Marijuana Should NOT Be Legalized

First I will address your questions that I was unable to squeeze into my previous argument. 1. Do you admit that marijuana has medicinal benefit beyond its application as a pain killer (stimulating appetite being one such benefit)? The other benefit being the alleviation of nausea and vomiting. Yes, I acknowledge the proposed benefits of the substance, but disagree with its effectiveness and overall safety. Moreover, I think the negative health effects of smoked marijuana outweigh the potential benefits, and in some cases can worsen a patients condition by weakening their immune system. 2. Should there only be one pain killer on the market, and should all others be banned? No. There is no reason to add another pain killer to the market when there are already numerous legal, effective alternatives. Sure, all drugs have side effects that are of health concern, but marijuana has a more consistently negative effect on patients. Countless studies have shown marijuana to be far more harmful, and less effective in several areas, than the legal alternatives. 3. Do you concede that marijuana, if abused, is less harmful than cocaine? Absolutely. My intention for mentioning cocaine legalization was not to contrast the severity of the negative health effects, but to point out the nonsensical reasoning of legalizing a harmful drug. In other words, marijuana is not a safe drug, neither is cocaine. Both are effective as a drug, particularly for pain relief, but both have negative health effects that outweigh their respective benefits. 4. Do you admit that prohibition of drugs is unconstitutional, and if not, why was a constitutional amendment needed to prohibit alcohol? Drug abuse fuels degeneracy. If the government must play the role of mother to protect the health and well being of its citizens, so be it. 5. Do you think that the Drug War has been worth the fiscal and social costs, especially given the fact that people still want and use drugs? Absolutely. The legalization of marijuana would be to let the lion out of its cage. People need to realize the importance of the illegality of this deleterious drug and the importance of government quarantine. It is imperative that we keep the beast caged at all costs. We must learn from the history as well as the present severity of the health epidemic created by the abuse and addiction of alcohol and tobacco. We don't need another such epidemic to legally creep into public domain and have use become influenced by social pressures of conformity and normality upon society in the manner as has occurred with alcohol and tobacco. NEW QUESTION #6: Should alcohol and cigarettes be banned, and if not, why not? Tobbacco cigarettes, yes. There is no reason for it, and it has become a social health epidemic. It is an addictive, harmful drug that is claiming lives by the truck load. It may not impair your judgment and perception in the same way marijuana and alcohol do, but the long term effects are well documented. As for alcohol, there have been various studies that have shown that an occasional drink may actually be beneficial for your health. I do not think alcohol should be banned, but that those that drink irresponsibly should suffer a more severe penalty. However, I don't think either of these are on a par with the severity of marijuana abuse. Most major medical and health organizations, as well as the vast majority of nationally recognized expert medical doctors, scientists and researchers, have concluded that smoking marijuana is not safe and effective medicine. Some of these organizations include: --The American Medical Association --The American Cancer Society --National Multiple Sclerosis Association --The American Glaucoma Association --American Academy of Ophthalmology --National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke --National Institue of Dental Research --The Natioanal Institute on Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Several government agencies of both party affiliations have also opposed the legalization of medical marijuana. These organizations include the Drug Enforcement Administration and the US Public Health Service. Their latest finding, as recently as 1994, was affirmed in a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. Frequently, pro-legalization advocates put forth unscientific, non-scrutinized or analyzed anecdotal statements from people with a variety of illnesses. We aren't told whether these individuals were using marijuana prior to the illness or if perhaps they are using marijuana in combination with other medication. Had the individual had a recent thorough medical exam? Or is he or she justifying their use of marijuana, experiencing a placebo effect, or experiencing the intoxicating effect of smoking marijuana? Such anecdotal evidence would not pass in a peer reviewed journal. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, "In the last half of 2003, marijuana was the third most commonly abused drug mentioned in drug-related hospital emergency department (ED) visits in the continental United States." The National Eye Institute (NEI) reports, "there is no scientifically verifiable evidence that marijuana or its derivatives are safe and effective in the treatment of glaucoma." None of NEI's marijuana-based research studies demonstrate that THC can safely and effectively lower intraocular pressure enough to prevent optic nerve damage from glaucoma. Dr. George L. Spaeth, the first President of the American Glaucoma Society and Director of the Glaucoma Service at the internationally known Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia has "not found any documentary evidence which indicates that a single patient has had his or her natural history of the disease altered by smoking marijuana." Dr. Keith Green, Director of Ophthalmology Research at the Medical College of Georgia, states, "It is clear that there is no evidence that marijuana use prevents the progression of visual loss in glaucoma." In 1996, Harmon J. Eyre, Executive Vice President for Research and Cancer Control for the American Cancer Society stated, there is "no reason to support the legalization of marijuana for medical use." Joanne Schellenbach, spokeswoman for the American Cancer Society, said her group feels there is "no need to treat the side effects of chemotherapy" with marijuana. There are ample legal pharmaceuticals available to do this which don't present the [medical] problems [caused by] inhaling," she said. Dr. David S. Ettinger, associate director of the Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, and a nationally respected cancer expert, has written that "There is no indication that marijuana is effective in treating nausea and vomiting resulting from radiation treatment.... No legitimate studies have been conducted which make such conclusions." Quotes from "Medical Marijuana Should Not Be Permitted" by Robert L. Maginnis Ed. William Dudley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. There are other legal, safer, more effective drugs on the market, and no need for marijuana. Legalization of marijuana, either medicinal or recreational, will encourage use, not dissuade it. The negative effects of marijuana are well documented, while the positive effects of medicinal use have failed to stand up to the rigorous tests of science. clsmooth, it has truly been a pleasure debating with you. I chose you specifically because I had seen a few of your debates before, and felt you were the best challenge available. You certainly delivered. I look forward to future debates with you. Thank you for the lively, persuasive, insightful debate! P.S. I got a good laugh out of the mirapex reference with the urge to gamble!