Autistic children should not be allowed to smoke marijuana.

====== Rebuttal ====== 1. "my personal feelings on legislation do not apply to autistic CHILDREN (the subject of this debate). Con says that this isn't relevant, but clearly it is." Well, my feelings on legislation DO apply to autistic children, and they are FAR stronger than Pro's feelings. This means you vote for me. Well, not really. That's just the point, Pro's feelings, Con's feelings, even the judge's feelings shouldn't matter at all. There is no reason to trust Pro's feelings anyway: a. Because she is involved in this debate and stands to gain from testifying for the side she is defending b. Because she has no credentials to qualify her opinion as professional. Her degrees have little to do with medicine. [2] --- 2. "Con is advocating that a parent use their kids to study something that is not proven to be effective and in fact can severely harm them. This seems like it is violating the child's rights." Noticing theLwerd's previous debates (and this one as well), she seems to be a clear advocate of marijuana. I'm sure she knows that there are no serious harms associated with it, even for autistic children. [3] Even if that were the case, it's not the child's decision to make. Parents decide whether children get potentially life threatening shots, they spank their kids, and inflict other punishments. A parent's ability to exercise authority over their children generally goes unquestioned. But why is this an issue anyway? Medical Marijuana hasn't even been found severely dangerous at levels far above the recommended dosage. [3] You could even justify it using John Stuart Mill's Harms Principle. [4] The autistic children being allowed to receive pot are regularly reported as being violent and being a danger to their parents. [5] At that point, a parent should be allowed to give their autistic children marijuana, because it is not just for their own benefit, but for their parents and care-givers as well. Finally, I posit that they aren't having rights violated because autistic children would probably enjoy marijuana. Marijuana tend to have a pleasing effect on those who consume it.[6][7] I see no reason why this would be any different for autistic children. --- 3. First, she provides alternatives. A. She doesn't explain them, she just lists a bunch with a link to them. That's not really an argument. B. Her source doesn't testify to the efficacy of any of them. In fact, it does just the opposite for some of her alternatives: "the use of dietary modifications and supplements to treat the disorder is controversial." "[The treatment] may contribute to behavioral problems in autistic patients." "Eliminating foods that contain gluten and casein from the diet may cause side effects" "supplements (which contain vitamins A and D) MAY improve behavior, eye contact, attention span, and learning" http://www.neurologychannel.com... C. Her own source even says "Treatment depends on the individual needs of the patient." There is no 1 solution that is better than the rest, it depends on the particular person. I would say this is a great argument in favor of marijuana. Allowing marijuana gives autistic children one more possible treatment that might work. In the many sources I've posted, you can find multiple stories of children for whom these traditional medications wouldn't work (for example here: http://www.independent.co.uk...) and who were suffering incredibly (as in here: http://www.kauz.com...) As opposed to many situations where there is one best cure, the fact that the optimum treatment varies would lean in favor of leaving marijuana open as a medical alternative. D. Her own source also says "In most cases, a combination of treatment methods is more effective." As with point C above, we need to leave all options open. Even children who have seen fairly effective results with other treatments could potentially be further helped by eating pot brownies. Pro seems to put the child's interests first. If that is the case, then there is no reason why we should ban potentially effective alternatives. --- She then goes on to make the argument that "I already detailed how one could go about getting a marijuana registration card, talking to their doctor about medical marijuana, and doing this in a safe and legal way." I fail to see how this is an argument against my case. We can safely and legally have access to this marijuana, then what exactly is the problem here? She also mentions: "Also, why does this testing have to be done on CHILDREN specifically?" It doesn't. The point is that it shouldn't be done on adults specifically. Saying 'Autistic kids should smoke pot' doesn't mean 'autistic adults shouldn't smoke pot.' I in no way am saying that autistic adults shouldn't have the same opportunity, just that children shouldn't be left out. It's also important to note here that PRO has drawn no significant line between child and adult for the purposes of this debate. Generally the argument is that children can't properly choose for themselves. In the case of autism, neither children nor adults can properly choose for themselves. But that's beside the point. The point is that the only time CON ever distinguishes between children and adults is in saying children should respect their parents' decision. Any argument on her part distinguishing between between adults and children in the last speech would be completely new and I would never have a chance to respond. --- 4. "if it becomes legal, it should be legal for STUDIES as my opponent said -- not for autistic people to consume sell and cut for profit." I made it crystal clear in my last 2 rounds that I am not continuing down the 'Autism Gangs' line of argumentation. In fact, I've advocated exactly what Pro is demanding here: (CON in Round 2) "I contend that we ought to legalize marijuana for autistic children so that scientists may get to the root of this claim... all parents willing to allow their autistic children to consume marijuana will be used as part of the study." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's exactly what Pro is calling for. --- "If I can prove -- and I believe I have -- that KIDS with autism probably shouldn't be smoking pot, then I have won this debate." Not quite. Pro's job is to prove that they shouldn't be ALLOWED to. For example, convincing arguments can be made that Pro's consumption of alcohol is a bad idea, yet that in no way proves that she shouldn't be allowed to do so. --- 5. "Con concedes that having an autistic gang is unethical and unfeasible." Indeed, I have. By all means, ignore my original argument that we should form an autism gang. ====== Con Case ====== "Con has to defend [autistic gangs] in this debate." I noted in R1 that I would post further arguments, as well as posting in comments that "That's not really my argument for it. I plan on posting actual arguments in r2; I just needed something to put in r1." theLwerd also talks about marijuana currently being legal. Just extend the argument I already made that: "It wouldn't really blow my roof to find that there were 'special licenses,' but it is a moot point. This is nothing more than a conflation of what is with what ought to be, and in the most loco way." This went completely unaddressed: Whatever the current situation, it has no bearing on what we should do. [2] http://www.debate.org... [3] http://www.doublex.com... [4] http://davidhildebrand.org... [5] http://www.autism.com... [6] http://serendip.brynmawr.edu... [7] http://www.psychologytoday.com...