijuana can lower eye pressure, recommending it does not make sense given its side effects, short duration of action, and lack of evidence that its use alters the course of glaucoma." [1. http://www.glaucoma.org......] In the same article, he explains alternatives are better to assist the problem other than marijuana, which also comes with a host of problems." It was said that glaucoma is caused by eye pressure. Lower pressure would definitely heal the eye and give a chance of healing it, which doesn't make it "incredibly false". My opponent uses a source which concedes that it lowers eye pressure, which means it can cure glaucoma. "King also mentions other supposed "benefits" in smoking tobacco, but I won't bother rebutting these individually. Most of them have the same result as glaucoma A) they come with harmful side effects of smoking the drug, and B) there is almost always a superior method to use as an alternative to better help the problem at hand. Besides, arguing health benefits is largely illogical, as there are a plethora of harms including the following:" I never stated that tobacco has benefits, only that marijuana does. In this case, this does not refute my case considering the false statement. "While the substance itself isn't necessarily lethal, the side-effects of smoking the substance are very deadly. I mentioned harms in my first contention of my case as well as in my rebuttal. Preventing someone from smoking cigarettes is good," Marijuana isn't good, but it steers people away from tobacco and is the better alternative. I mentioned in my previous arguments that banning marijuana wouldn't work, and my opponent does concede that tobacco prevention is good. "While the substance itself isn't necessarily lethal, the side-effects of smoking the substance are very deadly. I mentioned harms in my first contention of my case as well as in my rebuttal. Preventing someone from smoking cigarettes is good," Business's going down and people illegally selling marijuana won't help. As I said, a ban wouldn't work. And since the choice is between marijuana and tobacco, we shall go with the substance that is not lethal. " Annually, the US spends roughly $180.9 billion on drug abuse [3. https://www.ncjrs.gov......] and medical expenses from cigarettes totalled a dizzying $170 billion per year. [4. http://www.prevent.org......] As I've shown marijuana has equal (and perhaps worse) effects than smoking, it's only reasonable to assume marijuana would result in the same medical costs (if not more)." That still isn't a lot of money compared to the amount that the industry makes. I'd say the sacrifices are definitely worth it. "This is really an absurd argument, but I'll address it nonetheless. This argument falls without much merit when weighed against economic detriments and health detriments not only to the individual smoking, but also to the people around them. This argument falls for two reasons: A) it's of virtually no significance when weighed against other, more impactful arguments and B) legalizing marijuana doesn't teach individuals how to grow the weed correctly, so the toxins can still be emitted." My opponent literally does not explain Point A at all, so we can just disregard it. As for Point B, that wasn't the point I made. My point was that more businesses would be open for people who could be professionals and could farm marijuana correctly. "My opponent concedes the drug is harmful, contrary to his previous statements." Just as you conceded that tobacco is bad for you and that marijuana is better. "He asserts we will have economic problems by illegalizing the drug. However, this is untrue. Not only does legalizing actually provide the detriments economically, the drug isn't widely legal anyways. It's only legal in a few states, which means HE'S trying to change the status quo of it being illegal, not the other way around." No. My evidence clearly shows how the industry makes more money then they spend. "The Prohibition isn't necessarily related, and regardless, it wouldn't change the status quo." It is in the fact that both beer and marijuana are addictive. "Legalizing marijuana will NOT decrease the amount of deaths when it causes cancer and increases the risk of heart failure." It can reverse those effects as well using medical marijuana, and it steers people from a drug that kills hundreds of people annually. " That, by definition, means it can't CURE cancer when it's a facilitator of the disease. It also indicates there is not evidence to support the view it can treat health problems when it causes them." But it can cure other diseases and does help fight cancer. Nothing can cure cancer. Should we just ban anything that can't cure cancer, when in reality, it's impossible? "My opponent claims the legalization would cause job losses and cause businesses to shut down. However, these jobs and businesses are not the kind we want, becuase by staying in operation, they continue to harm the lives of the recipients and the people around them." The amount of money the industry makes shows that this would be true. There would be less room for jobs and more poor people. "My opponent claims the legalization would cause job losses and cause businesses to shut down. However, these jobs and businesses are not the kind we want, becuase by staying in operation, they continue to harm the lives of the recipients and the people around them." "My opponent concedes that this example is a bad demonstration of marijuana. However, it's one of the very few (and until quite recently, was the only one) examples we CAN use. This means the implementation of a legalized marijuana policy has PROVEN itself harmful." You also conceded that marijuana was successful previously. So thus, one example doesn't convince me that it is bad for us in general. Conclusion: My opponent ignores a lot of my previous arguments and concedes lots of my points as well. As such, many of my arguments remain either unrefuted or weren't refuted well.