BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Uncertainty over the effects of cannabis means it is best to be prudent

The debate over the effects of cannabis is based largely upon conflicting evidence. For example, some argue it can cause psychosis while others argue it only has positive effects on the mind. The effect of any illegal drug is a very difficult area to study 1. Most drug users use more than one drug and researchers are often limited to studying those who admit themselves into clinics with a crisis – something of a skewed sample. Given that Governments cannot accurately predict what the effects of legalizing cannabis would be, it is prudent to maintain illegality. What if, for example, a state decided to legalize cannabis, to only discover five years later that it has a dramatically more negative impact on human cognition than previously thought, or that it substantially increased the risks of psychosis? 1.Wolff, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/dec/01/drugs-health-effects-jonathan-wolff improve this
More people will use cannabis if legalized

If cannabis is legalized, it will become socially acceptable and more people will smoke it. It will also become more readily available. In the Netherlands, cannabis usage went up after it was legalized1. With more people smoking, more people will experience the adverse physical and mental health effects - more people will be harmed. Furthermore, as Dr. David Murray has noted, 'marijuana use is the leading cause of treatment need for those abusing or dependent on illegal drugs'2; therefore not only will more people use cannabis, more of them will be addicted. 1 Mackenzie, D. (1998, February 21). New Scientists Marijuana Special Report. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from UKCIA: 2  Dubner, Stephen J., 'On the Legalization - or not - of Marijuana', Freakonomics, 30 October 2007  improve this
Cannabis is harmful

Studies have shown that cannabis may cause a number of physical and mental problems. It can cause respiratory problems, increase one's heart rate and lower one's sperm count. Cannabis use is also associated with causing or worsening some forms of psychosis. It has also been found to increase tiredness, depression and paranoia, impair short-term memory and hormone production and cause general cognitive decline1. As for cannabis' medicinal qualities, safer, more effective drugs are available. They include a synthetic version of THC, cannabis' primary active ingredient, which is marketed in the United States under the name Marinol. 1 Frank. (n.d.). Cannabis. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Talk to Frank: improve this
People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies

While individual liberty is an important good, there are cases in which a Government can be justified in behaving in a paternalistic manner, even to prevent individuals harming themselves. Few people debate the law that you must wear a seatbelt in cars, for example. Moreover, cannabis can harm others and many of the ways in which it does so would not be possible to counter with regulation. In the words of philosopher George Sher, "Drug use harms strangers by involving them in the collisions, shootouts and other catastrophes to which the impaired and overly aggressive drug users are prone. It harms family members by depriving them of the companionship and income of their addicted partners. It harms fetuses by exposing them to a toxic and permanently damaging prenatural environment. It harms children by subjecting them to the abuse of their drug-addled parents"1. 1 Wolff, J. (n.d.). Regulation of Recreational Drugs. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from University College London: improve this
Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful drugs, yet remain legal.

It is difficult to assess the true harm caused by cannabis. There are limits to the scope for information on its effects because of its illegal nature1. However, it is widely acknowledged that there are links between cannabis use and mental and physical health problems2. It is also widely acknowledged that excessive cannabis use can harm relationships and prevent people from acting as functional members of society. Cannabis is generally smoked with tobacco and cannabis users are more likely to drink alcohol. Regardless of whether cannabis itself is worse for you than tobacco or alcohol, it is still bad for you and therefore it should remain illegal. The reason alcohol and tobacco are legal is not related to their effect on our health. They (alcohol and tobacco) are legal as they have existed in this country since long before laws were passed in relation to health and were far more popular than cannabis so it would have been much harder to ban them. Cannabis is illegal not because it supposedley is worse but because it is was less commonly consumed. That said, alcohol and tobacco are irerelvent in this debate. 1 Wolff, J. (2009, December 1). The art and science of evidence about drugs. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Guardian: 2 Frank. (n.d.). Cannabis. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Talk to Frank: improve this
If cannabis was legalized, it could be regulated

Legalizing cannabis would not stop the criminals who currently sell it from continuing to commit crimes. They could simply diversify their activities. Many of them would already be dealing other drugs or involved in other criminal activities. The legalization of cannabis could simply give them a legitimate base from which they may operate. In order to end the "war on drugs" and the problems of violence associated with it, all drugs would have to be legalized. While some debate the harmful effects which cannabis may have, few argue that drugs like heroin and crack cocaine do not present a serious threat to people. To sell these kinds of drugs legally would be irresponsible and would ruin lives, families and communities. improve this
Cannabis opens the mind in a positive and beneficial manner

