Decriminalization of Marijuana

Cancer argument: For starters, there's a reason as to why my opponent's evidence says the exact opposite as to what my evidence is saying: the studies are looking at two different kinds of cancer. While my evidence is looking toward the incidence of prostate and cervical cancer in asssociation with marijuana use, my opponent's study from WebMD is only focusing on cancer in the brain, neck, and lungs, meaning that my opponent is using a blanket statement that marijuana will not cause cancer at all whatsoever. The same goes for his second source, which focuses on the similar kinds of cancer. In fact, I believe that I read in another study about how marijuana use is also associated with kidney cancer and other sorts of cancers as well. I'll try to find it and place it into the next rebuttal(s).Mental Health Issues: Let it be clear that my opponent stated himself that marijuana can exacerabte schizophrenia, for one thing, and this argument against my case contrasts against his cancer one in the idea that he provides absolutely no evidence for what he's saying, especially when he saying that no link has been proven, but I have provided evidence within my case saying just the opposite. The only thing that he provides is evidence from his point 3 talking about how a chemical almost identical to marijuana is being considered for treatment in depression, even though (1) Depression is not the only mental illness out there and (2) It's using a chemical similar in chemical structure, but it's not directly using marijuana, meaning that his case study regarding this research irrelevant because we have no warrants that this chemical has even the same physical and chemical properties, let alone similar effects, as the chemical for marijuana. When you put sodium (a metal) and chlorine (a toxic gas) together, you create sodium chloride (table salt), which has the exact same elements, but very different properties. How does my opponent prove this isn't the case with the chemical similar to the structure of marijuana? He doesn't. Effects to the Brain: My opponent only addresses the issues of long-term memory, although I was speaking in the context of memory in general and I also talked about learning impairments and attention defecits as well, so it's evident that my opponent under-addressed this case.Addiction: I'm quite aware that the addiction that marijuana causes is psychologically addictive, and at the point where I have clearly given evidence as to the negative effects of marijuana in addition to the idea that marijuana can at some level influence people to enter into rehabilitation, the aspect of marijuana being addictive at all doesn't substantiate my opponent's case at all. Contention 2: Furthermore, I would like to point out that my opponent did not address my second contention in any way, shape, or form, so it can be extended across the flow. When we move on to my opponent's case, we realize that there isn't anything that his case addresses that I have not. Increases in marijuana usage: We look at my opponent's evidence, and the first thing we notice is the small time span the study was taken as well as the insignificant increases in marijuana use. We see increases from 3.6 to 4.0 or increases from 25.5 to 26. This is not significant enough increase to state beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the increases were due to a failure of any sort. This runs in contrast to the study I provided in my case which makes an analysis on a 20-year basis and shows the rate of marijuana users significantly decreasing. In fact, I'll run a chi-square inference test (the statistical test to show the significance of changes in data) in order to see if we accept a null hypothesis or the idea that my opponent is promoting. I'll post the data in the next rebuttal.Prisoners: Many people are arrested for cocaine, meth, heroin, murder, rape, and other things, which also hurt the taxpayers. Should we legalize those as well? Well, for one thing, I provided the study in my case talking about increases in marijuana use also hurt the taxpayers considering the things that they had to pay for as a result, and even if this hurts taxpayers, this means only that we have to decrease these problems, not that the solution should be to legalize marijuana. I explained in my case how the war on drugs can be better handled. The solution is to decrease the amount of people in our population smoking and selling marijuana, and it's clear that legalization will not lead to that path in any way, shape, or form.