Resolved: The state of Georgia ought legalize the recreational use/possession of marijuana.

Before continuing to rebut my opponent’s arguments, I would like to point out that my opponent has not argued against my counterarguments in Sub-points 1b and 1c: that the legalization of marijuana would provide a more effective deterrent against adolescent use and that legalization could constitute a curb against crime. According to the third rule of the rules that my opponent has accepted upon his acceptance of the resolution, the failure or negligence to address any points in particular will result in automatic concession to those points. So judges, please extend my sub-points 1b and 1c across the flow as well as their corresponding counterarguments. So then, all that remains is addressing my opponent’s case and the counterarguments that he provided to my own. Opponent’s Evidence: My opponent refers to the statement within his first piece of evidence that makes me argue that his evidence is contradictory; rather than proving that his evidence is not contradictory, he pointed out the very piece of his first evidence that contradicts second and proves my point. While his first piece states that acute use among acute marijuana users will not impair motor function significantly, his second piece of evidence states the following: “The researchers found the risk of being responsible for a fatal crash increased as the blood concentration of cannabis increased. While even small amounts of cannabis could double the chance of a driver suffering an accident, larger doses could more than triple the risk.” [1] His second piece of evidence implies that any use among any person regardless of the level of marijuana use could double the chances of having a fatal accident, whereas the first only corresponds significant chances of car accidents to habitual marijuana users. Upon seeing this, it’s evident that my opponent’s evidence is contradictory in the claims it makes, if not at least a bit inconsistent. In addition, I mentioned that my opponent’s evidence doesn’t provide elaboration on methodology or any reduction of lurking variables in order to get concrete results—a claim that my opponent makes no argument against, meaning he agrees. So, while his evidence states that 7% of fatal car accidents involved marijuana use, there also was an addition in his evidence that mentioned: “Dr John Heyworth, past president of the British Association of Accident and Emergency Medicine, said increasing numbers of people who had taken various types of drugs were being treated following road traffic accidents, and other incidents. He said few people had taken cannabis alone - often it was combined with alcohol or other types of drugs, such as cocaine or speed. "Sometimes it is difficult to know whether a person's behaviour is linked to their injuries, or to the drugs they have taken," he said.” [2] This proves the evidence’s little scrutiny to lurking variables. Objective Test: To point out my own failures, I hadn’t addressed the idea of an objective test in order to enforce marijuana DUI laws. According to my own rules, my failure to address an argument means an automatic concession to it. However, I’d also like to point out that my opponent hasn’t addressed the taxation argument that I made earlier either, meaning the automatic concession to the point. If there is no objective test as it stands now, the state could certainly attain sufficient funds in order to be able to do so with the revenue that it attains from the legalization of marijuana. Inability to Legalize Marijuana: My opponent’s argument is that the state of Georgia would be incapable of legalizing marijuana because marijuana is still illegal under federal law. Not only does the legalization of recreational marijuana use in the states of Washington and Colorado in November 2012 and states where medical marijuana was legalized show that individual states have sufficient capacity to legalize marijuana if they wanted to, but a press statement from Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, proves that the federal government won’t enforce federal marijuana laws in states that have independently legalized it, of course, with a couple of perfectly reasonable conditions. [3] The counterargument would be that this would continue only as long as President Obama or a president with an equally progressive stance on marijuana has control of the White House. This only means then that the state of Georgia ought legalize marijuana with more haste as time would be limited if and only if a more conservative president takes the helm. [1] Rooney, Katie. "Revoking Licenses Deters Drunk Driving." Time Magazine, July 25, 2007. http://content.time.com...... (accessed October 9, 2013) [2] Ibid. [3] Reily, Ryan. "Eric Holder Says DOJ Will Let Washington, Colorado Marijuana Laws Go Into Effect." The Huffington Post, August 28, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (accessed October 12, 2013).