The United States should NOT Legalize Marijuana

My opponent says that "I never refuted" some of his cases, and ignores the structure of his own debate. I was told that I couldn't attack his cases in the second round, so I did not. Because of this, I will take up this round to make all of my statements completely clear. I also apologize that some of this may be disorganized. It threw me off that my opponent didn't abide by the rules of his own debate by criticizing my arguments. My opponent agrees that marijuana would be a cash crop. This means he agrees that by means of marijuana's legalization, the United States would be better as a result. He then continues to say that I "disregarded [his] statement that a government is obligated to protect its people." Although that is true to some degree, our government is also supposed to give people a choice. If the government's ONLY duty was to keep everyone safe, we would have outlawed alcohol and cigarettes decades ago! They have been proven to be much more dangerous than marijuana, yet they remain legal. My opponent cites a CNBC article that supposedly proves that legalizing marijuana would have the same effect on our citizens as legalizing gambling. The article makes this statement: "Legalized gambling has not reduced illegal gambling in the United States; rather, it has increased it. This is particularly evident in sports gambling, most of which is illegal. Legal gambling is taxed and regulated and illegal gambling is not. Legal gambling sets the stage for illegal gambling just the way legal marijuana would set the stage for illegal marijuana trafficking." HOWEVER, this source makes a claim, but does not cite a source. No where in the article could I find a source that showed that the numbers of illegal gamblers has gone up. I read the article cited by CNBC (MacCoun & Reuter, 2001) and it does not even reference the fact that illegal gambling has increased since the legalization of (some) gambling. My opponent says "You address my first contention by saying there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence to prove that marijuana causes cancer, and that there is a substantial amount of research to show it cures cancer. While that may be true, you never address my full contention." My opponent has just agreed that marijuana is not necessarily bad for people. Therefore, the whole argument of "the government must protect its people" is dead now. Legalizing marijuana would not do anything to hurt the people. Because he agrees on this front, he instead moves on to say that it would have other negative effects, which I will address later on. Let's make something clear. It is the person's choice whether to use marijuana! Cigarettes are harmful, much much more so than marijuana, yet they are legal. If a person does not want to use marijuana, they don't have to! However, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be available for the other people that DO want it. Because when I said that there is substantial proof that marijuana can cure cancer, and you agreed with me, that means that you agree that marijuana DOES have positive effects on a population. You said it yourself. Therefore, the people that don't want to use marijuana don't have to, and the people that want it and need it can get it. Because of these reasons, you cannot use "absences, tardiness, lower life satisfaction, and job turnover" as a reason for not legalizing. It is the person's choice. I also disagree with your assertion that legalization would increase accidents. You cite a source, that IN ITSELF, says this: "Survey data indicates that approximately 112 million Americans (46 percent of the US population) have experimented with the use of illicit substances. Of these, more than 20 million (8.3 percent of the population) self-identify as "current" or "monthly" users of illicit drugs, and more than 10 million Americans say that they've operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of an illicit substance in the past year. These totals, while far from negligible, suggest that the prevalence of illicit drug use among US drivers is far less than the prevalence of alcohol among this same population." This source says that the use of marijuana and then driving is FAR LESS than the prevalence of alcohol among this same population! Your own source says that it's not nearly as bad as alcohol. You even quoted it in the debate. Don't you think the correct precautions and laws would be put into place to combat high driving? If there were incredible fines imposed on the first offense of high driving, less people would do it. In conclusion, the amount of high drivers would be too insignificant of a problem for it to be addressed in this debate. I have now addressed my opponent's "full contention," abiding by the rules he set for this debate. Then, you make the statement that "...So it must be assumed that if it were to be legalized this number would go up." Do you have ANY proof for that? Why should the number go up? You make a statement, but cannot give any evidence that what you say would actually happen. This has to be PROVED, because you have the burden of proof. If it cannot be proven, the points go to con. My opponent does not deny that legalizing marijuana would sever our ties with drug cartels. I'd like to point out that my opponent has in NO way shown that legalizing marijuana would increase illegal activities related to it, unless my opponent is referring to the fact that "illegal use would increase" or that "there would be more accidents." I have shown that there is no proof that illegal use would increase (because he has in no way cited a useful source.) He also has not proven that legalization would lead to more use of illegal marijuana. I don't even understand how this can be said. All he has done to prove his point is compare the situation to gambling, and a parallel can NOT be made between the two. I have now refuted your arguments that relate to I'm sure there would still be people that would stick it to the man and not want to pay a tax, but the majority of people, as we both know, would rather follow the law. We could simply impose even larger fines for the illegal use of marijuana to scare people off, but it would not be necessary. Unless my opponent PROVES DEFINITIVELY that the legalization of marijuana would increase illegal use of marijuana (which it would not,) the points go to con. My opponent uses the slippery slope fallacy when saying that legalization would increase the potency of illegal marijuana. It would? Prove it. And I have proven that alcohol causes more accidents than marijuana. There were over 10,000 DUI deaths in the United States in 2012. (1) My opponent has not shown that there are a significant amount of deaths caused by high drivers. Your statement about police not focusing on marijuana possession charges is very uninformed. There were 12,196,959 arrests related to marijuana last year. That's one arrest every 42 seconds. You can't possibly say that that constitutes "not focusing on marijuana possession charges." Because I have proved that they DO waste time on marijuana possession charges, the statement stands. (2) It is NOT a logical fallacy, it is FACT. My opponent has agreed that marijuana can have positive effects (economically) (health-wise. Even legalization medically is legalization.) My opponent has effectively agreed that legalization would sever our ties to drug cartels of other counties, and I have shown that police would be able to focus on the larger cases than possession if marijuana were legalized. I have shown that marijuana related deaths are slim to none. Because the use of marijuana is a choice, it can not be brought up that people would have personal problems as a result of marijuana legalization. For all of these reasons, I urge a vote for con. (1) http://www.madd.org... (2) http://www.usnews.com...