Legalization of Marijauna

1. I'm a little confused by your rebuttal of my first point. Your attack was, "Who says marijuana has to be smoked?" and then went into a whole ordeal about other ways to consume marijuana, followed by a quote with faulty citation regarding marijuana and cancer. However, MY point one was about neither of those things -- in fact, my first point was about addition and withdrawl. As a reminder, my point here was that even if marijuana is not deemed physically addicting, I argue that it is mentally addicting, and buyers make purchases based on cumpulsion or based on the idea that they THINK and FEEL that they 'need' the drug, even if biologically they really don't. And let's face it - if someone THINKS they need something (mental addiction), that's really no different than if they really did 'need' it. Either way the result will be the same: buying and using. 2. My 2nd point was that I do believe marijuana to be a Gateway Drug, based on the fact that most if not all of hard drug users began getting high via marijuana. I've also noted that marijuana users can choose not to move on to harder drugs, however, those that have chosen to do so will almost always cite marijuana as their introduction to the 'highs' that they are now addicted to. Pro in no way refuted this fact nor did he provide citation stating otherwise. Instead, Pro responded with the most BS answer that I have ever heard: that legalizing marijuana will NOT make it harder for kids to get pot. Um, is that a joke? Clearly he can't be serious. I'll ask that you think of it this way, ladies and gentlemen... say you are 16 or 17 and want a pack of cigarettes. Legally, you should not be able to walk into a store and buy them, however, we all know that there are ways around that (apathetic store workers who don't care who they sell to, older friends who will buy them for you, lazy workers who don't ask for ID and assume you're 18, etc.)! Yet if you're 16 and want to buy POT, well, that would surely be a harder feat! First you have to know a drug dealer. But what if that dealer is out of town, out of weed, or out of patience for answering calls from annoying bug-a-boos who call non-stop looking for bud, hmm? Anyway, I can't believe I'm wasting my time/characters with this... the point is that every educated person can assume that it is more feasable to buy cigarettes than it is weed. I resent Pro for saying I'm "ignorant of reality" when he is clearly the ignorant one in terms of this debate! Regardless, in response to Pro's point that, "Once they smoke it, and like it, they will start to feel like their 'tough', because they're doing something illegal" (about smoking weed). I agree. That doesn't change the fact that they are still smoking and becoming addicted though, so... 3. Pro's 3rd point is, "When marijuana is legalized smokers will grow their own weed." I argue that there is no basis for this argument. As it is, people can make their own wine, brew their own beer or roll their own tobacco; however, that is incredibly unpopular to say the least! Even though people CAN do these things, most people DON'T and there is no proof that people would do the same with weed. The only reason people grow their own weed today is to eliminate interaction with a drug dealer or to save money. Truth be told, most Americans lack the time, patience or care to grow their own crop, not to mention the money. Let's not forget that America is not the ideal place to grow weed (especially a city like Seattle, for instance), therefore one would have to invest in a mini green-house, if you will. Either way, society's behavorial patterns show us that people growing their own weed is not likely, thus my point about Big Tobacco being in complete control in yet of another terrible product stands. 4. At this point, I have come to conclude that while Pro may be a passionate indivudual with big ideas, he's not too keen on neither political, economical or philosophical know-how. For instance, pro exclaims, "How can you say that the well-being of the economy is an excuse to take away a person's right to make their own choices?" This completely disreards a simple concept such as tax tariffs. You may believe that a person should have the right to make their own choices about what products to buy, for example, but that doesn't mean that the government will let you (without a price) for the sake of the economy. 5. "Are you insane? Crime is necessary for society? I can't believe I'M the one viewed as the head case." First of all, nobody ever called you a head case. At least I haven't. Second, apparently Pro is completely ignorant of the POPULAR philosophical idea that crime is necessary for society, for which there has been extensive research and support. Perhaps Pro should take the time to research Durkheim, or, for the short version: Durkheim argued that crime is functional. By punishing criminals, society reaffirms it own values. If crimes were not committed, then the values of society would become blurred. If there is no punishment, then there would be no way of reestablishing the values that the crime offends [1]. 6A. I never said that cops were above the law. I simply said that cops should be allowed to smoke some weed every now and then after a stressful day (I don't know about where you're from, but here in New York City, cops have it rough...). Simply because I don't think something is immoral does not mean that I feel it should be illegal for other purposes. 6B. Pro says that just because 700k people are arrested for marijuana violations, and many others are known to smoke pot, that a lot of people don't agree with the current legislation and therefore pot should be decriminalized. What kind of faulty logic is that? Just because a lot of people believe in something doesn't make it right. A lot of people believed in slavery -- that didn't make it right or mean it should remain legal. 7. After calling Pro out for not providing any evidence to back his contentions about rights and liberty, Pro proceeded to call me ignorant and foolish (ha). Rather he is the ignorant and foolish one because I never disagreed with those ideals but rather highlighted a fundamental mistake with his approach to this debate... i.e. not providing any reasoning whatsoever! After finally supplying some type of basis for his argument, Pro notes that because some people use marijuana to "develop spiritually" that it should be legal. Well, some religions kill people as sacrificial offerings for "spiritual development" -- should THAT practice be legalized too? Further, Pro asserts that it is our constittional right to smoke marijuana, but where is the constitution does it say that? Sure we are (supposed) to be granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but consider Pro's weak argments in their defense (as it pertains to marijuana). According to him, a dying person should be allowed to do what they please. But aren't we all just dying slowly? Additionally, if Americans are going to treat the government like a mom or dad (ie: I spent all my allowance - can I borrow some money?), then they are going to have to obey mom and dad's rules (ie: no smoking pot... because I said so!). 7 (8). Once again Pro talks about the dangers of tobacco and marijuana, so once again I have to ask why that has anything to do with the debate. Just because those substances are bad does not mean that marijuana is good. 9. In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to tell Pro to Shut the Hell Up. I'm tired of his accusations. Truth be told I love marijuana and believe that it should be legalized 100%. I also believe that Pro is an incompetent debater who can effectively argue this postion. Additionally, he has proceeded to call me names and make up stupid stories to compensate for his lack of persuasion. It's a sad day for us Pro-Legalizationers! Source: http://www.revision-notes.co.uk...