Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use

Thanks once again. If I understand the outline of this debate correctly, I believe the setup was to consist of four rounds as described in Round 1. According to your guidelines, "any violation to the setup will result in automatic forfeit." Seeing as your arguments have extended into a fifth round, thus violating your setup, does this result in your automatic forfeiture? I will let the community decide. Should this have been an honest mistake, I understand, and I will continue to provide my rebuttals to this bring this debate to a close. First of all, I would like to begin with a response to your question: "If you are so strongly against the use of this drug because it affects other people - please explain how you jumped to that conclusion." Since this is a personal question, I will answer based on my opinion - to put it simply, I have a general care and concern for other people. It is my belief that each and every individual has a life worth valuing, and to watch out for and support others is a matter of utmost respect. I personally find it to be devastating when one person's use or misuse of a substance leads to the demise of themselves or another. Although this is my own personal belief which I do not mean to impose upon others, I answer your question with this response. This is why I have chosen to defend America's decision to watch out for its citizens - including said "innocent bystanders" - and therefore join in this debate. As for the legality of alcohol, its imposition has been in place since the birth of the United States with a temporary pause during the Prohibition era from 1920-1933. It is common knowledge that direct alcohol overdose can be fatal, unlike marijuana; however, both can prove to be equally deadly in the indirect sense. We as a country have already experimented with the removal of alcohol from legality during those thirteen years of Prohibition, an affair that led to the repealing of the eighteenth amendment through the implementation of the twenty-first amendment of the Constitution. As history proves, the population did not respond well to the removal of a harmful and potentially addictive substance from legal acquisition. We can view Prohibition as a lesson, however, that when a substance so controlling and powerful is legalized, we could have a very difficult time reversing our actions should nationalized legalization create significant problems on a wider scale. Also, while alcohol may pose risks as a drug, adding marijuana to the list of potentially toxic substances lawfully available to the public will not resolve any problems in the health and lives of our citizens. Therefore, it is sensible to withhold the legalization of recreational cannabis use so as to not add to the current drug problem we have as a nation, rather than legalizing it just because "it is actually LESS DANGEROUS than drugs ALREADY LEGAL." Also, although this strays from our central focus, I would like to remind you that over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription drugs are different types of pharmaceuticals with names that can not be used interchangeably. While OTC drugs can be purchased at one"s own will, prescription drugs require written consent from a medical doctor to be obtained - much like medical marijuana, which can only be obtained from a pharmacy with certified recommendation. If you"d like more distinction, feel free to explore this link: http://www.fda.gov... It is through these solid facts that I "jump to my conclusions." In response to your rebuttal on the tax issue, one could wonder, when following this debate closely, how the information I have presented is irrelevant to this debate. For those who did read through the article published by the Colorado Springs Gazette, they could have gained some insight in the sense that taxation on marijuana may not have so much a desired effect as you proposed in Round 4. If you think this is an unrelated "card I want to pull," you have the right to believe that, yet I believe it backs my statements appropriately. In addition, I would like to invite you to refer back to my previous rebuttals in which I firmly state that yes, America is indeed a country founded upon the basis of freedom - even yet, however, this country cares for all citizens, including those afflicted by others" drug use. The government may not be able to protect us from all harm, that is true, but it will do whatever it can in its power to ensure our welfare. This governmental body will not jeopardize this right to protect its people; after all, I repeat, it is not only the users of this drug who face its negative repercussions. Call to mind again the "innocent bystanders" - including, but not limited to, the victims of vehicular crashes instigated by hallucinating marijuana users; the young children of cannabis users with no control over what they are exposed to; the emotionally traumatized friends and family of deranged users; and all others impacted by the free use of cannabis by people other than themselves. Yes, this may be what you consider "freedom," but I believe the idea of personal freedom you have in mind contrasts starkly with that of the Founding Fathers, whose ideals of freedom rested with assurance that all citizens should have the right to life. So, in response to your question of "Why should the government try to stop us from making decisions that could affect us - they should just let us face the consequences," I continue to stand firm in my response that this is not what we stand for as an American nation. Again, I reassure you that it is not only the direct users of this drug who are afflicted by its use, and the government does not wish to add to the problem by jeopardizing its people even more than currently so. On a further note, it is interesting to hear about this one, single professional who believes that addiction rates would not rise should marijuana be legalized nationally. Not only is this intriguing because this one man, whose quote was unfairly taken without a cited source, is so confident in his views, which could very well be true; however, it is also fascinating, as one man"s views do not reflect the entirety of a population of experts who may believe otherwise. In addition, I invite you to take a look at this article that questions the trustworthiness of the very professional you have quoted, J. Wesley Boyd: http://www.thecrimson.com... Now that our final rebuttals have been made, it is once again time for me to express my thanks and leave those following this debate with one final task - to give their vote. I welcome any and all feedback you would like to give - I truly appreciate it! Thanks so much, and here's to our great nation. :) Final citations: http://www.fda.gov... http://www.consumermedsafety.org... http://www.thecrimson.com... http://scopeblog.stanford.edu...