Marjuana should be legal with a few restrictions.

Rebuttal #’s:#1, #2, #3My opponent insists upon the same point he has previously made; rebutted long ago.The example we’ve latched onto seems to be whether marijuana is a factor in auto accidents. I have given two sources showing it is. My opponent counters with an article claiming fatal accidents decreased after several states legalized medical marijuana. I am highly skeptical of this relationship. Legalizing the plant for purely medical use would create only a small amount of new users, since a person would need a valid prescription to obtain it. It’s nonsensical to assume that the drastic reduction in car accidents was brought about by this small addition of prescribed users, when a large amount of people were already using the substance illegally, with no reduction in auto accidents. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. It is much more likely that the reduction in fatal crashes was brought about by a different determinant, then immediately snapped up by legalization activists/the media who saw the opportunity to use it as an interesting story/fuel for their cause.He again suggests that this “large social cost” of alcohol isn’t shared with marijuana. I have cited two separate studies proving this claim to be false. While perhaps alcohol-related accidents are more frequent, alcohol is consumed more often:“Over half of Americans ages 12 and up report that they are current drinkers [1]”Considering America’s current population, this is over 150 million people, as opposed to about “17.4 million” marijuana smokers (assuming Pro’s sourceless claim is correct). Why, you ask, is alcohol so much more popular? Because drinking alcohol is in accordance with laws and societal conventions. Were marijuana legalized, the percentage of users would likely increase to a figure similar to that of alcohol. More marijuana related accidents would surely follow, considering the interrelation I have cited.Poor judgement and general laziness are widely known effects of smoking marijuana [2]. This lapse in judgment will logically lead one into committing crimes that they normally wouldn’t (like in this case, for example [3]). It is estimated that lost workplace productivity is one of the greatest social costs of alcohol [4]. Obviously, intoxication in the workplace is illegal; yet it is still a problem. Due to primary effects of marijuana such as laziness, the workplace-impact of legalizing this substance would logically be even more severe, whether it is legal to use at one’s job or not.#4All this context does is make a case for the prohibition of these legal drugs. Again, if decriminalization of marijuana would cause FURTHER harm to society, why should it matter if a more damaging substance is legal? Things will only get worse. Your example is a poor one. Neither computer brand has universal drawbacks, hence this does not relate to a debate about drug legalization. A more accurate example would be this: Hypothetically, if murder were legal, by my opponent’s logic, it would help to legalize rape, assault, burglary, and everything less damaging than murder. Whether or not the initial situation makes sense, action of this sort would be a further detriment to society, as is the case with legalizing marijuana, when something worse is already legal. #5I have made a case for the existance of social costs such as increased crime, increased motor vehicle accidents, and lost workplace productivity (see points #1,#2,#3). This point is null and void.#6I had cited sources for those claims previously in this debate (see [4] for brain deterioration, and [5] for links to cancer), and you acknowledged them afterward (see #6/#8 of Pro’s round 3 statement).#7 I have indeed shown it significant at this point, see #1, #2, #3.#8Refuted various times. See point #4 of this round, or #5 of the previous round.#9Judging based on the fact that prohibition was successful in China under worse conditions (i.e. more addictive drug [opium vs. alcohol] and a larger population [roughly 430 mil. vs roughly 120 mil.]) we can make a logical conclusion that prohibition in the US had the potential to work, but failed due to substandard execution.#10“That such a loss does occur, however, is consistent with what we know from animal studies.”“They have shown that exposure to cannabinoids during adolescent development can cause long-lasting changes in the brain’s reward system as well as the hippocampus, a brain area critical for learning and memory.” The significant evidence is right there for your viewing. Again, the statement you reference was not made based on what was likely, but what was remotely possible, common in scientific studies to leave room for further research. #11Animal studies don’t reflect the drug’s effects in humans? Source? A claim like that is laughable. Experiments done on mammals have been the backbone of drug research since the field was conceived. You are gravely mistaken that adolescent use would “never occur”. Illegal marijuana use is already prevalent among adolescents [6]. Were the drug legalized, it would become much easier to procure (stealing from stores, stealing from parents who obtain it legally, etc.) Therefore adolescent use, rather than “never occurring”, would only increase.#12Your claim that the evidence is “irrelevant” is illogical. Adolescents would be more exposed to marijuana under your proposed legal system. You have cited no evidence rebuking the effectiveness of animal studies. While this study focuses on drawbacks for adolescents, there are also many for adult humans, due to marijuana’s many carcinogens [5].#13“While this study cannot exclude all potential contributory factors (e.g., child abuse, subclinical mental illness, mild learning disabilities), the neuropsychological declines following marijuana use were present even after researchers controlled for factors like years of education, mental illness, and use of other substances.[4]”It is stated here that researchers accounted for other variables in said study.#14Refuted with a logical argument earlier in this statement (see #1,#2,#3).#15While THC’s supposed effect on free radicals may or may not be true, this does not somehow change the fact that carcinogens do exist in marijuana. At best, considering your evidence use of marijuana reduces cancerous potential in one aspect (free radicals) while increasing it in many areas (consequence of multiple types of carcinogens).#16Refuted. See above point. Free radicals are one of many components of cancer. There is much more to take into account#17If you don’t specify, readers will make the most logical assumption. “Not addictive” implies a general sense of the word.#18The reason withdrawal occurs is because the body needs something it is not getting. Psychological withdrawal symptoms (anxiety, insomnia, etc.) are usually associated with psychological addiction, while physical symptoms (nausea, headache) are associated with physical dependence.#19They are not identical in severity. I invite you to cite a statistic of rehab admissions for caffeine (taking into account the large difference in number of users) to prove your point definitively.Supposed benefits of legalization: Tax revenue (rebutted), Personal freedom (far from worth it in the face of large social costs), safer than legal drugs (irrelevant), weak criticism (perhaps you should re-read this debate).Sources[1] http://alcoholism.about.com...[2] http://www.drugabuse.gov...[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[4] http://www.drugabuse.gov...[5] http://www.psychologytoday.com...[6] http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com...