Marijuana Legalization

You are correct in saying that I didn't disagree that alcohol and tobacco are harmful; however, that doesn't justify legalizing marijuana. Releasing more intoxicating substances to the public would result in greater use. Intoxicated driving is a problem in the US. To legalize marijuana would be an accident waiting to happen. Furthermore, I never claimed it was more dangerous to drive high than drunk. My claim was that driving under the influence of marijuana is not safe, which is true. My opponent claims "[t]his argument is similar to saying that people shouldn't drink altogether because they can end up driving under the influence" or people should be banned from texting altogether because they could potentially text and drive..."which is an inaccurate representation of my argument. The vast majority of American drivers who may legally drink are legally ok to drive after having a drink or even 2 or 3 depending on their physical statistics[1]. After smoking 1 to 2 grams of marijuana, one will become high. Marijuana is far more intoxicating. You are NOT ok to drive after 1 bowl or joint, yet you are ok to drive after having a drink or even 2. This is a driving risk. I concede that Prohibition needs reform, but legalizing marijuana is not justified. A first time or even second time offender shouldn't receive jail time for simple possession, they should receive a fine and it should go on their record. If the fine is high yet not too high that people won't be able to pay, that would be reasonable and a money earning alternative to jail time. To say it "ruins innocent lives unnecessarily" however is an exagerration of its current reality. It is known that marijuana is illegal and by choosing not to follow a law is on them, tainting their innocence. A person who willingly commits a crime is not innocent. Prohibition should be reformed so that it doesn't waste taxpayer money. It is increasingly difficult to pay for all of the US' incarcerated citizens. This is why we should impose a high fine for those caught with possession so they are giving money into the system while not going to jail. Prohibition has not reduced use and I provided evidence[2] which I will include again to show the increase. My opponent states that the use among teens has gone down which is true, yet still gave misleading information in his previous argument. The use has gone up. My opponent requested that I justify that the increase is so large that it warrants prohibition which seems odd. If the use were so large, it would be legal everywhere already. It is too dangerous to society to legalize it and the increased amount of users is contributing to that[3]. Marijuana legalization would actually affect cartels more than you think. Though many say it takes the market away, it opens up more. [4] "DEA spokesman Lawrence Payne told NPR last year that 'Sinaloa operatives in the United States are reportedly buying high-potency American marijuana in Colorado and smuggling it back into Mexico for sale to high-paying customers.'" Sinaloa is a region in Mexico infamous for cartel activity. "'Between 2013 and 2014, U.S. Customs and Border Protection saw an increase in seizures of heroin, up 5.2 percent, and methamphetamine, up 9.8 percent,' U.S. Customs and Border Protection media spokesman Carlos Lazo told Fusion." "Cartels have a competitive advantage. They specialize in violence, and they will not hesitate to use it in order to enforce their product above better quality and other factors."- Javier Osorio Cartels might not simply give up. You may want to look up their history before claiming that legalizing marijuana will stop the violence. "The 2014 UN World Drug Reportfound a "large increase" in the number of methamphetamine laboratories seized in Mexico and the United States." Even if business hits a rough patch, cartels are diversifying the drugs they produce and export to the US because like you and I, they are aware that marijuana legalization has taken place in a couple states and possibly will in a couple more. The cartels have been directly linked to violence and drug use along the US border. They are a severely violent criminal organization which will not simply stop because the US wants to take their business away. Even if their marijuana profits go down, they still make it cheaper and produce numerous other drugs on top of that that they will push. The decision was not based on an explicitly stated peyote law. The decision determined that if drug laws apply to everyone[5] and do not single out a religous group then they are permissible laws and should be enforced. My opponent argues that this is religious infringement, even though no religuous group is mentioned in the law, but he must also keep in mind that animal cruelty laws may include sacrifices. Isn't that religious infringment as well? Sources: [1] http://dui.drivinglaws.org... [2] http://www.denverpost.com... [3] http://www.ibtimes.com... [4] http://fusion.net... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...