Marijuana should be legalized

NegPro drops all contentions I have presented.My opponent's argument can be depicted with the following syllogism:P1: If marijuana is safer than already legal drugs, then it should be legalP2: Marijuana is safer than already legal drugsC: Marijuana should be legalI will contend that:1) This doesn't properly affirm the resolution2) Pro has not proven the syllogism to be soundThis doesn't properly affirm the resolutionPro takes a false stance; if alcohol etc. is as bad as Pro postulates, then it should be banned; it should not be an indicator that marijuana (a drug that causes phsychosis, depression, cancer, changes in brain formation etc.) should be legal. It should be an indicator that the substances that are more harmful than marijuana should be illegal as well. This is under the pretense that a person's health is in our best interests viz. we should illegalize harmful substances rather than allow the public to have more access to harmful substances. This contention is synthesized upon a possibility that the syllogism is sound.Pro has not proven this syllogism to be soundPro postulates the following: " As we know these things are legal and as I demonstrate before some are even worse than marijuana for example in this website herehttps://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com...... which shows what's in a marijuana smoke and a cigarette smoke and compares them and it shows that cigarettes are worse."He states that his source concludes that cigarette smoke is worse? I disagree. What the source really says is that: "Marijuana does contain more tar than tobacco". Nowhere else in the source is there a comparison. Although, if Pro wants to compare smoke, this source states: "Marijuana smoke contains 50% to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke." and "One major research study reported that a single cannabis joint could cause as much damage to the lungs as up to five regular cigarettes smoked one after another." (1)Ergo, Pro has not demonstrated that marijuana is safer than cigarettes.He opines that it is less addictive than other drugs, which I am fine with. I'd say that RPG launchers are 'less addictive' than alcohol, ergo, the public should be free to purchase them whenever they want.He says that marijuana has a lower death rate than already legal drugs. This is concluded under misleading pretenses; the studies cited compare marijuana to deaths caused by 'overdosing'. Overdosing on something is due to carelessness of the consumer; if we were to compare the average detriments of each, you would find that marijuana poses more of a risk. They also compare annual deaths of each, this is misleading as in comparison there is a vast difference in average users. Remember, marijuana is an illicit drug and there is an infinitesimal amount of users in comparison to regular alcohol drinkers. This is a poor comparison as numbers are too spread out, which only leads to a conclusion of low cogency and poor veracity.The next source my opponent cites only lists reasons for medical benefits, which would be more suited to a specific resolution; this is debate is broad and infers legalization for everyone. Not just under specific circumstances.Pro then returns to justify that marijuana is safer than tobacco and alcohol — let's examine the sources:The first source's negatives were mainly based upon heavy drinkers... It was a balanced report which recommended users to drink in moderation because of the vast health benefits. It's up to the voters whether they believe this matches to the dropped accounts of sheer health detriments that I proposed earlier.All of the negatives asserted in the second source are synthesized whether a user "drinks too much" viz. the problems will be avoided if one does not overindulge in it. As said previously, this would be an appeal to extremes fallacy — it is a person's own foolishness that would cause them to consume so much alcohol to even begin to have the problems listed.The third source targets tobacco (I am very much against tobacco nonetheless). I will summarise the negatives: Causes gum disease Causes respiratory problems Causes dry, yellow skin Increases heart rate and pressure Nicotine is very addictive Makes your muscles ache Causes lung cancer Almost all of these problems also occur in marijuana, and even more: phsychosis, deformation of the brain, lowers IQ, causes a higher likelihood of dropping out of school, laziness, mood swings, impaired memory, depression, panic attacks and anxiety, consumes 5 times more carbon monoxide and tar than cigs and many of the bullet pointed information. Which drug causes more problems is evident. Pro still fails to demonstrate that marijuana is safer than already legal drugs. Ergo, I have shown that Pro's has not proven his argument to be sound, and I have demonstrated that even if it is, it is a strawman of the resolution. Aff Misc "As we all know anything we do has negative side effects, So by my opponents logic should we ban everything?" I am using alcohol and tobacco as a benchmark or 'the bar' so to speak to compare marijuana to. My logic is that, if it poses to have more negatives than positives, it should remain illegal. "Next I am going to use some of Con's logic to argue for to make alcohol and tobacco illegal" Whether the two should be illegal is irrelevant to this resolution. You say this as if making either illegal is an unfounded, preposterous idea — maybe they should? A1 Restricts personal freedom Pro states that his logic is not cogent, but "the real question is how many rights we should sacrifice in order to make a happy society". I am not sure, although this is not my burden to fulfill. You cannot make an exception when it's a law that you want legalized. Freedom is a red herring to this debate. A2 Marijuana is less dangerous than the drugs that are already legal Pro makes a dubious claim saying that marijuana has medical benefits (which it does) but only in special circumstances. Circumstances which the average person would not have diseases like glaucoma, Alzheimer's etc. the rest has been refuted elsewhere in my response. A3 Marijuana Prohibition is not the answer and makes the situation worse Pro coins the notion that cartels sell marijuana 30% of the time. No evidence has been proposed how the legality would burden these cartels, nor decrease crime rate. A4 War on Drugs My opponent effectively states that the war on drugs exacerbates numerous problems, and that prisons are already overcrowded. "I find it funny that in order for the government to save the people from doing something to themselves and ruining there lives, we will throw them in jail!" I don't see the irony. Pro makes an incongruous claim stating that it is prudent to legalize marijuana, because it is unfair on the people who are arrested from selling and consuming the illicit drug illegally. Such an interesting stance, although if the logic were to be applied elsewhere, it would be deemed as ludicrous and unfeasible. They chose to break the law. Just because prisons are overcrowded we should not give leeway to those who decide to break the law. While we are at it, we should legalize theft, rape and murder; that ought to tackle prison overcrowding. "but we need to ruin there lives with criminal chargers which will make them, not get a job, get inspected more by police, cast into prison" The chose to take that risk when they sell or consume something that is illegal. Should we give sympathy to those who steal, rape or murder as well? " which makes it exciting to teenagers to use since there in there rebellious phase?" If teenagers feel as if they can break the law, then they ought to feel the repercussions of breaking the law as well. (1) http://www.drugfreeworld.org...