Marijuana should be legalized

NegThe SyllogismLast round I presented a syllogism that asserts the following: Pro's argument is irrelevant to the resolution (cannot in any circumstance fulfill his burden of proof) Even if it did complete the first point, he hasn't done it correctly. The first point was completely dropped. Ergo, Pro concedes its veracity. By not attempting to refute this syllogism, I need not touch upon Pro's argument at all, as Pro assumes the whole burden of proof, and Pro effectively just stated that he cannot fulfill it. Although, I will refute the rest of Pro's argument regardless out of decency. :) Aff A1 Restricts personal freedom "Why should we outlaw different life choices? Should we ban Gay marriage? Sources indicate that having anal sex causes more STD's in fact having sex at all can cause STD's a health problem, And health is Con's only argument against the legalization of marijuana so should we ban sex?" This is unsourced material, and in pragmatic reality, it does not affirm what Pro thinks it does. Gay marriage does not necessarily entail sex. Sex does not cause STD's — you can catch diseases from having sex. Not all sex entails one getting STDs. This is an invalid analogy on many levels. "He still fails as too why certain things that are bad to us are legal and some aren't and i make the point that marijuana is safer than alcohol or cigarettes which i send sources on other link's earlier in this debate." This is moving the goalposts. This was never my argument at all. Pro is the debater which must prove that despite the health risks of marijuana, it should be legal. I must not defend the decision that it is already illegal — only prove that Pro doesn't have enough tangible evidence to prove that marijauna should be legal. " Some libertarians argue that freedom is the most important thing and that the only thing the government is there for is to maintain order and that's it. Why not go after that political philosophy, what is so bad about it? Con needs to show why that certain political view point shouldn't be followed." If you believe personal freedom is "the most important thing" you must explain why that is. You cannot ask the opposer to refute it for you; this is shifting the burden of proof fallacy. A2 Marijuana is less dangerous than the drugs that are already legal Pro opines that this source supersedes the countless sources posted by myself in the opening round. The YouTube video presents some pros and cons for the drug, and it does not come to the consensus that it is safer than the already legalized drugs. It does not mention a copious sum of the aforementioned health detriments that I demonstrated marijuana to have. Since this plethora was not touched upon in the video, it only conveys that the source has poor rectitude. Hence, this source does not indicate that marijuana is safer than already legalized drugs. "Next Con doesn't seem to be afraid of people drinking yet as i showed it has less health benefits than marijuana" Pro posts the exact same source as he used last round. I already mentioned that the medical benefits it proposes is only for people with rare conditions, like: MS, alzheimer's, glaucoma etc. and it only posits very basic health benefits for the average person e.g. "eliminates nightmares", "keeps you skinny" etc. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have nightmares more frequently and have a lower metabolism, then get: cancer, depression, anxiety, brain deformations etc. " Where as alcohol has NONE, zip benefits to health and yet millions of people drink regulatory and responsibly." That's untrue. Last round, Pro posted a source that proves the opposite to this point. It actually recommends people to drink responsibly because of the health benefits. Anyway, let me list some benefits of my own: It Can Lower Your Risk Of Cardiovascular Disease It Can Lengthen Your Life Helps fight against erectile dysfunction It Helps Prevent Against the Common Cold It Can Decrease Chances Of Developing Dementia It Can Reduce The Risk Of Gallstones Lowers The Chance Of Diabetes (1) I just cited several benefits from drinking alcohol. Pro originally stated that there wasn't any. Pro continues to present a strawman argument. Alcohol should be irrelevant — he states that I need to prove that alcohol should be banned as well... Pro has not proven marijauna to be safer, and even if it was, it is not my job to say that alcohol should be banned as well. It's moving the goalposts. A3 Marijuana Prohibition is not the answer and makes the situation worse The illegality of marijuana is already the status quo — so Pro's point about trying to illegalize alcohol backfires, as that was an action against the status quo. A4 War on Drugs "Now Con has still failed to show why millions of innocent people should be locked up for many years of there life, They broke a law?" Pro cites an oxymoron; they're not "innocent" if they broke a law — they're criminals. "They might of hurt themselves? (even though marijuana might even help them) and if they take marijuana we will throw them into prison where there health will really get worse (So much for the health argument Con brought up)." If it's illegal don't take it. Or if you do, one should not complain when they face the legal rammifications for doing so. They deserve to get penalized if they break the law — that's why we have the law in the first place. "Also Con has failed to show arguments against why the mere health or "Dangers" of it which i have shown to be little to almost none should be outlawed" You have the burden of proof, not me. I merely cited the serious health effects it causes. You are the one to prove that despite this, it should be legalized anyway. "Why should health be a factor to it? and further he needs to provide why certain acts of freedom need to be suppressed in this society." Moving the goalposts... "Now he is arguing that it is fair to lock up people for doing a victim less crime (Which he needs to provide why we need to keep victim less crimes illegal)" Fairness is irrelevant. A law is a law, and if you break it, you are sent to jail or you are fined. " Now the logic Con brings up is that it was illegal and since they broke the law they deserve to be thrown in prisons" Exactly. That's what the law and prisons are there for. "This holds the assumption that anything done against the law is immoral this is a dangerous philosophy known as "Legalism" which permits governments to do what they want to the people basically and Con needs to show why doing things against the law justifies putting them in prison." Not necessarily. What if I were to say that morality is not an issue? What if I were to state that the law would protect the citizens? It would keep well being in mind, but that doesn't necessarily pertain to morality. Moral nihilists could abide by the law, because they could feel that the penalties of committing the crime outweighs their 'need' or 'ought' to commit it. Conclusion Pro brings an interesting argument, but it does not suffice — he is affirming another resolution. My contentions were completely dropped, and since Pro did this, he concedes that his argument is irrelevant. Pro spent most of his argument postulating that marijauna is safer than alcohol, but I have proven that this wasn't successfully demonstrated. Pro brought freedom into the mix, but that logic can be used to completely eradicate the entire legal system. Pro tries to avoid this by special pleading — he can use this logic to legalize marijauna, but keep all the existing laws. Pragmatically, Pro has not shown that marijauna needs to be legalized. Pro has not fulfilled his BoP, hence I negate the resolution. I thank my opponent for a thought provoking debate. (1) http://www.medicaldaily.com...