legalization of cannabis and hemp

My opponent is correct in his assessment of the general positions held by each side. In order to satisfy my opponent's request, I will acknowledge many of the myths and lies that tend to be propagated by both sides of this argument in order to demonstrate the whole truth. While it may appear as if I am hurting my own argument, I belief that a complete and thorough understanding of the issue is necessary in order to understand that the evidence weighs in favor of the con. Unfortunately, The anti Marijuana coalition is cursed with a history or deceitful propaganda, lies, and coercive policy. This tends to lend much more credit than is due to the pro side of this argument, much like how a proponent of the Confederate flag would be instantly associated with racists and other hysteria. The fact that there is so much propaganda on the con side of this argument makes it difficult to assess the true risks and dangers of cannabis. As my opponent may suspect, the proponents of legalization and medical cannabis are not above releasing their own propaganda and misinformation campaigns. The difficulty with their style of propaganda is that it often appeals to compassion and respect for civil liberties as apposed to "protectionism" and public responsibility as the con does. For example, one of the primary heralding of medical cannabis is that it is effective for treating glaucoma. In almost all cases, cannabis is not an appropriate treatment for glaucoma. While it does reduce pressure of the eye, it also increases heart rate and adversely effects blood pressure, often exasperating the condition more than helping it. The most obvious drawback is that cannabis must be taken up to eight times in one day in order to sustain a therapeutic effect of the useful kind. Essentially, one must be completely stoned every waking hour of the day to realistically treat most forms of glaucoma effectively. http://www.eyecareamerica.org... I'm aware that my opponent is arguing for the legalization of cannabis, rather than for medical use. However, I find it important to point out that the strategy behind the medical cannabis campaign uses many of the same strategies as the legalization campaign. It is factually correct to state that Cannabis relieves pain and pressure from glaucoma. Most studies done on the subject will show this. However, looking at the whole picture rather than one small fact reveals that medical cannabis is not a realistic treatment option for this ailment. Despite this, the majority of people will simply see opponents of medical cannabis simply refusing to "acknowledge" scientific data. In reality, many proponents of medical cannabis are guilty of the very accusation they make. It's unfortunate that medical cannabis has become so politicized, as there are genuine, even valuable uses for medical cannabis. In fact, I think all medical prohibition is an atrocity. The concept that lawmakers are more versed on medical literature to the effect that they "know" that cannabis will never ever be the optimal drug for a patient in any conceivable situation is absurd. They same can be said for almost all illicit drugs. Despite the fact that they should be kept illegal for recreational use, drugs such as cocaine, LSD, and even methamphetamine have valid medical uses. Unfortunately, the legalization campaign has spewed enough misinformation that it understandable for politicians to be wary of legalizing medical marijuana at all. As clichï¿½ as it sounds, the medical marijuana movement is largely a backdoor approach to legalization. Now, on to the legalization of cannabis itself. There are many schools of thought when it comes to the legalization of cannabis. The most mainstream are that it is less harmful than alcohol, and that it can help the economy, with other arguments including civil liberty and freedom. I will address the mainstream arguments first, and come back to the liberty issue in a bit. Proponents of cannabis legalization most commonly argue that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol. The most apparent flaw in this argument is that it is essentially comparing apples to oranges. Alcohol is a depressant, while Cannabis is a cocktail of drugs that can be considered a depressant, stimulant, and hallucinogen all at once. The two drugs both cause a host of problems to both the individual and to society as a whole. Cannabis is well known to increase heart rates and increase the likelihood of stroke or heart attack. It may also cause lung infections, bronchitis, and other respiratory issues. It's been linked to many social issues such as anti-social behavior, violence, and cognitive impairment, especially among the youth. Depression and psychosis have also been linked to the drug, although these conditions are less conclusive. My point is not to prove that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol. Rather, my point is that Cannabis does cause harm to both the individual and to society as a whole, just like alcohol. http://health.usnews.com... http://health.usnews.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... This of course, leads to the inevitable argument of "If alcohol is legal, cannabis should also be legal". This argument is a perfect example of a non sequiter. The idea that since one damaging substance is legal, all others should also be legal is silly. The most pragmatic solution would, in fact, be to reinstate prohibition. Alcohol Prohibition has been subject to endless inaccurate revisionism and downright lies; campaign of propaganda no better than the federal government's own "Reefer Madness" campaign. Prohibition did work, Prohibition does work, and Prohibition will continue to work for whatever substance it is applied to. During prohibition, alcohol use decreased an estimated 30-50%. Hospital admittances for cirrhosis, arrests for drunkenness, and suicide all decreased by roughly 50%. Organised crime became more visible for obvious reasons, but it did not within itself become more widespread or severe. These facts are all in the face of the fact that many states refused to enact or enforce local alcohol laws, leaving only 250 federal agents to enforce the law. Despite this ridiculous lack of executive power, Prohibition was a tremendous public health policy success. This phenomenon can be seen even today, in which countries who have de-facto legalized cannabis (such as the Netherlands and Canada) have seen cannabis use triple among young people. http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.druglibrary.org... http://alcoholism.about.com... Of course, alcohol prohibition would be nearly impossible to legislate today, because almost everyone uses alcohol. This does not mean that modern alcohol prohibition would not work, and would not improve public health. If the majority of Americans were Pedophiles, we would have the same problem with Pedophilia laws. Ultimately, keeping all damaging substances illegal will improve public health and safety. Thus, the only argument left would be one of civil liberties. I am nearly out of space, so I will end this round and let my opponent choose whether to challenge the notion that cannabis use is damaging to public health, and that prohibition works, or make the argument of civil liberties.