Cannabis does not open the mind. Rather, it harms it. Many researchers have concluded that cannabis impairs short-term memory, cognition and motivation. It has also proven to be highly addictive for some users and has damaged people's mental capabilities and abilities to function in society1. 2 Mabry, C. D. (2001, October). Physicians and the war on drugs: the case against legalization. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Qualified Surgeons: improve this
Cannabis is a gateway drug

There is little evidence of cannabis being a gateway drug. In fact, there is a higher correlation between cigarette smoking and hard drugs. If anything, the only way in which cannabis could be said to be a gateway drug is that it is illegal and people may be inclined to buy other illegal drugs after they have bought cannabis, particularly as some dealers will sell other drugs. This problem, however, would be immediately eradicated if cannabis were legalized. Furthermore, the people who refer cannabis as a "gateway drug" don't take into consideration the prerequisites and situations people are in prior to ones marijuana use. The people who use it as an additive to relaxation occasionally and are in a relaxed environment, maybe with a few friends over to hang out aren’t using it as an escape from reality but at an additive to their relaxation and fun. When cannabis is referred to as a “gateway drug” people are generally and unknowingly referring to the people who use marijuana as an escape from a  much less than pleasant reality and “smoke themselves sober” therefore requiring a harder drug to get the same high and escape that cannabis once provided for them. improve this
Uncertainty over the effects of cannabis means it is best to be prudent

Legalization of cannabis would make it easier for scientific studies to take place, thereby providing a more accurate picture of the physical, psychological, spiritual and sociological effects of the drug. Just as the lift of the taboo on discussions of a sexual nature in schools around the world has resulted in people being more informed as to the dangers of unprotected sex, so would the increased availability and accuracy of scientific data on cannabis serve to reduce the ratio of abuse to responsible use.   improve this
More people will use cannabis if legalized

First, it is not necessarily a bad thing for cannabis use to increase. Countries with the highest usage rates include some of the most prosperous in the world – Canada, Australia and New Zealand for example. Secondly, even if increased cannabis use is a bad thing, there is little evidence to prove usage would necessarily go up if cannabis were legalized. Usage may have risen slightly in the Netherlands but cannabis was depenalized in 1976 and usage rates remain lower than in the US today. Moreover, there are other reasons why usage rose. According to Dirk Korf of the Institute of Criminology at the University of Amsterdam, "There is no appreciable causal connection between the Dutch decriminalization of cannabis and the rate at which cannabis use has evolved" 1.Portugal decriminalized drug use in 2001 and, a decade later, drug usage and drug related crime rates have fallen and cannabis use remains below the European average2 . 1. Griffin, 2011, http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/cannabis-a-gateway-to-other-drugs-20110718-1hlor.html 2. Hari, 2009, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-har... improve this
Cannabis is harmful

While there are studies that argue that cannabis is harmful, there is no substantial proof of many of the harmful effects it is accused of having. Indeed, there are many studies that claim it does not have these harmful effects. For example, a 15-year John Hopkins University study published in May 1999 found "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and non-users of cannabis."1 It is also claimed by many researchers that while cannabis has some potentially harmful effects, it is far less harmful then tobacco and alcohol2. Cannabis is also known to have medicinal qualities, such as in relieving pain for MS sufferers. In California, for example, it is possible to obtain a "medical marijuana" card. 1http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10221315 2 The Economist. (2010, November 2). Scoring Drugs. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from The Economist: improve this
People should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies

It is important that we have the liberty to do what we want to our own bodies. People are allowed to eat or drink to their detriment. In many countries it is legal to take one's life. Why then, should people not be allowed to harm themselves through cannabis use? (Assuming that cannabis use is harmful. In most cases, this is highly debatable.) Smoking cannabis may have effects on others, such as through the effects of passive smoking. However, regulation has been brought in to minimize the effects on others for alcohol and cigarettes, such as bans on smoking in public places, and the same thing could be done for cannabis. improve this
Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful drugs, yet remain legal.

Although cannabis can have some harmful effects, it is not nearly as harmful as tobacco or alcohol. Research by the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is more addictive. In England and Wales, cannabis was said to have helped cause 17 deaths, compared to 6627 for alcohol and 86,500 for tobacco1. A study, published by The Lancet, that scores drugs out of 100 for the harm they cause the user and others, gave alcohol 72, tobacco 27 and cannabis 202. Given that tobacco and alcohol are more likely to harm the user and other people, it seems ludicrous that they should be legal and cannabis should not be. The legalization of cannabis would remove an anomaly from the law. 1 TDPF. (n.d.). Drug Related Deaths. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Transform Drug Policy Foundation: 2 The Economist. (2010, November 2). Scoring Drugs. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from The Economist: improve this
If cannabis was legalized, it could be regulated

