The U.S Government should legalize recreational marijuana.

Thank you Kasmic, Note: This debate is intended to act as a policy change debate. So an idealist position is not valid if it conflicts with the status quo or isn’t possible to enact. No court would accept outlawing anything based on a *potential harm*, to argue they should, as Con has, would result in absurdities such as outlawing cars. Contentions1. Freedom of Autonomy Con does not contest Mill’s theory. He does however try and argue it to the letter. This however is idealistic and isn’t feasible without limiting more of ones “freedom of autonomy”. I will expand on this in the rebuttals. 2. Low Level of Harm to Self and Others It would seem Con agrees (by not refuting my chart), that marijuana is significantly less dangerous than alcohol. Though he doesn’t have to defend the legality of alcohol, he does have to argue that legalizing marijuana is more dangerous in some shape or form than alcohol, in order to justify why it shouldn’t be legalized. 3. Benefits from regulation Con concedes all three of the benefits legalizing marijuana would have. He does not however, demonstrate why marijuana’s potential harm outweighs these benefits. I believe I have done more than enough to demonstrate the benefits do outweigh. He compares the harms of marijuana to that of child prostution, but this results in a *direct harm* in the form of rape. Rebuttals 1. Justified Law The quote I provided from Mill was to demonstrate a basic concept of when autonomy ought to be limited. It is primarily used to justify laws against things like murder or assault, crimes that result in a *direct harm*, that is to say, doing these things *will always* cause harm to others. This is entirely different from a *potential harm*, in other words, it is not guaranteed to cause harm to others. I would find it near impossible to point out any kind of activity or action that didn’t possess some kind of potential harm to others. Driving has the potential harm to injure other persons, but we shouldn’t outlaw cars just because there is a potential risk someone may be harmed. Similarly, just because there is merely a possibility of harming others by smoking marijuana, that doesn’t mean we should outlaw it. Outlawing these things would be limiting autonomy even more. So, as much as Con would like to turn Mill’s quote against me, it simply doesn’t apply to marijuana. It only deals with “direct harms”, not potential harms. 2. Harm Caused from Marijuana use I accept that marijuana causes harm to a certain degree. However, I don’t believe this potential harm outweighs the benefits of freedom, taxation, safety, and job creation. Don’t take my word for it though, the U.S government has already recognized substances like tobacco and alcohol, which I have proven possess a greater potential harm than marijuana, are already accepted as having benefits that outweigh their costs. Benefits like the ones given above. As I stated in R2, it is *illogical* that we should allow a more dangerous potential harm, only to backtrack and state we shouldn’t allow that which has less potential harm. Furthermore, Con has not demonstrated how these potential harms outweigh the benefits, he only makes a *bare assertion* that they do. 3. Consistency of the Law In this rebuttal Con states that I must accept legalizing all drugs based on the chart I provided. I have no problem with that, although like Con states, this debate is about marijuana and not about other substances. All I must do is justify that the benefits of marijuana outweigh its potential harms. Benefits like freedom, taxation, safety, and job creation all easily outweigh these potential harms. Con needs to justify why the U.S shouldn’t legalize marijuana despite the lack of laws surrounding tobacco and alcohol. The only way he can do this is if he can find some unmentioned harm that outweighs the benefits of legalization. Conclusion: Con has *not demonstrated* why the potential harms of legalizing marijuana outweigh its benefits. He basis his argument on Mill’s theory and tries to follow it to the letter. In doing so he defeats the very purpose the quote was designed to argue, to ensure autonomy.