Mary Jane should be Legal

Lets note that Zaradi claims to only carry weight in one of three parts of this debate. ?BODY OF EVIDENCE? --Z says success is affected. 1. Since there are many exceptions it just proves that marijuana isn't the cause, but rather something else is. --Zaradi pulled out the measuring stick. He has more sources saying its very addictive. 1. It's addictive. Skyrim, fatty foods, and sugar are addictive too. 2. My claim is its the least addictive. I thought this was common knowledge; I really didn't expect it to be a battling ground. 3. Its too bad this had to come down to a counting competition by your standards, but here we go, out of the following substances (heroines, cocaine, alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, marijuana): Saferchoice.org says Marijuana is far less addictive and far less toxic, D. Perrine PhD. says its least addictive substance behind caffeine, N. Bewoitz PhD. says too its the least addictive substance behind caffeine, J. Henningfield PhD. says its the least addictive but at the same rate of caffeine, on the same scale it was also rated lowest on withdrawal signs. But lets not stop. University of Wisconsin's Health Department states, "The majority of marijuana users do not develop addiction: they do not experience loss of control." Scientific American Mind writes, "Marijuana is the least addictive substance at 9% under alcohol at 14%." On a rating of 1-100; 100 being most. Caffeine is on average placed at 70. Marijuana is placed at....22. 4. This also on the side shows that the withdrawal symptoms that Zaradi loves to point-out show up very minimally. 5. Scientific American Mind also points out that many pharm. drugs are easily more addictive than marijuana. If its legalized Zaradi would have you believe that all of a sudden more people will become addicted, but as he as already conceded Marijuana would step in as a replacement for these MORE addictive substances as many MORE addictive substances treat the same thing. Therein less addiction in the alternative world. --Z says "So if marijuana isn't addictive, it would only then lead back to higher levels of abuse, which links harder into the problems caused by smoking marijuana." Lets talk about that... --Z talks about blood, heart attacks, and cardiovascular. 1. T-Lymphocytes in the blood are not effected by Marijuana, I said this in the previous round, your point on blood wasn't "uncontested." 2."DEA aggressively goes after this point, claiming that according to Harvard researchers, in the hour after having smoked marijuana, one's heart attack risk goes up five fold. However, this 'fact' is not properly cited and is indicative of the DEA's sloppy attempts to cite its sources. Marijuana's effects on blood pressure are complex and inconsistent as of yet." Institute of Medicine. Blood contention out. --Z says the brain does not like Marijuana. 1. The receptors in the brain that allow uptake of cannaboids like THC are part of the most widespread receptor system in the body. The body is naturally attuned to these molecules and uses them to great effect. "numerous studies have established that cannabinoids help reduce pain and other distressing symptoms." 2. According to the Institute of Science, memory, like I stated before, is only effected on the short-term basis and only during intoxication. Secondly, according to WebMD, in their article Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage the Brain, "some 700 regular marijuana users were compared with 484 non-users on various aspects of brain function -- including reaction time, language and motor skills, reasoning ability, memory, and the ability to learn new information."[Basically everything Zaradi says Marijuana does horrible things to] There was little difference between the two groups. And the researchers went on to say that marijuana impaired the capabilities of those tested much less than alcohol and other drugs. Therein they concluded, "This finding enables us to see a marginal level of safety" and "we are unlikely to see deleterious side effects in individuals who receive cannabis for a short time in a medical setting." Brain and coordination contention out. Z says caricogens make marijuana lead to cancer, and this point can't be escaped. THE END OF THE ROAD 1. But alas, this cancerous notion it not false, also. WebMD writes, "People who smoke marijuana do not appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancer, new research suggests.While a clear increase in cancer risk was seen among cigarette smokers in the study, no such association was seen for regular cannabis users. Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers." 2. Looks like Zaradi is going to have use the measuring stick again to try to save his inconclusive argument. Z says "So unless my opponent wishes to debate why carcinogens don't cause cancer, he seems to be losing this point." 3. Zaradi is correct when his sources say that marijuana has cancer causing molecules as my same article says, "marijuana has 50% higher concentrations of chemicals linked to lung cancer than cigarette smoke" So after they say this, they ask the natural question so why doesn't marijuana cause cancer or for that matter more cancer than cigs??? Short answer: tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. Long answer which I won't attempt to paraphrase: "Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging the death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors." 4. Marijuana is the reason Marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Remember in the earlier round when I said it helps slow down tumors, well now you got your answer. 5. Not only does this prove even more so now that marijuana is a invaluable medicine but it also shows that marijuana does not cause cancer. 6. This also shows that the smoke of marijuana is not harmful. 7. Therein this concludes not only is it impossible to overdose off of marijuana but now it can't even cause cancer. Cancer contention out. I'm running out of characters here so IN CONCLUSION: 1. Zaradi dropped all my points on potential market of Hemp, garnering me my impacts of better econ, innovation, environment. 2. Zaradi dropped all my point on why prohibiting marijuana hurts society, garnering me my impacts of: less violent and property crimes, gangs have less personnel and financial power, less gang wars near southern border, government saves billions, police aren't asset hunting. I only used a alcohol prohibition source for one point-that prohibition leads to disrespect for law, depreciating its importance. Which was also dropped. Ever other point was reached from exclusively prohibiting of marijuana sources. Do I need any more weight on my side? 3. He put all of his eggs in one basket, marijuana and body. I have shown how its a very useful medicine, how it does not harm the body, how smoke does not harm the body, and why scientists consider it to be within the margin of safety This round has shown quite clearly that at worst his analysis of the body is incredibly questionable. At best, he's flat out been refuted. 4. Do I even need to mention that he dropped all of my analysis on why it's such a great medication for over 30 different illnesses. He just said "Well it causes cancer." But we already took care of that problem. 5. Zaradi could argue dropped points, but I would urge on-lookers to discourage this since I can't defend their validity, as I'm out of rounds. 6. As far as BOP goes, as an on-looker, just chose who you agree with. Should the status-quo not defend itself because its the status-quo? 7. For these commanding reasons the alternative world is highly favorable over the status-quo, and I urge a Pro vote. Thank you, once again, to Zaradi and our viewers. p.s.--sources in comments page.