Marijuana Should NOT Be Legalized

Valor has fallen victim to "Reefer Madness!" :) Marinol is not as effective as marijuana. Steve Kubby has survived for over twenty-five years a form of cancer expected to cause his death as a young man. He credits medical marijuana for prolonging his life. In 2006, despite the legalization of medical marijuana in California, Kubby and his wife were arrested on unconstitutional anti-drug laws that violated the sovereignty of California. Here is how Marinol worked out for him: "With Marinol, Steve is only partly protected. Because Marinol uses only the THC active portion of the cannabis plant, his tumors are now free to grow again. This type of tumor is particularly apt to grow into the spinal cord, brain and organs." http://en.wikipedia.org... You cite the FDA as if it is some kind of authority. The FDA is a political bureaucracy that, like all bureaucracies, exists in order to expand its scope, budget, and power. There are thousands of medical doctors who support the use of medical marijuana, and several states have enacted laws to legalize it. Maybe they are right and maybe they are wrong -- why do you think there has to be one solution for everyone? Do you want to put dying AIDS and cancer patients in jail for using the medicine that they think works best for them? For using a medicine that might be more affordable, particularly if homegrown? You are shilling for the corporate drug companies in the medical-industrial complex (what a surprise, the AMA is against legalization!), and you are arguing for continued human suffering, death, and financial poverty brought on by high drug prices. As for the government studies you cite: I could cite non-government counter-studies -- anyone can just Google it. There is difference of opinion and impure motives on both sides. Why does there have to be just one solution? If medical marijuana were legal, then individuals and doctors could choose whether to use or prescribe it. If a doctor thought it was not effective, he could prescribe something else. You then demonstrate there are negative side effects to marijuana usage -- this just makes it like every other drug on the planet. Of course, there are negative side effects! Watch TV and you'll see plenty of ads for government-approved drugs that can cause everything from increased blood pressure to an urge to gamble! The negative side effects, as well as the health risks for personal/recreational use make a great argument for not using it -- but no argument for making it illegal. I don't smoke marijuana because of the negative health effects. I don't smoke cigarettes either. But I do eat Big Macs and drink beer, both of which are unhealthy. Should they be banned too? Obesity and alcoholism are much greater problems in America than marijuana "addiction." By the way: Marijuana is not physically addictive. It is only mentally addictive. There are people who are officially categorized as sex addicts. The consequences of sex can be far more harmful than marijuana (unwanted pregnancy and AIDS come to mind). So should sex be banned, or at least regulated? Even though sex can be "addictive" and harmful, the vast majority of people make responsible choices with sex. Just as the vast majority of Americans currently make responsible choices with marijuana. Marijuana is addictive like MySpace or Nintendo (or Debate.org), not like alcohol or cocaine. Marijuana a gateway drug? Sure. The type of people who are prone to use heroin are going to use marijuana first because it is more widely available. But they probably drink alcohol before that. And they probably drink soda before that. If the fact that heroin users first use marijuana can be blamed on marijuana, then obviously, marijuana usage should be blamed on soda, and by your logic, soda should be made illegal, too. In fact, breast milk could be cited as the "gateway" to all drugs and crimes and other horrors in the world. You truly are a victim of government propaganda and Reefer Madness. Look, ladies and gentlemen, my opponent is saying that marijuana makes people violent -- even the government hasn't made such outlandish claims since the 1930s. We all know people who use marijuana and aren't violent. In fact, we probably know people who are specifically not violent because they use marijuana! You are against health freedom. You are for bureaucrats and central governments dictating the healthcare choices of sick people, and I find that morally offensive. There are thousands of people who use medical marijuana in the U.S., and the reasons they do so are none of your business. Recreational use is none of your business, either. As cited in the previous round, alcohol consumption increased during Prohibition, but it did not go up appreciably following the end of Prohibition. There's no reason to believe marijuana would be any different (although use certainly is higher now than when it was legal -- Prohibition creates higher prices, which in term create profits for drug dealers, which create an incentive to market the product, etc. -- FACT). You mostly ignored my arguments and focused in on marinol, and the government studies that suggest it is an effective alternative. I will ask you once again to answer the following questions: 1. Do you admit that marijuana has medicinal benefit beyond its application as a pain killer (stimulating appetite being one such benefit)? 2. Should there only be one pain killer on the market, and should all others be banned? 3. Do you concede that marijuana, if abused, is less harmful than cocaine? 4. Do you admit that prohibition of drugs is unconstitutional, and if not, why was a constitutional amendment needed to prohibit alcohol? 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? NEW QUESTION #6: Should alcohol and cigarettes be banned, and if not, why not? Please answer my questions in Round 3. If you do not answer the questions, I can only assume that you concede the points, and that's a lot of points to concede.