Marijuana should have similar legal restrictions to alcohol (or less legal restrictions).

I will examine my opponent's opening round before posting arguments of my own. ------------------------- My opponent says that "in order to win" I "must prove that the United States has a moral incentive to loosen restrictions on Marijuana. " I disagree and would like to make this point clear at this early stage. My resolution states: "Marijuana should have similar legal restrictions to alcohol (or less legal restrictions). " I am arguing that morally, alcohol is at least as bad or worse for individuals and society. I am not saying whether either substance should have any specific legal status. I am saying that Marijuana should have less restrictions than alcohol. This could be achieved one of two ways: 1. Loosen current restrictions on marijuana. 2. Tighten current restrictions on alcohol. I do not intend to advocate one position over the other, merely to prove that alcohol has worse effects on behaviour and health than marijuana therefore the status quo is unfair and immoral. I reassure my opponent that I will not bring up "an economic, political, or other non-ethical obligation. " --- My opponent says: "FIRST, Marijuana poses a dangerous threat to our nation's security and status as a global superpower. " Well how's that for a political and economic obligation? ---- "[Marijuana] makes it impossible for abusers to succeed outside their drug-clouded fantasies. " Tell that to the many artists, entertainers and even entrepreneurs and billionaires with an excessive weed habit, just the ones who admit to it anyway; rest assured there are many more. . http://coedmagazine.com... ---- My opponent supplies a quote from a security consultant who makes his money demonizing Marijuana. It is about as unscientific and biased a source as I can conceive of. ---- "With the rise of China, India, and Japan (among other nations) as economic and technological superpowers, we cannot afford to let future generations go to waste amidst the pernicious smoke of Marijuana addiction. " Relevance to morality? ---- "Increased Marijuana use" Every single one of my opponent's assertions makes the assumption that a loosening of legal restrictions would increase the use of marijuana. There is no evidence for this but there is some against: "There was no immediate increase in cannabis use after 1976" . http://www.tc.columbia.edu... "UN Drug Office Can't Explain Lower Marijuana Use in Holland" . http://digg.com... "Dutch Marijuana Use Half That Of America" . http://norml.org... "statistics show a substantial decline in cannabis use in the Netherlands since statutory decriminalization in 1976" . http://www.sciencedirect.com... ---- My opponent makes some arguments about physical harm and the link of drug use with violent crime. He conveniently doesn't make the comparison with alcohol here. As my arguments will show the health effects, links with violent behaviour and (especially) automobile accidents make a compelling case that the dangers of marijuana (which I admit exist, although I believe my opponent exaggerates them) pale into insignificance compared to the dangers of alcohol. ---- Regarding 'freedom' and the constitution my opponent makes some truly baffling arguments. He seems to suggest that banning things promotes freedom and liberty which is a concept that goes way over my head. "Definitions of freedom on the Web: * the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints" Freedom to act without restraint. A good example being the freedom to smoke a joint without getting locked up. ---------------------- All of my opponent's arguments seem to centre around demonizing marijuana, but he needs to consider the status of alcohol as this is central to the resolution. I do not suggest that marijuana is any kind of magical elixir or healing wonder drug with no bad effects. On the contrary I think both alcohol and marijuana have good and bad effects, however alcohol has many more negative effects and they are more serious as I shall now argue. ----------------------- Marijuana is safer than alcohol. This page from the campaign group SAFER compiles some excellent scientific references on the subject: . http://www.safercampuses.org... This breaks down several risk factors. ----- . http://news.bbc.co.uk... This is an excellent article that presents a balanced point of view but although it finds doctors and scientists to support marijuana it can only find laymen to disparage it. ---- . http://www.youtube.com... The video posted in the top right hand corner of this argument shows a presidential candidate telling a group of students that marijuana is safer than alcohol. ---------------------------- I could go to great lengths to demonize alcohol and list it's many ill effects, but there are three more rounds and I think my opponent has a lot to contend, so I will leave it there for now. Oh okay then, just a quickie. "Some of Britain's leading drug experts . .. .. By their analysis, alcohol and tobacco are rated as more dangerous than cannabis, LSD and ecstasy. " . http://www.guardian.co.uk... "Alcohol contributes to 100,000 deaths annually, making it the third leading cause of preventable mortaility in the United States" . http://boreal.com... "There can be both short-term and long-term consequences, even with moderate levels of drinking. " . http://www.sciencenetlinks.com... "This factsheets shows how alcohol contributes to accidents" . http://www.ias.org.uk... And lastly on violent behaviour the following scientific studies prove the indisputable link: . http://www.bio-medicine.org... . http://www.sciencedirect.com... . http://www.aic.gov.au... --- Much thanks to my opponent and to readers, looking forward to next round. Pro.