Legalization of Marijauna

- REBUTTAL - 1. Marijuana is not addictive; no withdrawal. I smoke pot. A lot of it (and not that mediocre suburban crap either :P). If marijuana were not addictive, why would I have just spent a good deal of money on the stuff just yesterday? Clearly it's not because "I just like it" because there are a lot of things I like or want yet choose not to spend the money on them. Rather I chose to buy weed yesterday because I have what some call a "mental addiction" to the drug, meaning my urges are more cumpulsory than addictive. I acknowledge this. But whether I smoke because I'm addicted or simply THINK I'm addicted makes no difference to me. The fact remains that I felt compelled to buy and smoke weed and so I have and I did. 2. Marijuana is not a Gateway Drug. Under this point, my opponent made a note to include an asteric indicating that citation was needed to prove this point. Let me be clear, my friend, but no citation is needed here for me, as I will refuse to accept any "scientific evidence" that attempts to persuade me that marijuana is not a Gateway Drug. Here's why: I live in the real world and I am exposed to real things. I know many people who use drugs and even more who smoke pot. Not the other way around. This means that those who smoke pot may choose to not move on to harder drugs; however, those who use harder drugs do in fact smoke pot. If they don't, they have at some point in their life, and many of them will tell you that marijuana was their first experience regarding illegal drugs. Thus their fascination of 'being high' was introduced thanks to their (mis)use of cannabis. Now I argue that if marijuana becomes legal and therefore more accessible than it already is, this inclination of trying different kinds of highs is only going to become more widespread, and there is no way of telling that a drug epidemic will not occur. The logic here is better safe than sorry. 3. Marijuana vs. Tobacco & Alcohol Pro's next point of reference was describing the negative effects of tobacco, and how they outweigh those of marijuana. All this point does is prove that nicotine is the more dangerous drug, and perhaps concludes that tobacco use should therefore be illegal. It does not do anything to indicate why mariuana should be legal. Similarly, proving that alcohol remains legal AND has more damaging effects of marijuana does not persuade me that marijuana should be legal. Two wrongs don't make a right. And for the record, Pro is using misinformation when he claims that marijuana has no inclination of causing cancer (notice this wasn't supported through factual citation) -- In fact there is no conclusive evidence indicating whether or not marijuana induces such damaging effects, since most people who smoke pot and have lung cancer are cigarette smokers or abuse other drugs as well. 4. Pot makes you a better driver. Bologna. At best, you're so paranoid when you're high that you drive slower (Pro's point) because you're terrified of being pulled over by the po-po. However driving slower isn't necessarily safer. Further, what Pro fails to include in his argument is that marijuana also has the tendency to make you lackadaisical (trust me - I would know) and slows down your reflexes while driving just as alcohol impairs your ability to operate machinery. Additionally, studies show that between 6 and 16% of injured persons from car crashes tested positive for the presence of THC in their blood stream [1]. 5. Decriminalization? Now, at this point in the argument, I'd like to point out that all Pro is doing is literally copy and pasting arguments from drugwarfacts.org and presenting them as evidence in this debate. Granted Pro actually cited his information (which is more than I can say about a lot of people); however, it doesn't change the fact that I feel like I am arguing against a website or a statistic rather than an individual. That being said, however, let's move on to the actual point. DrugWarFacts.org indicates that government appointed commissions urged law makers to reduce or decriminalize penalties for marijuana possession. However, decriminalization does not = legalization. Further, possession of marijuana is different from buying and selling marijuana... which is a whole other issue. 6. Young people get sent to jail and it ruins their lives. Boo Hoo. Then they should've chosen not to break the law, however ridiculous they felt it was. That's like me saying that "otherwise law abiding" people shouldn't go to jail for other crimes that they've committed, just because those individuals didn't 'feel' that they were doing anything wrong, or because I didn't want to screw up their future... 7. Media use about cannabis users is exaggerated. Nah. Everybody smoked pot :P 8. Our money could be better spent elsewhere. True, but this could be said about a lot of things. Additionally, if criminalizing marijuana saves lives... which it can and it might/does... then how can you argue that our money can be better spent other than for the purpose of saving lives? - MY CONTENTIONS - 1. They say everything that's 'good' is bad for you, and I believe them. Despite popular belief that marijuana is some miracle drug that is not only awesome enough to get you high, but helps us fight things like glaucoma as well as assist cancer patients who are feeling nauseous, the truth is that marijuana IS, in fact, detrimental to your health. An American Cancer Society article notes how marijuana harms the immune system, enhances tumor growth, causes bronchitis and may cause lung cancer (probably because it contains 4x times the amount of the carcinogenic substance known as tar) [2]. Obviously this substance is legally a poison, and unless used for practical or necessary purposes (i.e. recreational does not fall under this category), why should it be legalized? It doesn't make any sense to give cancer patients weed to make them feel better when in turn the marijuana will --> more cancer. 2. If pot becomes legal, children at younger ages will have a higher exposure to the drug than they do now. We put age requirements on things like alcohol because we believe certain things are reserved for what is considerably a certain milestone of maturity... meaning you wouldn't want an 11 year old getting drunk, right? You'd much rather prefer a 21 year old or at least a 16 year old. I believe that most people would agree that youngsters should not have the opportunity to smoke pot, so to increase their chances of exposure would be irresponsible on our parts. 3. I can state that kids will become more adept to smoke pot after its legalization because it will become the new hoo-rah of - you guessed it - Big Tobacco. Every year this corporate whore will make billions by manipulating consumers into killing themselves slowly. Pot won't solve the economic crisis anymore than legalized cigarettes have failed to save the economy. 4. On that note, an addict is actually more likely to hurt the economy, because they would spend a large fraction of their earnings in one particular area instead of distributing it around multiple consumer markets, but I digress. 5. Crime is necessary and useful for society. 6. When cops bust you for pot, they don't turn it in. They smoke that sucka! And I am arguing on behalf of those cops who need a good toke every now and then. 7. My opponent has yet to prove why smoking pot is an inherent, fundamental right. 8. Unlike cigs and booze, marijuana can have hallucinogenic effects... which is pretty friggin cool, but at the same time, not really. You know what I mean. Sources: [1] http://www.drugabuse.gov... [2] http://media.www.thespartandaily.com...