TBD: To Be decided by Con.

Ok, instead of going line by line, I'm gonna break down the main ideas. 1) Central Thesis Opponents thesis: Sure they have that right, but they have the right also to the better and less expensive cigarette version of marijuana. One right does not cancel out the other in this case. My First response: My opponents essential thesis is flawed because smoking marijuana is illegal. It would be beneficial to make LSD laced with codeine to relieve the pain of a cancer patient, but that's illegal. Everyone should be seen as equal with the law, even Cancer patients. Her response: All prescription medicines are illegal without a prescription. Using your logic we should ban all prescription drugs. My Response: Key words - illegal without prescription. Marijuana-Cannabis is not FDA approved because its so spasmodic with it's results. That's why Marinol is used instead. However, since Marijuana-Cannabis is illegal NOW, then my previous attack stands. My opponents central thesis is falwed. 2) Cost My Response: My opponent gives an example where you can buy Marinol for like $1,000. However, this site is if your buying DIRECTLY through that company. The 3 factors I have given brought the cost down to about $200 (According to the US Health Department) Thus you can drop her cost argument. 3) Nausea My Response: Ok, me and my opponent are arriving at 2 different endpoints. She wants to stop the nausea of a cancer patient. However, I believe there is a bigger issue. The PAIN a cancer patient goes through. My opponent says my 2 alternatives: A)Pill (Marinol) and B) Liquid for Marijuana should not be used because it doesn't treat nausea entirely. This may be true. However, whats more important, making sure the patient is in less pain, or that they stop vomiting? The Affirmative's side decreases pain and suffering rather then just vomiting. Thus I urge that you look at my side rather then the Con. 4) Conclusion "By his own evidence Pro proved that cannabis has medical benefits. He has, in fact conceded that cannabis usage in cancer patients is justifiable. Our only argument seems to be method of delivery. The government & pharmaceutical companies have tried to emulate what nature already does. What is the purpose of offering medications to the seriously ill that can be bought easier and cheaper in its most natural state? The only benefit I see from these methods of delivery is that drug companies will make a LOT of money off of something that /could/ be grown in a closet with a black light and a coke bottle." My Response: Yes, Cannabis does have some medical benefits. However, its extremely spasmodic. That's why the FDA wont approve of it. Making an artificial version would be much more effective. I.e. Pills and Liquid form. Also, expanding artificial marijuana use would open more jobs. =) Just wnated to through that in there. My Case: I. Marinol Pills A) Reduces pain and suffering B) Lasts longer C) Approved by the FDA II. Liquid Form Marijuana A) Reduces pain and suffering B) Lasts longer C) Approved in Britain D) Cost effective Conclusion: Both of these alternatives beat the use of marijuana smoking. Both last longer, reduce more pain, and isn't illegal. This evidence is enough to affirm the resolution: Cancer patients should not be allowed to smoke marijuana to relieve their symptoms. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Very good debate Xera