Medical Marijuana is, on balance, an effective medicine

1. Drug legalization Again, these issues are irrelevant. We are not debating drug legalization, we’re not even debating the legalization of medical marijuana, and we are arguing whether or not medical marijuana is an effective medicine. Although the points he makes about opium are highly debatable, the points are indeed irrelevant. Looking at the resolution, the red herring of this argument is obvious. It should have no bearing on the voters. 2. Majorities I don’t know where my opponent is going with this. He writes the point as if it’s a rebuttal, when I have never even mentioned a pol l or country laws. Regardless, he seems to have not looked into the new polls on legalization. Last time I checked, 51% of Americans supported pro-marijuana policies (the number was higher for medical purposes) and only 44% opposed it. Regardless, this point is also irrelevant. What the majority thinks is irrelevant to something’s effectiveness. Also, it is subject to the argumentum ad populum fallacy. This point, too, should be disregarded. 3. Biased votes Regardless of any bias, you deserve to lose this debate because you have not posted one relevant argument except “marijuana is bad”, you have not even contested (other than a few personal stories) my effectiveness argument! Even a drug czar would admit you are losing this debate – or, at least, in this situation. Also, only about 50% of the members support drug legalization (amongst the active members, the amount it likely slightly higher, maybe 55 or 60%.) My opponent also assumes every person who is “pro drug” will vote against him. Many voters on this site are reasonable and can give objective votes on debates. And, this too is irrelevant to the argument. Even if there is voter bias, how does this prove medical marijuana is bad? 4. It’s bad for you I have not doubted this. Marijuana is not a harmless drug, but it’s not very harmful either. Yes, marijuana often leads to throat problems and, for some parts of the population, lung problems. As I have argued throughout the debate, using credible sources, the amount of damage marijuana causes is highly over stated by government agencies. Marijuana has unproven links to cancer and often helps treat the diseases it supposedly causes, so it may have a net-zero when used medically (recreational use likely will have no such counterbalancing effect – marijuana usage recreationally is unhealthy). The vast amount of new research supports medical marijuana. My opponent cites one study done by the government. First, it claims there is no proof smoked marijuana is of any benefit, especially for cancer. This claim is empirically untrue. As I stated in round one, there have been more clinical trials proving medical marijuana as a safe medicine than almose every FDA approved drug, but the issue is so politicized the FDA has been forced to ignore these findings. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the NIDA has blocked research (which some organizations trying to research the issue have claimed). The 1999 Institute of medicine report noted many benefits of marijuana, but still claimed it was not a “modern” medicine. In their 2000 report, they were able to put more light on even newer research. This report noted, “Considerable clinical evidence indicates that marijuana could yield a variety of useful medicines, especially for nausea, vomiting, and appetite stimulation. THC, in the form of Marinol (dronabinol), has already been used for more than a decade to treat these symptoms in cancer patients and for several years in AIDS patients as well. But other cannabinoids, or combinations of cannabinoids, may prove to be more effective than THC alone. If so, any pharmaceuticals that result from such discoveries could benefit people with AIDS as well as those living with cancer.”[1] With so many studies, and prestigious medical associations providing robust research on the topic, I am appalled by the government cherry picking the evidence, ignoring these reports, and they claiming there is no evidence. Sadly, they are the ones with no evidence. Marinol, which my opponent talked about, is much less effective than marijuana, as my quote stated. It takes hours to work, due to its oral route as a pill, and is much weaker than marijuana. Marijuana, being smoked, is more potent (but more potent =/= worse) and is much more effective. Extra strength Tylenol is more potent, but more effective, so is my opponent points this out he might as well ban most medicines with high dosages. The vast preponderance of evidence supports my position; I don’t see how my opponents op-eds somehow refute strong research. The IOM 2000 report notes every report published three years before theirs by medical organizations shows evidence is strongly on the side of marijuana’s effectiveness. Again, my opponent has provided no strong counter evidence to my claims. He, therefore, has lost the effectiveness point and the debate. My opponent cites one good source on the issue of medical marijuana, a two page pdf with no blatant bias or dishonesty, but it seems to have ignored the 2000 IOM report. The 1999 report essentially said marijuana is bad, it’s a good medicine, but marinol is probably better. The 2000 report looked into the evidence published after the IOM report. Although asking for more research, they state marijuana is bad (though how bad it actually is remains uncertain), marijuana is a good medicine, marijuana is better than marinol and other medications [1]. My opponent’s reference is a little outdated… CONCLUSION: I think this debate for anyone is obvious. My opponent has engaged in mainly red herrings, and has given little evidence that marijuana is an ineffective medicine (and the evidence he has given is either weak or has been refuted). I strongly urge a pro vote. 1. http://www.nap.edu...