Marijuana should be legalized.

*Topic Specification* This topic needs to be clarified before either of us can debate it appropriately. There are three ways in which a drug can be legalized: 1. The drug is an unregulated substance (like most items of food). There is no substantial body responsible for the safety or production of the substance, and anyone can purchase or sell it. 2. The drug is a prescription drug, regulated by the FDA and prescribed by doctors. 3. The drug is an over-the-counter drug, regulated by the FDA and purchasable by anyone of age at any pharmacy or registered place of sale. (This is actually equivalent to the condition of cigarettes and alcohol) Red24pat12 needs to clarify which (if any of these) he means before any real debate can occur. That said, I will try to provide some general argumentation relating to this topic until red24pat12 does so. *Red24pat12's Argumentation* 1. Someone shouldn't be restrained from a soothing activity with less side-effects than common legal drugs. Why not? This claim has to be warranted before it is worth my time. Beyond that, the long term side-effects of marijuana may or may not be as significant as legal drugs, but this is largely irrelevant, given that legal drugs exist to treat a medical condition, and are a tool doctors can use to do so. Every legal drug is the best method of treatment for some condition under a given circumstance (that's how drugs are approved) What Red24pat12 needs to prove to solidify this argument is: A. Marijuana's side effects are less significant than other drugs which should be legal B. Marijuana is the best method for treating some condition Until he does so, it fails to be convincing. 2. Marijuana use in teenagers will not increase. This argument is entirely defensive, and even if Red24pat12 wins this, it will not help his case. The fact that a given bad thing will not occur if the government does something is not a reason to for the government to do it. Otherwise, I could argue that the United States should nuke New York City because if we did, Marijuana use in teenagers would not increase. Even given that, this argument is not convincing. As the availability of a given drug goes up, general use (including teenage use) goes up. Take Ritalin, for example. Presumably, if Ritalin were illegal, it would be harder for teenagers to access it. There is always the possibility of the drug being mishandled or misused by minors, so the reduction of accessibility is generally a good thing. 3. Crime will decrease because it will reduce dangerous drug deals. It is highly unclear why this should be the case. Gangs exist to distribute illegal drugs. When one drug goes off the market - for whatever reason - the gang population will shift to distribute another drug. The only thing legalizing marijuana would do would be to shift dangerous Marijuana drug deals to dangerous other drug deals, and I see no reason why that would be preferable. *My Argumentation* 1. Marijuana has negative external effects beyond those on the individual user. In a health care system where the many pays for the expenses of the few (i.e. health insurance or a public option), other individuals ought not be obligated to pay for the damaging effects of marijuana use on a user. The long-term health costs of more marijuana use in our society are incredibly vast. Marijuana is incredibly carcinogenic, damages brain cells, causes decreased hormone production, memory loss, interferes with the immune system... and the list goes on. Why should Average Joe fund the addiction of potheads? 2. Marijuana is a gateway drug. People who become involved with drugs through marijuana use are highly likely to advance to more serious, more dangerous, and more harmful drugs. Banning marijuana use is a good way to prevent a larger portion of our population from becoming addicted to worse drugs. 3. Marijuana use for teenagers will increase (See my analysis above) 4. A ban on marijuana is a justified instance of paternalism. The government ought to intervene to protect a citizen from harming himself when the citizen is not acting rationally or when the citizen cannot internalize the costs of his actions. Addicts can do neither of those things. Once someone is addicted, he can no longer understand what is truly best for him, just like any temporarily insane person, and so he needs a third party (society or the government) to step in and protect him from himself. In addition, it is hard for anyone to understand the long term effects of marijuana on their brain (especially after those brain cells start dying...), so the government ought to preemptively prevent individuals from subjecting themselves to those risks. This is the same logic behind seat-belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws. Thank you for proposing this interesting debate. I look forward to your responses! Zabcheckmate