Marijuana Should Be Legal For Medicinal Purposes

I urge that the votes be mindful of the arguments presented in this round. First, my opponent outlines in his first round of debate that he intends to uphold two areas contention to warrant a vote for the Pro. The medical Benefits of marijuana and the safety of marijuana. The second point of contention, the safety of marijuana, has has since been dropped; my opponent recognizes that there are explicit negative impacts to marijuana and that it is not a wholly safe drug as he originally claimed This drop, signified by the drop of the alcohol and tobacco argument is the first reason to vote Con. Next, In my opponent's constructive to this debate he outlines four areas of suggested medical benefit that result for the usage of medical marijuana. These four areas are: Cancer, Alzheimers, MS and Arthritis. These are the only medical benefits that should be considered as any other medical benefits would have been new arguments; however in warrant these argument he cites only Business Insider and HowStuffWorks until the previous last round. The means that the 'chronic pain' and 'other benefits' voter my opponent offers are illegitimate and should be stricken from the flow. The Business Insider article expressly details that for Cancer, Alzeimers, MS and Arthritis marijuana serves as an anesthetic only, not attacking the core problems associated with this disease. As cited from MD Dr. Mbakwe in round 3, "Dr. Mbakwe is uncomfortable with the lack of control and regulation of medicinal marijuana. She says other medications, like methotrexate, treat the autoimmune disease at the root of the problem, and in turn can control pain and inflammation in combination with pain medications like nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs . .. On the other hand, while marijuana may help with pain symptoms, it does nothing for the disease progression or organ damage, Dr. Mbakwe says. [16]" Marijuana only relieves pain while causing substantial damage to vital organs. Marijuana is not a sustainable treatment as there are a number of viable alternative for anesthetic relief. These alternatives include Propofol[5], Halothane[6] and Enflurane[7], none of which have the same negative-effects of marijuana. This argument was never addressed. In round 4 my opponent expands the benefits of medical marijuana in treating breast cancer through the use of Cannabidol, but I show in round 3 that it only helps breast cancer and second that it can be produced artificially. "[15]Clinically, there are still limited therapeutic interventions for aggressive and metastatic breast cancers available. Clearly, effective and nontoxic therapies are urgently required. Id-1, an inhibitor of basic helix-loop-helix transcription factors, has recently been shown to be a key regulator of the metastatic potential of breast and additional cancers. Using a mouse model, we previously determined that metastatic breast cancer cells became significantly less invasive in vitro and less metastatic in vivo when Id-1 was down-regulated by stable transduction with antisense Id-1. It is not possible at this point, however, to use antisense technology to reduce Id-1 expression in patients with metastatic breast cancer. " As for Alzheimers which my opponent states alzheimers cures, this isn't the case whatsoever; "[4]Marijuana may be able to slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease" marijuana has been shown to slow the effects of alzheimers but not do away with them entirely. This is the second reason to vote Con. Next, I would like to address the issue of evidence. I have shown numerous times in this debate where my opponent has cited either uncredible evidence or where he miscites evidence. Norml. org is the biggest example of this bad evidence, but other examples include outright rejecting my evidence regarding Paranoia and Shizophrenia; even the evidence he cites in the prior round supports me here, stating "[]Findings suggest that regular cannabis users are significantly more prone to cognitive and perceptual distortions as well as disorganization, but not interpersonal deficits, than non-regular users and those who have never used. " [23] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Furthermore in offering his voters Pro never actually expands upon the reasons he is winning the arguments concerning Cancer, Alzheimers, MS and Arthritis. He simply claims that he has cited authoritative evidence to support his claims. These should be considered drops as these are appeals to authority that never actually cite the authority. Placing a link in a debate does not stand to warrant the arguments made.