legalizing marijuana

People doing drugs for the sake of doing illegal drugs Pro states that in america “for every hundred marijuana smoker there is one cocaine user”. PRO is just proving my point. Illegalizing marijuana causes people to avoid doing harder drugs. Since marijuana is illegal and people want to do illegal activities, people choose to do marijuana over cocaine. As stated in the last round, legalizing marijuana in the Netherlands caused heroin smoking to increase. I have never stated that marijuana is a “gateway” drug. In fact, my analysis is the opposite. People want to do illegal activities, so they choose to do marijuana instead of harder drugs. I have already given the analysis for why people do illegal activities for the sake of doing activities in the previous rounds and showed evidence that supports the theory. PRO has not challenged the analysis or countered any of the evidence. Instead his response is to arguments that I never even said and in no way refute my claims. His response is just one massive red herring. Prohibition of marijuana increases crime As stated in round 1, his point about organized crimes are moot because he is not advocating for abolishing drugs. As long as other drugs and prostitution is illegal, there will be organized crime. Furthermore, dangerous organized crime results from addictive drugs. PRO has stated that marijuana is not an addictive drug. Then PRO states that “the link between hard drugs would be broken” yet this is a direct contradiction from his previous statement that “marijuana as a gate way drug when their is no real direct link. ” So which one is it? This also contradicts his statements made in the 1st round that prohibition of drugs does not work. Somehow prohibition does not work for alcohol, but works for hard drugs, provided that marijuana is illegal. What? I have agreed with PRO’s Round 1 analysis on prohibition and these arguments do not interfere with my arguments. Medical benefits of marijuana PRO has conceded that there are negative side effects from taking marijuana for medication. Furthermore, you don’t get “bad trips” because you smoke it instead of eat it, you get it because you are high on marijuana. So the idea that you can “eat it” instead of “smoke it” does not alleviate the problem of side effects. In fact, eating marijuana causes the duration to be longer, and because they are not “instant” and one can easily eat a lot, one can have a worse trip eating marijuana instead of smoking it. PRO states that medicine for nausea can be lethal. I’d love for PRO to please explain to me how medicine for relieving nausea can be lethal because I have never heard of any deaths that have occurred from nausea medication. So, as stated in the previous round, the medical benefits of marijuana are nonexistent and the side effects from marijuana are worse than traditional nausea medication, in which there are plenty of nausea reducing medication. Taxation of marijuana PRO again does not respond to my argument, and instead goes on to state how taxation of marijuana will occur. That’s nice, but it does not address my previous argument that the state has not exhausted its methods of taxations so the point is moot. As stated previous, the problem in California is not that they can’t find a way to generate revenue, it’s that people want government benefits without paying for it. Conclusion: PRO has not addressed my arguments in previous rounds. This leads me to conclude that he concedes them. He has not responded to my analysis that people will do illegal drugs for the sake of doing illegal drugs, and legalizing marijuana will cause people to turn to harder drugs. This is a win for me because people doing harder drugs is worse for society then people doing softer drugs. As stated in the first round, I must demonstrate that making marijuana illegal will be more beneficial for society, which I have. I also demonstrated that charging marijuana users with community service benefits society as a whole, which PRO has not responded to.