Legalization of Marijuana

I am going to ignore your pathetic attempt to discredit me by pointing to my past debates and let that action speak for itself. However, I will point out that in order to have a complete understanding of the topic of marijuana legalization, all of these (and possibly more) subjects must be discussed regardless of debate.org's text limit. And seeing as how in many of my debates, even one without the format, I have encountered text limitation problems, I'd say the character amount is far from generous. And what does it matter if one round's subject must be addressed in another? Is there a rule against this? In typical prohibitionist fashion, you insist on generalizing in order to hide the topics which you do not or cannot address (because you do not address all of them). Also, the amount of characters necessary to point to at least the page of a provided article is negligible, yet you act as if it would ruin your arguments. You even ignore many of my arguments from the previous round that refute your arguments and continue on to repeat yours. Because of these deceitful strategies, I ask that you never accept any of my debate challenges again. The videos to my right are my sources (3) (4) and (5) respectively."Marijuana is one of the drugs when they looked into it and they found that it is addictive."You still fail to provide support for your claim. Let me show you why you must support such claims: I know of a study that proves your exact study wrong, they showed how your studies methods were inefficient and how the conductors of the studies had alternative motives. "This is incorrect because the cost of committing the crime creates deterrence from using a drug, specifically marijuana. Without these in place then more people would use the marijuana. [2]" Firstly, your article provides no support to your claim with regards to fully legalized and integrated marijuana. Simultaneously, my source (that you ignored in your entire response) uses real world economics and examples to support the opposite of your claim. Secondly, your source comes from the DEA, an amoral government agency that profits from the illegal drug trade and would lose billions upon marijuana (and other drug) legalization. "With taxed and regulated marijuana, federal and state governments would suddenly free up $26 billion spent annually on the failed drug war" (1). They destroy lives and harm innocents (even children) to combat the growing support and acceptance of integrated marijuana and keep it illegal (source (1) second paragraph). They support marijuana remaining a schedule 1 drug although marijuana is the exact opposite, and opposes any legitimate research (2). Furthermore the head of the agency refuses to answer simple questions regarding the topic and provides incredible inconsistencies in her responses (3) (4). Are the articles, sources, and claims of such an agency even credible? My source however comes from non-biased third parties (5)."The finding is “important information for public health and communication of the risk related to exposure to such materials.” [3]" Assuming the validity of these studies, they are irrelevant since it is impossible to die from smoking marijuana (6). In addition, it stands that any legitimate health risks from marijuana occur only in those with a predisposed disposition towards the health risk. And, you have failed to support your allegations with regards to addiction."As for the experiment in Alaska, I am arguing that marijuana must stay criminalized, so because it was decriminalized I must argue the negative effects of that since that is a step toward legalization." Your argument here is invalid for a few reasons. I created this debate and stated that it was for legalization not decriminalization and you accepted. Secondly, it is wholly irrelevant whether or not decriminalization is "a step towards legalization" or not. They are two different policies with completely different effects on society (as we can see in the Netherlands (7)). Finally, I made no such claim and nothing has been justified."Say I tax the product by 400%, now what are the chances people are going to purchase it legally?" We have no reason to believe such an absurd estimation of marijuana's would be tax rate. This is especially true since we have legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) with reasonable and accepted tax rates.As for your source [4] reference. There is no evidence supporting that cannabis had any influence on these supposed increases, therefore the claim has no weight."Also on the DUI's, that was specifically marijuana only" irrelevant since you have ignored my previous arguments regarding marijuana and DUI's, likely attempting to draw attention away from it."Again, I am defending criminalization" already addressed."The strong form of marijuana that most of the young people smoke, he says, produces "a chronically passive individual—someone who is lazy, who doesn’t want to take initiatives, doesn’t want to be active." Since there is no evidence or suggestion that this supposed effect is permanent, it is only common sense to recognize that this supposed effect last only during intoxication. Additionally, that is a subjective analysis from an individual. And, once again, the DEA reference's credibility is in question. "It’s irrelevant that one is a good and one is not." Why is it irrelevant when a good with demand is objectively known to increase in prevalence following prohibition (5), while an act merely goes down due to enforcement? Please do not ignore my source on this matter."Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. [2]" Once again, assuming there validity, these statistics are for all drugs and fail to give an accurate account for marijuana use alone (since that is what we are debating). And I have touched on the credibility of any DEA source."I have that source downloaded. I am also a historian and the fact is prohibition was more succesful than you think." I also have a source downloaded proving the existence of orange, intelligent elephants living on mars. I am also an astronaut and the fact is there is more alien life out there than you think. Please provide sources for such claims. "Since marijuana is wrong and bad conduct, it must be kept illegal." Why exactly is it wrong and "bad conduct" (fix your grammar there)?"My opponent's source is just simply wrong. This is a direct quote from one of the Founding Fathers." Wow, I am honestly surprised by your ignorance and attempt to legitimately pass a fallacy in a debate. You then proceed to use that same exact fallacy as support. Please explain how a site that merely list and describes the various fallacies is wrong? Perhaps you don't know what a fallacy is so I will define it. "Any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound" (8). I will provide another site stating the same thing since you didn't seem to like the other one (9). Your fallacy is the third one down, argument from authority. I need not address your quote from "one of DDO's greatest users" as it is also an argument from authority.Sources(1) http://readersupportednews.org...(2) http://leisureguy.wordpress.com...(3) http://www.youtube.com...(4) http://www.youtube.com...(5) http://www.youtube.com...(6) http://voices.yahoo.com...(7) http://www.erowid.org...(8) http://dictionary.reference.com...(9) http://www.theskepticsguide.org...