Cannabis should be fully legalised to over 18's.

Note: Please disregard my opponent forfeit as 4 rounds is enough to reasonably continue this debate. Pro argues that having Marijuana illegal “makes it ridiculously expensive.” This is unwarranted and I invite my opponent to support this statement. Even if true, along with all the inconveniences that pro says the law creates is true of all illegal crimes. Certainly the same could be said of slave trafficking, it is more expensive, hidden, and more stressful to those who participate due to illegality. This is as it should be. Laws are established to reasonably restrict and deter illegal behavior. Pro’s argument simply shows the effectiveness of making weed illegal as it provides disincentive to those considering partaking of this admittedly harmful drug. Pro makes a small attempt to say that if weed were legal, somehow we would have less domestic violence due to less drinking. This argument is a road to nowhere as weeds legality is not connected to alcohol’s and is thus an entirely separate issue. My opponent begins addressing my statesment by addressing my Observation. Specifically, ThewordofGod states that I “hint that punishments are not relevant to discuss.” He goes on to say that “they (punishments) are fundamental to this debate.”I had stated that It is feasible to argue, as many do, that something should be illegal and decriminalized, or to argue for less stringent punishments for violations. This is why we cannot feasibly consider punishments until we determine if something should or should not be illegal. My opponent is right, in that a law without enforcement is hollow, however to attempt to affix proper “enforcement” of a law before justification of said law or even establishment of law would be ludicrous. This is why we must conclude the question of this debate that is, if weed should be legal or not, before reasonably arguing over proper enforcement/punishment.ThewordofGod says “The notion that the government ought to ban practices that are potentially harmful seems reasonable at first sight, but in practice do good theories always work out when populations are involved?”This is a straw man, I am not arguing that the government ought to ban “potential” harm. Pro even admits “your case for marijuana being harmful I do not dispute.” Thus we see that the harm possed by marijuana is not “potential” it is evident. P1: The U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from harm.Pro says of my first premise “I agree.” He does offer an absurd analogy in defense. I am not inclined to debate if athletes ought to roam free, or if candy ought to be banned, or if those who drive should be. This argument rests solely on if governments ought to protect from harm. My opponent agreed, Premise one stands. P2: Citizens can be and are harmed by MarijuanaAs with the last premise, my opponent concedes stating, “Cannabis can be harmful.” And again “your case for marijuana being harmful I do not dispute.” Though he does take a shot taking at my evidence which he states is “poor.” Though, he never substantiates his issue with it. Being that he concedes the harm and his attack on my evidence is unwarranted this premise also stands. As my premises stand the conclusion logically follows.1: The U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from Marijuana.Being at this stands all that is left is to determine how a government like the U.K. operates. This is simple, 2: The Government protects citizens through the rule of law.Again as {1} and {2} stand, the conclusion logically follows.C: The Government through the rule of Law should protect Citizens from Marijuana.Pro repeatedly attempts to stear the debate away from the topic at hand to enforcement. My arguments all stand. Those arguments justify the illegality of Marijuana.This is why I am opposed to the resolution; that is to say that the U.K. Government should not legalize Marijuana.