AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally.

IntroductionMy opponent believes I have misunderstand his first argument. This is not the case. The idea of making sure a drug is "safe and effective" in order to legalize it clearly pertains to medical marijuana. The FDA has allowed both alcohol and cigarettes which are less safe in comparison to marijuana (and certainly not effective in anyway). Even if this idea of safety and effectiveness does include recreational marijuana, my opponent's argument basically states that we can't make cannabis legal because under the status quo of the FDA, meaning it should stay illegal. This argument is flawed because my opponent has assumed the status quo of the FDA is legitimate. Moreover, throughout my constructive, I have shown that marijuana is a less harmful drug when compared to currently legal drugs.I will now look at each of my opponent's attacks on my constructive case...C1) Marijuana's impact on users and those around them:Psychotic Symptoms: My opponent begins by attacking my argument in which people diagnosed with schizophrenia were positively impacted by medical marijuana by saying that this debate (as I confirmed) is over recreational marijuana. This is true; however, cannabis used for recreational purpose can still have medical benefits. The two are not exclusive. I was mainly using that point to debunk the common misconception that marijuana worsens mental conditions.Mental Degradation: For this point, I had made a claim that explained the use of cannabis does not result in the loss of brain cells. My opponent attacks my source by explaining that it is outdated and the studies are not linked. The truth is, that it is difficult to find studies on marijuana / brain cell count because many regular users are unwilling to participate for fear of being caught. This point doesn't carry much weight in this debate, but I'll go ahead and address my opponents claims that state rats have lost brain cells from marijuana. The Union: The Business Behind Getting High (a documentary) explains that in such tests, animals are given an abnormal amount of marijuana; more than any human could possibly consume in such a short period of time. As with such a dose of most things, a test subject would be expected to lose brain cells (1).Marijuana as a Tobacco Substitute: For starters, I will note that the sample size for the study that proved marijuana as an effective substitute for tobacco was small. However, this does not prove the experiment to be invalid. As I have said earlier (on both sides of the argument) there is going to be an inevitable lack of evidence simply because marijuana is studied significantly less than one would expect. My opponent essentially explains that unless I can show that marijuana is less harmful than tobacco smoke, switching has no positive impact. The thing is, I have shown this through my constructive. As my fourth source has shown, smoking marijuana can increase lung capacity. Lets take another quick look at how marijuana compares to tobacco: USCF notes, "Air flow rate increased rather than decreased with increased exposure to marijuana up to a certain level (2)." As I've said before, smoking weed is not exactly *good* for one's lungs. However, it is preferable to smoking tobacco. Take a look at source two for more. Effect on Bystanders: This point was basically dropped. All my opponent did here is call out a quote from my source: "However I would like to quote the source “Research on stoned driving is inconsistent, with some studies finding impairment and others not." Now, obviously there is some degree of impairment when individuals drive while high. The argument is that the degree of impairment is significantly less to that of a drunk driver. Remember, with legalization lives are saved through this odd benefit. In Colorado alone, we see that there are 3,000 less car crash fatalities each year.C2) Unnecessary ArrestMy opponent explains that from *his* stand point, this position is irrelevant. This actually isn't quite the case. My opponent has provided no actual evidence that proved that keeping marijuana illegal is beneficial. All he has done is argue that by the standards of the FDA, it should be kept illegal. Since my opponent has provided zero evidence as to why keeping marijuana illegal is beneficial to society, there is no reason that this shouldn't be considered. I am not arguing that the state doesn't have a legal right to make such arrests; obviously, they do. This argument is more of a moral one. It is against the common good to ruin someone's life through an arrest for a victimless "crime." Also, (I'll get more into this on the money point) taxpayers pay a huge amount of money to keep these prisoners in jail.C3) Money and the EconomyMy first point went dropped by my opponent. This is definitely my most important point in this category. American taxpayers are paying around 1 billion every year to keep cannabis prisoners in jail. As I explained, the prohibition of pot has now become unfair to not only the consumer, but to the taxpayer as well. In reality, the only person that benefits when it comes to money is the drug dealers. In the words of my adversary, "Legalizing actions so they can be taxed is morally wrong." That is, of course, not the main motivation behind legalizing marijuana. There are many practical reasons to legalize cannabis and that is just one of them. He continues, "the legalized actions are not for the benefit of the people." The problem with that statement is, my opponent has done nothing to prove that legalizing cannabis hurts the common good. All he has argued is that it is within the status quo of the FDA to keep marijuana illegal. This point ultimately stands because through legalization, taxpayers won't pay for unnecessary arrests, tax revenue will benefit the states, and the economy will boom due to the new jobs.C4) Safer CannabisMy opponent has basically conceded to this point. Through legalization of marijuana, we will ultimately obtain safer cannabis. The thing we disagree on, is (a) whether or not marijuana is safe and (b) FDA's process of approving drugs. Note that alcohol and tobacco are regulated (and also more harmful than cannabis).ConclusionI have proved throughout the debate that marijuana should be legalized for a variety of reasons. As I said earlier on, even if it were harmful, that does not change the fact that though the legalization of marijuana:1. Taxpayers will stop having to pay for unnecessary arrests for victimless "crimes."2. Tax revenue will work toward the benefit of society.3. The economy will thrive.4. Cannabis will be safer.The thing is, marijuana isn't a very harmful drug. In fact (health wise) it works toward the common good.1. People use it as an alternative to tobacco (which helps the lungs).2. People use it as an alternative to alcohol (which prevents car accidents).Therefore, I firmly believe we should legalize cannabis. Thanks to con for such an interesting debate.Vote Pro!!(1) The Union: The Business Behind Getting High (Movie Website: http://www.theunionmovie.com...)(2) http://www.ucsf.edu...