Many of the problems associated with cannabis use arise from the fact that it is illegal. Cannabis is the world’s most widely used illegal drug – 23% of Canadians admit to having smoked it and up to 7 million people in the UK are estimated to do so. In 2009, the UN estimated that the market for illegal drugs was worth $320 billion. This market is run by criminals and is often blighted by violence. It has cost thousands of innocent lives, particularly in supplier countries such as Mexico and Afghanistan 1. In the US, Milton Friedman estimated that 10,000 people die every year as a result of drug dealers fighting over territory 2. Many of the victims are innocent people, caught in crossfire. By legalizing cannabis, the size of this market for illegal drugs would be significantly reduced and so, effectively, would the number of crimes and unnecessary deaths that come with it. Another way of seeing the problems of prohibition is to look at the failed attempt at alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. People continued to consume alcohol, only it became 150 per cent stronger, was as easy to obtain for minors as for adults, and was sold by murderous gangsters like Al Capone 3. Given all of the problems associated with prohibiting cannabis, it seems nonsensical to spend billions fighting a drugs war when instead governments could reduce crime and make money by selling cannabis in a regulated manner. They could spend some of the profit on treating people who did experience any harmful effects. 1.United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2010, http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2010/World_Drug_Report_2010_lo-res.pdf 2.Hari, 2009, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/com
Cannabis opens the mind in a positive and beneficial manner

Cannabis use can alter one's perception of reality or consciousness. The alteration need not be thought of as spiritual or religious to be respected for what it is; a fresh look on a reality that we are programmed as humans to perceive only in a particular manner. Cannabis can help humans perceive that complex reality from simply a different perspective, which can benefit our appreciation for that reality and our unique and limited perceptions of it. With this more intelligent approach to cannabis consumption, it is easy to argue that mental, perceptual, and societal benefits exist1. 1 Harris, S. (2011, July 6). Drugs and the Meaning of Life. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Huffington Post: improve this
Necessity for diplomatic relations

International diplomacy involves visits by both diplomats and government figures to other states. This can even include states where relations are tense or even hostile. India and Pakistan, who have a very tense relationship and share one of the most fortified borders in the world, the line of control that divides Kashmir, have embassies in each other. Even throughout the Cold War, the USA and Soviet Union had a full and normal diplomatic relations. Just as diplomatic immunity prevents politically motivated arrests of diplomats, head of state immunity is necessary to “grease the wheels” of international diplomacy to allow international summits to take place without campaigns for the arrest and trial before domestic courts of foreign politicians. If a head of state were to be arrested for trial before a foreign domestic court, it would cause immense damage to diplomatic relations between those two countries, Russia recently got into a row over the arrest of one of its diplomats in the Netherlands. The diplomat was quickly released but Russia still demanded the ‘guilty parties’ be punished.[1] The reaction to the arrest of a head of state or government would be much greater and would likely mean the breaking of diplomatic ties. Leaders would be much less willing to visit the country where the arrest occurred in the future for fear it would happen to them and would damage the world diplomatic system by challenging the idea of diplomatic immunity. [1] ‘Moscow not satisfied with 'sorry' after diplomat arrest’, DutchNews.nl, 17 October 2013, http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/10/moscow_not_satisfied_with_sorr.php
Helps avoid political stunt trials

Heads of state and senior politicians are targets for political stunts. This could be seeking to get a political opponent locked up so as to benefit from the removal of an opponent. Alternatively it may be as part of a publicity stunt to highlight their own issue of concern or organisation. In both cases the trial does not need to convict as the figure being in a trial will be enough to damage them and provide publicity. In 2009, following a request by supporters of Palestine, an arrest warrant was sought at Westminster magistrates’ court for the arrest of Tzipi Livni, who was Foreign Minister of Israel during Israel’s 2008-2009 invasion of the Gaza Strip, also known as Operation Cast Lead. At the time of the attempted arrest Livni was no longer in office but the action was clearly a stunt. Livni was not arrested in the end, because she cancelled her trip to the UK, and the warrant was dropped by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Kier Starmer[1]. However, a needless diplomatic incident was still caused. [1] Hastings, Rob, ‘DPP blocks bid to arrest Tzipi Livni for war crimes’, The Independent, 7 October 2011, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dpp-blocks-bid-to-arrest-tzipi-livni-for-war-crimes-2366583.html
Greater good – fear of prosecution problematic

