Marijuana Legalization

"Alcohol, on the other hand, does not fall under any of these classifications because it is NOT a drug. " This is irrelevant. One could make the same kind of arguments you're using against pot here in support of banning junk food or other unhealthy behavior. This is not a debate about drug legalization but specifically marijuana legalization. "Tobacco also is NOT a drug. " Nicotine is. But it doesn't really matter. "Hence, neither of these can be compared to marijuana because they do not apply. " They absolutely apply. We are talking about the prohibition of a substance. "Hence, it is ludicrous to compare the two, since one is basically comparing a potent substance of a different class to both alcohol and tobacco. " All the facts point to the conclusion that tobacco and alcohol are both much more "potent" than pot. "When comparing, opium is found to be a less harmful substance - why not legalize opium and maintain marijuana at its illegal status? Because everybody wants marijuana. Why does everybody want marijuana? they want to feel only the unsteadiness and hallucinations of marijuana - because they're addicted. " Besides those statements being presented entirely baseless, they aren't even relevant to the debate. To say that people are addicted to something or not(pot having very low dependency by the way) says nothing about whether it is right to outlaw it or not. Should we ban anything at the slightest whiff of someone being dependent on it? Not only is that wrong and purely authoritarian in nature but it makes the problem worse by having that person simply buy it from the black-market instead, thus fueling violence. "Why do they want to become high? Because they're addicted. " That simply does not follow. "Why not choose something legal? " Gee, maybe because it has the best average between safety, effect and price by discretion of the consumer. "What happens when marijuana does not entice any longer? Move onto meth or cocaine. " You post an argument without backing it up with any facts; your argument is dismissed. "The only possible debate is that it will eliminate one small segment of the drug war (but not the rest of it). " Are you kidding me? What part of pot being the #1 crop in America don't you understand. The drug war is so primarily a war on pot that it can almost exclusively be called such. "And I've already given reasonable debate that the drug wars will not cease but rather increase. " I must have lost consciousness while viewing that part of your post. "Does marijuana benefit any healthy individual? No! " You clearly didn't think through that statement very well. Besides the obvious medical purposes, it is also a means of generating income through business. Many families actually survive off of the income they generate from selling pot, but that's very hard to do with the government breathing down their neck. "One other point: note the two images at the beginning of the videos in the "history of weed". Do either of those two look like productive citizens? No, they both look like they're mentally dead, as does the woman in the first video who adamantly advocates marijuana (Looks like she's an abuser). The guy in history video one is obese, shaggy and high -likely also a vagrant. That is an accurate description of many marijuana abusers. " Seeing as I have points to make from having good conduct, I need to refrain from insults so I will simply say that that may be one of the most unintelligent sentiments I've ever seen in these debates on debate. org. But the voter will be the judge. "the other 31 did not compromise their morals and smoke hemp at all in their livelihoods? " Smoking pot is not immoral. If it is than you have the burden to provide why. "Do any of you actually believe that the cartels are going to give up the trade if it is legalized? Of course not! " You don't know economics. Outlawing pot doesn't get rid of pot, it is simply forcing it into the hands of the cartels. The government is basically granting them a monopoly on the product with no competition from the legitimate business world. "They would not allow "Regulated" marijuana to consume their market. " If pot is legalized the cartels would no longer have exclusive power over it. It would be apart of the public domain and under control by the markets and public will. "Rather, the cartels will just expand their war to include government dealers and legislators. Or, of course, the "regulation" will soon become corrupt as the Government agencies are infiltrated and "Legal" marijuana funnelled into black market sources. " When did I ever say that the pot was issued by the government? No, I'm suggesting it be moved into the free private sector to be utilized by business owners but having some public over-sight. "My opponent is hereby suggesting that we compromise our morals and create vast amounts of revenue by ruining lives. " You have the burden of proof, sir. "How much harm will it do economically when quality decreases because nobody cares due to the fact that they're all "Stoned"? " You think everyone is going to be a stoner just because pot gets legalized? Pot is legal in Amsterdam, Netherlands yet about 20% less people in the Netherlands have smoked pot than in the US. [see video] . http://www.youtube.com... "Armies will easily gain marijuana and will brutally shoot civilians due to the fact that they know no morals while they're drugged. " Oh please. The effects of smoking pot make you much more inclined to being peaceful, passive, empathetic, relaxed and friendly with others than otherwise; this is common knowledge, ask anyone who uses it, seriously. "The Government already forces us to adhere to moral behaviour and decency. It is due to the proven fact that if people are left to their own devices, anarchy rules, murder and crime prevail. This is proven. " Haha, I'm not even going to go there right now. But you do know I'm an Anarchist? "In fact, the law is even beginning to interfere regarding obesity and health relevance due to the fact that people are too lazy to monitor themselves and their families - or care. " That is regulation, not prohibition. To outlaw junk food would cause a huge problem. Just like the huge drug-war problem. "and it is up to the government to prevent people from causing more harm to themselves" It most certainly is not. Who are you to tell me what I do with my body? === ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT=== Isn't it a wonder that the great majority of debates done on this subject is a win for my side? Seen here: . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... ===Notes=== . This was all my own research, I did not copypasta from other debates. . I personally do not smoke pot nor have taken any intoxicating drugs. . This has been a wonderful debate.