Marijuana ought to be legalized

Greetings! My position in this debate is that Marijuana ought not be legalized. As a utilitarian, my reason for this is that the benefits of such an action would not outweigh the negative effects. I shall respond to Pro’s points in the relevant sections, and present one counterpoint of my own afterward. Counterpoints: First contention – Marijuana for Medicinal purposes: (The resolution states “Marijuana ought to be legalized,” as opposed to “Marijuana ought to be legalized for medicinal purposes.” Furthermore, the argument from medicinal purposes is made as its own point in Pro’s argument. Both of these lead me to believe that Pro wished Marijuana to be legalized for all purposes as opposed to those simply medical in nature. Keep this in mind as I state my position on this point.) Objection 1: You have not cited any sources for this point. Keep in mind that you share the burden of proof for this debate. Objection 2: I acknowledge that Marijuana has specific medical benefits. However, this does not require that Marijuana be legalized for public use. Heroin and opium also have specific medical benefits, and are used today. I wouldn’t want marijuana intended for a specific medical effect to leave the hospital any more than I would want morphine to roam the streets. Second contention – Wartime use of marijuana: Objection 1: In a similar case as with my second objection to the first of Pro’s points, the military has access to many things that the public simply does not. It is perfectly legitimate to acknowledge that marijuana has a place among military personnel without opening it up to the public. Objection 2: There are more effective pain killers available which have less severe side effects. If I were to choose a drug for pain relief for the people going to war for me, I would be choosing one which has less of an effect on a person’s mental state, such as acetaminophen of ibuprofen. In severe cases, such as those in which the pain is incapacitating anyway, drowsiness should be accepted, and so stronger painkillers could be used. The issue comes with administering a hallucinogenic drug to a person in full control of an assault rifle. Not only would this be dangerous in and of itself, it would be amplified by the fact that it would be self-administered as opposed to something one needs to report to sick-bay for. Third contention – The catch-all category: “…less harmful than…” Tobacco: The only thing I can say to this is that it is patently false. Tobacco may be more addictive because of the nicotine. However, marijuana smoked vs tobacco smoked has about 50% more benzopyrene, which is the leading chemical under suspect for causing lung cancer in tobacco smokers. [1][2] Additionally, tobacco smoke has limited short term effects on cognition, being no more altering than caffeine. Marijuana is a hallucinogen, increases heart rate, is a depressant, and has impairing effects on coordination and decision making skills. Long term effects of tobacco are limited to a lengthy list of cancers and respiratory problems. Research on marijuana is limited, so an acknowledged gap in information exists relating it to cancers. However, other respiratory problems generally attributed to tobacco are, in fact, present in people who smoke marijuana alone. [3] Alcohol: Again, this is demonstrably false. Alcohol has detrimental effects all over the brain. It impairs the ability to solve simple problems through reason, resulting in impaired judgment; it impairs fine motor skills and muscle coordination; and it impairs hearing, vision, processing associated with those senses, and ability to speak. Marijuana has all of these effects [4] and more, including, again, hallucinogenic and heart-rate and blood pressure increasing effects. In a study from the New England Journal of Medicine, almost 40% of drivers stopped for reckless driving who were not under the influence of alcohol were under the effects of marijuana. [5] “Limiting the use of marijuana restricts personal freedom”: Prohibiting people from possessing child pornography also restricts personal freedom. There are cases in which restriction of freedom is a good and necessary thing. I don’t think I need to elaborate much more on this point. “Legalization would mean a lower price: thus, crimes linked to marijuana would be reduced” and “Street justice related to drug disputes would be reduced”: There is a strong correlation between marijuana use and other crimes. [6] Contrary to what many think, possession and distribution are not the only crimes associated with marijuana. Marijuana impairs cognitive reasoning abilities, and can make a person more likely to behave with disregard to other laws. “It would be a source of additional taxing revenues”: About $83 billion per year is spent on cigarettes [7], and about half of this is taxes. About 20 metric tons of tobacco is sold annually. [8] An estimated 15 metric tons of marijuana is smoked annually. [9] This gives us a total of approximately $30 billion dollar revenue from our hypothetical marijuana tax. Given our nearly $750 billion military budget [10] this amount really does pale in comparison to the amount this nation spends. This minor benefit is not enough to nullify the downsides. “Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes”: In relation to the total number of arrests made, those made because of possession of marijuana is actually rather low, at barely more than 5% of the total. [11] Given that people all over the nation are still ticketed for going 5 over the speed limit, having a turn signal out, or having an expired license, I’d say that police time and resources aren’t all that precious. As with the above, this is not enough of a benefit to tolerate the other consequences. “Drug busts often trap adolescences in a flawed system transforming them into lifelong criminals”: Objection 1: I don’t understand what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that children whose parents are charged are put into foster care? Are you suggesting the children are placed into detention centers? In either case, see objection 2. Objection 2: You provide absolutely no evidence for this claim whatsoever. Again, as you do have a burden of proof to carry, I do expect some evidence which I can dispute. Until then, this claim shall be disregarded as unsupported. Even without my objections to Pro’s points, there is the valuable fact that we can have the effects of marijuana without the harmful effects of smoking them. Canadian scientists have developed a THC spray which, when absorbed though the red lining in one’s mouth, imparts the same psychological effects of marijuana without the harm to the lungs. [12][13] Summary of my points: A – None of Pro’s contentions are persuasive enough to allow the legalization of marijuana in the face of B – The harmful effects of legalizing marijuana. C – One can impart the effects of smoking marijuana without actually smoking it. Therefore, Marijuana ought not be legalized. [1] http://www.drugabuse.gov... [2] http://www.pbs.org... [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [4] http://www.pnas.org... [5] http://www.nejm.org... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://www.cdc.gov... [8] http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org... [9] http://www.drugscience.org... [10] http://www.gao.gov... [11] http://www.fbi.gov... [12] http://thcsprays.com... [13] http://www.news-medical.net...