Cannabis Legalization

Kind regards for posting this debate. In this debate I will argue on the legalization of Cannabis on a con point of view. As you did not provide a definition, I will provide one, Cannabis being defined as Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis, all indigenous to central and south Asia. As you have also stated the rudimentary production of materials using Cannabis, or more specifically called hemp, shall be called hemp while the sort of cannabis used for drug use shall be called marijuana. I propose this for general ease of debate and am sure that you see benefit in this. Pro however did not provide sources or evidence but based his opening statement on opinion, thus making it virtually useless. Opening Statement: In recent years there has been an up-flaming debate about the legalization of cannabis, due to the criminalization of Cannabis in 1937 in the U.S., following a trend of the use of cannabis due to it's psychoactive ingredients, such as THC. Many people seem to feel that cannabis should be legalized, due to marijuana being the most used drug after coffee, alcohol and nicotine, as well as economy and health. I am however strictly against this trend. It seems like the majority of legalization supporters seem to be very uninformed about cannabis and its use. Hemp has been used for centuries, notably even being imported to south America in 1545 for use as a fiber. The cannabis legalization groups seem to be very unaware of the use of hemp in modern society, leading me to dismiss most of their claims as to cannabis usage for material, as it is already done. Hemp is used for a wide variety of products, such as paper, textiles, clothing, biodegradable plastics, construction, body products, health food and even bio-fuel. The world production of hemp fiber fell from over 300,000 metric tons 1961 to about 75,000 metric tons in the early 1990s and has after that been stable at that level due to an increase of demand for artificial fiber and product. (Lynn Robins et al.: Economic Considerations for Growing Industrial Hemp:Implications for Kentucky"s Farmers and Agricultural Economy, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky,July 2013). This is still around 75000 tonnes per year used for fiber, not for marijuana use, this hemp also being legally produced. The reason why I am stating this is because the cultivation of cannabis for the use of hemp is legal in many countries, such as: Australia, Austria, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey and Ukraine. The majority of these plants are low in THC, as the cannabis sorts used for marijuana are typically low growing and as such would not be profitable. Also note, that many people would not even know that they use, own or know a product that uses hemp. But just as an example, here is a list of some of the car manufacturers that use hemp in composite panels for automobiles: Audi, BMW, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Iveco, Lotus, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Saturn, Volkswagen and Volvo. Just as another example, the Mercedes C-class, a around US$40000 car uses up to 20 kg of hemp. (Green Cars, Fuel Efficiency and the Environment | Mercedes-Benz) The reason why I shared this information is because I want to display that hemp is well used in our everyday life and legal, and as such does not contribute to any argument of the pro legalization side as to cannabis being able to be used for so many ways, as it is being used, note, being used legally, grown legally and sold and possessed legally. As such it seems to me that the majority of the pro legalize population is not informed or does not want to be informed out of different reasons. As I have already shown, the production of hemp is heavily dependent on demand, and as current demand is rising, rising as well as such the argument of 'more usage potential' falling away from the pro legalize side. It thus seems to me that the pro legalization side is seeming to act out of different motives than legalization due to hemp usage, which is legal, but due to the usage of cannabis as marijuana and as such a drug, and seemingly is just looking for justification. Note that an estimated 4% of the adult world population uses cannabis annually (280 million) which is not such a grand percentage. If you now note that only an estimated 0.6% uses cannabis daily (42 million). This is a tiny number compared to the overall world population, but note that a great part of those 0.6% are part in the legalization movement. In the U.S.A. according to estimates 7.3% use cannabis monthly or more often (23 million). (http://www.pewresearch.org...) One of the grand arguments of the pro legalization side are medical benefits. They do however not note that "Most of the research involves marijuana or its individual psychoactive compounds administered in carefully measured doses", 'its individual psychoactive compounds' meaning parts like THC (http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu...). This thus does not mean what the majority of the pro legalization wants, to go out and smoke. In fact, I would argue that no serious doctor nor researcher would suggest for anyone to 'hit it up'. I will not deny that THC has medical benefits, but a legalization of medical THC will not have any benefit for your average stoner, who seems to be the main guy in the debate, as the medical THC is normally introduced into the body in controlled measurements, meaning methods like syringes. Smoking is not correct administration as it cannot be measured, and I will call anyone who thinks that puffing a joint has medical benefits an idiot. Furthermore I would like to note that the controlled administration of THC and other cannabinoids would most likely not get you 'high' and as such ruining the dream for the pro legalization group of 'smoking weed all day, getting high and saying it's for health'. To make it clear, the usage of marijuana, as it is fact that a cancer patient is less likely to be administered cannabinoids (they would definitely not smoke them) than a teenager who takes the walk to his local dealer and then gets high and does it to get high, and no other reason, is proven to cause Schizophrenia, memory loss, cognition impairment, bronchitis and many more. As to the argument of smoking cannabis being safe compared to cigarettes, this is incorrect as the tar in cannabis is very similar to the tar in cigarettes. It is also noted that around 9% of users who experiment with cannabis become dependent on it, with 42% of heavy users experiencing withdrawal symptoms, as such making the very common and loved statement of cannabis not being addictive factually incorrect. (http://www.webmd.com...) Note that the number of dependents who start as teenagers is 1 in 6, with daily users being one quarter to half, a disturbing fact when it is scientifically noted that these teens are known for poor academic achievement, reduced connectivity in specific brain regions associated with memory, learning, alertness, and executive function. To say it, although not politically correct, these people are more stupid than non cannabis users, based on science. (Volkow ND, Baler RD, Compton WM, Weiss SR (2014). "Adverse health effects of marijuana use". N. Engl. J. Med. 370 (23): 2219"27. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1402309. PMID 24897085) As my last point, the legalization of cannabis suggested here is most surely for its marijuana use, and as such I will calculate the apparent economic benefits accordingly. I will however subtract any potential usage of hemp, as marijuana, which is the main reason for legalization and hemp are not connected. In my opinion hemp should be allowed as a crop in the U.S. due to actual economic reason, while marijuana should be not. It should also be noted that China is the prime producer of hemp with 79% of productions world wide and as such would create a huge, largely disadvantaged rivalry for the US. Nevertheless I will use the calculation from this website, pro legalization. (http://norml.org...) The possible, maximum gain according to the source would be US$26.7 billion. If I calculate 10 billion off of this due to the hemp industry, which is partly unrelated or would be unrelated, this leaves 16.7 billion. If we note that 9 billion of this is due to "Enforcement Savings", we have to note that this enforcement saving will go on other costs, such as mental health as a result of increased marijuana usage. Further it should be noted that a legalization would cause a possible drop in production rates because everyone knows that you can't really work when you are high. Also it should be noted that the increased amount of legal marijuana would mean an increase of heavy smokers, especially in teens and as such creating future 'dumb' generations, again lowering production as well as general economy. Thus this could quite possibly mean a decrease in economic profit, and not an increase, and as such not being profitable. In conclusion I am against the legalization of cannabis, as the reasons for supposed legalization are not in the benefit of the US. Saying this, I would be for the use of correct medical usage by medical professionals in a 'non green form' which would mean not for smoking, and only in needed and proven beneficial cases. Hemp legalization might have a benefit on economy, if only slight, and as such would also be beneficial. But the legalization of all cannabis would be not beneficial. Marijuana is proven dangerous and being the main focus of the cannabis debate, cannabis should most definitely not be legalized. Kind regards, I am looking forward to your reply, WAM.