Sometimes people will do bad things in order to achieve good and necessary results. For example, the Allied bombing campaigns in the Second World War would be highly likely to amount to a war crime under the Rome Statute if they were done today. They were indiscriminate, they targeted civilians, and additionally even at the time were recognised as having little military value. Instead the idea was to terrorise the civilian population.[1] Yet they were considered to be necessary as showing the allies were doing something to aid the Soviet Union. The same might be the case with the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they clearly targeted civilians, yet if they helped end the war without a ground invasion of Japan then this war crime might have been for the greater good.[2] Head of state immunity allows individuals to take unpopular and difficult decisions that are necessary for a greater good in government without fear of prosecution for their actions. We need our leaders to be able to take decisions based on the national interest, not based upon their concern for their life after office. [1] Grayling, A.C., ‘Bombing civilians is not only immoral, it’s ineffective’, The Guardian, 27 March 2006, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/mar/27/comment.secondworldwar [2] See the debatabase debate ‘This House believes that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified’
Impunity is repugnant to the rule of law

A key principle of the rule of law is that everyone is subject to the law – even the agents of states[1]. It must apply equally to the most as well as the least powerful. This must apply to international criminal law as well as the domestic criminal law. It would be unjustifiable for one individual to be able to face prosecution as a private citizen for genocide, but not a head of state who has much greater capacity to engage in such acts. It effectively would allow genocide, which is prohibited by a convention the vast majority of states have signed and ratified, as an expression of national sovereignty. [1] ‘What is the rule of law?’, United Nations Rule of Law, http://www.unrol.org/article.aspx?article_id=3
Legal precedent for prosecution of heads of government

The prosecution of high ranking government officials is part of the Nuremberg precedent that international criminal law largely dates back to. Hideki Tojo, the Prime Minister of Imperial Japan in the Second World War, was tried, convicted and executed as part of the Tokyo trials for Japan’s acts of aggression in going to war. Karl Doenitz was prosecuted despite having briefly been Germany’s head of state; that position did not nullify the crimes he carried out as commander of Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare campaign.   Following that, the ICTY tried Slobodan Milosevic, who died before the trial finished, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone convicted Charles Taylor. It is nothing new that international criminals can be prosecuted. While leaders have, and often still are, able to prevent themselves from being tied in their own country while they are in charge this should not apply the world over.
Head of State immunity reduces the deterrent effect of international criminal law

International criminal law, like any other form of criminal law, is supposed to be a deterrent. By giving a class of individuals impunity, these people cannot be deterred by International Criminal Law from committing some of the worst crimes known to humanity, including genocide. It is plain that many people who reach the heights of political power will use any method to remain in power – thus the resort to intimidation where it can be used to affect the vote, or in the case of Silvio Berlusconi the attempt to put in place an immunity law to prevent himself from being prosecuted for corruption.[1] Immunity will enable both large and small criminal acts, neither of which should be allowed. [1] Kennedy, Duncan, ‘Berlusconi immunity law overruled’, BBC News, 8 October 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8295716.stm
Necessity for diplomatic relations

Whatever the justification, impunity is unacceptable. It is a key part of the rule of law that everyone is subject to the law. To grant individuals impunity for whatever reason is unacceptable. Even if diplomatic immunity is accepted, diplomats are less likely in their role to commit international crimes that a head of state or government is because diplomats do not have access to the coercive machinery that enable these crimes. Diplomatic relations can carry on very well without senior government figures being able to travel wherever they want to. Summits are a luxury not a necessity and most of the deals they make have been hammered out by the diplomats beforehand.
Helps avoid political stunt trials

Many of these so-called “stunts” may actually be legitimate accusations that deserve to be heard in a court. If an accusation is unfounded, charges will not be brought (or not confirmed at the ICC, for example), or a verdict of not guilty returned. Just because a person is high profile does not mean that they are innocent of wrongdoing. In the Livni case she as Foreign Minister may have been the wrong target. A more appropriate one would be the Defense minister or Prime Minister but it is understandable that there should be an effort to make ministers accountable for military actions they initiate.
Greater good – fear of prosecution problematic

That’s equally an argument against international criminal law as head of state immunity. While there may be instances where the head of state or government has to take decisions that might be criminal for the greater good – for example ordering the abduction or assassination of a terrorist – these instances are rare and most of the time the courts will take into account the good as well as the bad. However there are equally times where it is good that someone fears prosecution, if they do it is a sign that what they are doing is wrong. Bombing of Germany could have ended when all military targets had been hit, it need not have involved incendiary bombing of civilian targets. In Japan there was a third option of accepting a conditional surrender – one that guaranteed the position of the Emperor, since the Allies ultimately agreed this anyway there would have been little loss.
Impunity is repugnant to the rule of law

Even though it does effectively create impunity, this is not a unique phenomenon. Decisions on who to prosecute will always happen, and some form of bias against prosecuting powerful people is to some extent inevitable. So in practice not everyone is equal before the law. The ICC specifically builds in a way of deferring prosecutions if needed in Article 16 of the Rome Statute. This shows that the ICC accepts the need to postpone cases, possibly indefinitely. The ICC therefore in practice accepts it cannot prosecute in every case where there may be a case to answer.