Marijuana should be legalized

Now before I begin with my final argument, I would like to make something explicitly clear; sources justify statements . What I mean by this is that anyone can say anything, about anything. Literally, I can tell you that men can transform into bats and go the speed of light. You wouldn't believe this, of course, unless I backed it up with a source: an article describing it happening, a science report on the transformation process, etc. So when someone states something, it's necessary to validate it with a source. My opponent's sources are mostly misinterpreted, as I stated in my last round, and even in his most recent round, the sources were either absent or misrepresented. On a debate that dictates the usage of facts, the reader's must weigh out the sides of the debate based on source usage, among other things. Seeing as my opponent has ultimately failed to use sources objectively (rather, he lies about what the source says), sources should be forfeited to me. This is not me berating my opponent's intelligence or comprehension whatsoever, but it's me clearing up a vital part of this debate. Now, I would like to move on to defending my case, then attacking my opponent's, and finishing off with a conclusion. Economic Benefit My opponent tries stating that marijuana won't create revenue. This is wrong, for I have shown that my estimates target those who already smoke marijuana, and shows the tax money that will come out of it. No business costs more than it makes, for otherwise they would go under, so the idea that it would cost more to legalize marijuana then the billions we currently spend on the "war on marijuana" is absurd. Our monetary output for this "war" would all turn back around and comes back to us, while we make tax money on the marijuana sales. Marijuana would most likely be taxed as a luxery good, and would probably have a death tax on it (things that harm someone have higher taxes, though marijuana harms nobody, the government would probably still put this tax on it). His amsterdam example doesn't cover anything about marijuana costs, nor is it relevant for it's a completely different culture, with a different economy. Foreign countries provided too many variables when dealing with law based debate. My opponent then tries stating that the marijuana industry already employs tons of people, but it isn't reported. .. .to this, I ask why it isn't reported? Such a statement is completely unsupported. The number is low, and is directed solely at medical marijuana. If cannabis were legalized for recreational usage as well, we would see this employment skyrocket, for even as my opponent stated, things are used more when they are legalized. He then tries arguing that people won't have money for food. .. .this is kind of ridiculous. It's assumed that people will not spend all their money on marijuana, just as people don't usually spend all their money on cigarrettes or booze, though both of those are much more addictive then marijuana. There is no correlation between marijuana purchases and lack of food. .. .and the same goes for marijuana usage and sick days, and marijuana usage and unemployment. People will still have money for other things. .. .if someone want's a TV, they will still go out and buy it, and the same goes for food, gas, books, and so on. Businesses will not suffer to great lengths because of the marijuana industry. Personal Autonomy You can't refute the freedom that is embodied within every man and woman through the constitution. The government has no say in what you do to yourself, because you are you, and you can do what you want with your body. It's for this exact reason that poisons like alcohol and tobacco are legal. Even junkfood causes more issues then marijuana! ". .. obligations as citizens, one of which is not to put ourselves into excessive amounts of danger. .. " It's this exact thought that causes my opponent's argument to self-refute, so to speak. There are plenty of things that are legal by the government that cause EXCESSIVE damage to an individual, and to third parties. The government can't pick and choose which ones to make businesses out of, and which ones to keep illegal. Seeing as something very detrimental, such as alcohol, is sold widespread, it contradicts what my opponent is saying. Health benefits My opponent misunderstands the nature of marijuana. It contains multiple cannabinoids. THC is the most active, but all of them combined is what gives patients the medicinal effects, and what gives users the high. It's also what prevents cancer. You need the whole thing. Since my opponent has not proven that it is harmful, we can all see no problem with marijuana being legalized. On pharmacy drugs, we must look at the options. Almost any over-the-counter drug can and will be ABUSED, that's just the world we live in. Marijuana CANNOT BE ABUSED. Zero people have died from marijuana, while if you went and bought a bottle of benedril and took the whole thing, you could die. This leads one to believe that it is harmful even in smaller doses, though it's just not as noticeable. Self Medicating: It lowers immune systems in those with immune deficiencies through the smoke. This can be eliminated with cooking marijuana into foods, which my opponent hasn't refuted. Thus, marijuana is still beneficial. Individual harms My opponent simply states 30,000 is far too low of a number. .. .. .I HAVE ALREADY PROVEN MARIJUANA TO NOT HAVE CAUSED A SINGLE DEATH EVER. 1 in 10 cannabis users UNDER THE AGE OF 15 develop schizophrenia after 11 years. Marijuana would not be administered to young ones, obviously there would be an age limit. ON addiction: ANYTHING can be considered mentally addictive; computers, food, running, even DDO! (shocking, I know! ). That doesn't warrant it to be illegal. On withdraw, marijuana also achieved a 1, so I don't see how it is addictive at all, if someone can smoke it for years, and stop suddenly with no ill effects. There is no correlation that proves marijuana students will suffere in their education. I would post my source from previous rounds, drugwarfacts, but I will refrain for the structure of this debate limits it. IF the reader's are curious, however, by all means go click the link and look for education. .. .the results show their to be no general decline in intelligence. I did say that the gateway effect was nonsense, though I will elaborate on it. Let's take an example. A man enjoys smoking marijuana, though it's illegal. He has a drug dealer, who he really isn't friends with, but he sells him pot, so it's all good. That drug dealer starts pushing harder drugs on him, with false premises such as "It's great stuff, really helps your hair come in! " and all kinds of ridiculous salesman tactics. If it were legalized, that eliminates the creepy drug dealer. Everyone would be going to the clean, government regulated shops that sell solely marijuana (and probably snacks). The numbers my opponent used, as stated, were far too small to make a conclusive decision. Conclusion My opponent's last couple points, on marijuana users stealing money and destroying property, are not substantiated. Anyone can steal money and ruin property. There is no link to cannabis, just as there is no link to peanut butter and theft when someone steals money and goes and buys peanut butter with it. That's just people stealing. And lobbying and corruption seeps into every industry, even the kiwi one. It's just a matter of time. My contentions regarding the economic benefit, personal autonomy, and health benefits still stand, for my opponent hasn't refuted them. All the readers should give me sources, for my opponent INTENTIONALLY misrepresented them, and has yet to acknowledge his error.