Marijuana\Cannabis should be legalised for both medical and recreational purposes in the U.S.

1)A FEELING OF WELLBEING ISN'T NECESSARILY HAVING GOOD WELLBEING "Firstly, the feeling of well being is a positive thing. " -Clearly my opponent can not distinguish the difference between feeling good and actually being "good" In most cases, feeling healthy means you are healthy, however this is not true in all scenarios. An example of this are sufferer from a group of diseases collectively known as "congenital insensitivity to pain" Sufferers have an inability to feel pain, so you could say they feel healthy(or have a feeling of wellbeing). Unfortunately, many sufferers die young or are prone to hurting themselves unwittingly, so they are not actually healthy. This is comparable to marijuana users. After abusing, they have a feeling of wellbeing. However this is only a feeling and it covers the true horror of whats happening to the abusers body. And during this feeling of wellbeing, one is more likely to indulge in risk taking and other dangerous activities that under ones normal state of mind, one would have steered well clear of. -It is quite fair to assume that the anxiety and nausea can be called symptoms of a "low" -and i stated paranoia as a short term effect which means my opponent is agreeing with me 2)MARIJUANA IS A CRIME WITH VICTIMS "To start, the fact Marijuana may make the user unsociable does not refute at is a victimless crime. It is not a crime to be unsociable, at least not in the US. Indeed, there is no obligation to the Marijuana user to be sociable and remain in contact with friends and family. Furthermore, its effect of making people unsociable is still not enough to warrant a ban of it. " If you look at it from that angle, then the person who is caught in the grip of marijuana is the victim. Unable to get out of an addiction that is ruining there life. Marijuana is stealing their money along with their life. It is kidnapping a child from someones family. "Which I said was detriment to the user, and no-one else. A minor inconvenience to the employer, but they can of course test potential employees for Marijuana us, which many do. There is really no issue for society that Marijuana may make its user less productive. " Not all people work in big businesses that can afford job losses. Not all people hold insignificant jobs. What happens if that abuser is the owner of a business? What if the abuser is in a job that few others can do? You can not legislate a law with complete disregard for individuals. 3)GATEWAY DRUG For every source my opponent can put forward claiming that cannabis is not a gate way drug, I have put one forward claiming it is. So i think it is fair to say that while cannabis may not be a gateway drug for all users, it is a gateway drug for SOME users. Even if only a small percent of the population is affected, that still equates to a lot of people and a lot of revenue for drug lords. "these drug lords are no longer in a criminal business. Drugs is their business, they commit cries to eliminate the competition or get funding. And neither of the latter will no longer be necessary in a legitimate market. " Many of these drug lords will sell drugs other than cannabis. "And unless my opponent can show evidence to help prove these assumptions then they hold no weight in this debate. " I made the statements in rebuttal to a post made by my opponent. My opponent did not present any evidence either, so it is reasonable to say both arguments are void. "As for my opponent final comment about dependency on the abuser, the people depend on the user by choice of using Marijuana, however, it is extremely unlikely someone can be addicted to Marijuana and become dependent, and this is limited to long term, daily Marijuana users [5], and if my opponent states Marijuana users will increase with legalisation, there is little evidence for that either [6]. " I don't believe my opponent understood what i said. I said that other people may be dependent on the cannabis taker. As for my opponents evidence for his previous post. I find it interesting that it is all from one website. So i take the liberty to question the accuracy of his sources. If my opponent was unable to find any other sources to prove his accuracy then it brings into question whether the website is a legitimate source. I have not included any sources in this post as i did not introduce any new material as it would be unfair to bring in new material that could not be scrutinised by my opponent. In conclusion I have shown that cannabis is indeed a crime with victims, both legally and morally. The relatively minor economic benefits of cannabis legalisation is by no means compensation for all the other effects of cannabis legalisation. it may contain curative benefits, but that is irrelevant as this debate is not about legalising medical marijuana but legalising all marijuana. As for the resolution, I have shown you multiple reason why cannabis should not be legalised, while my opponent has put forward a single valid reason for legalisation. Even this reason is minor in comparison to the other issues discussed in the debate. I have hopefully convinced you beyond all reasonable doubt that cannabis should not be legalised. I thank my opponent 1-am-a-panda for this wonderful debate and you the reader who took the effort to read through this. I hope you vote on this debate.