Marijuana Legislation

Stop because you're making yourself look like a fool. You still believe for some reason that kids can get high from hemp paper well your wrong because it is nearly impossible and not worth it to anyone. You obviously are unaware about other legal products that kids have easy access to if they wanted to get high, and they choose not too (e. g. glue). Hemp is a strain of cannabis that happens to have a very low percentage of THC (the stuff that gets you high). Plus, it's grown naturally, where the males are able to pollinate the females. An unpollinated female will have a higher percentage of THC. It doesn't matter if you smoke the flowers of the female plant, you still WON'T get high. Well, technically, if you really tried to get high you could get only a slight barely noticable effect, but you would have to smoke so much, your lungs would be burnt up. That is every reason that kids wouldn't try it. It would do way more harm to the body (lungs and throat) then what would be achieved and this is not expected of a child's thing to do (smoke notebook paper as Con claims). So that is dismissed. Your concern about the wood industry need clarification because: The industry expects that demand to double by 2050. A company’s use of email causes an average 40% increase in paper consumption. The U. S. consumes 200,000,000 tons of wood products annually, increasing by 4% every year. U. S. paper producers consume 1 billion trees each year (735 pounds of paper for every American). U. S. at 5% of world population consumes 30% of world’s paper. Only 5% of virgin forests remain in the U. S. So hemp paper needs to be an option at some point as it is more renewable and requires less process to not involving the toxic waste chemicals given off into pollution from turning trees into paper. Yes I am right in stating that you're ignorant on the topic. 'Also this video does contain polls' it wasn't this video it was the second one on my original argument 'www. youtube. com/watch? v=it9_D6Xu9ok' but just because americans believe we have lost the war on drugs does NOT mean americans believe we should legalize drugs. We're not discussing the legalisation of druggs we're discussing a regulated distribution of marijuana that would actually be more successful in keeping it from kids and the black market. I also refuse your misuse of vocabluary 'drugs' if you were referring to marijuana (a natural plant grown on this planet) not manmade like cocaine and LSD. It's also if any drug, a good one. A medical drug used as a pain relief, treatment of Glaucoma, Spasticity in muscle sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, Breast cancer, HIV/AIDS, Brain cancer, Opioid dependence, Controlling ALS symptoms, Crohn's Disease, diabetes and many more. (this is not something for you to argue against) you obviously seem to think you know better than most doctors and scientists and researchers and journalists. So for your sake I advise you to stop making a fool out of yourself. 'Also the facts were from Huffington post, which a notably bias news station. ' my opponent has made a positive claim on his behalf but has not met his burden of proof for this and therefore is then counted as invalid or a seperate matter he needs to deal with he has given no evidence to uphold this claim other than his own word (a highly incorrect and unreliable source as we've already learnt). 'Also people will continue to buy illegal weed, it will be cheaper, and no tax! This would not help the war on drugs, also kids would still have to buy it illegally. ' You say people rather take an unnecessary risk of getting arrested or going to jail to save just a bit of money. An even bigger unnecessary risk for the grower most likely an adult who could go and purchase this for his own recreational use he would have lost his business there won't be enough buyers to make it worthwhile. 'This would not help the war on drugs' this WOULD help the war on drugs and it would reduce massively the access to kids. Given the fact it would be as restricted as alcohol and tobacco, much harder for a kid to find. It is currently not restricted to kids as dealers don't care who they sell to. This would be different if it was regulated the same as tobacco and alcohol. My opponent then has a go at me for using youtube video to back my claims (as evidence). I'm allowed to do this, infact debate. org supports this feature to embed youtube videos and has been used as a feature on numerous debates. YOU DON'T TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT DO IN MY DEBATE you had the option of choosing the debate so you must accept the rules used. 'I could post a thousand youtube videos against this but i dont' go on then, i await the proof of such a claim. That would be if we were to assume such anumber were against it. Well from my searching there doesn't appear to be that many against those in favour. I can cut and paste stuff to use from the internet as it's far more likely to be factually approved and used as evidence on my side. Something, you have not done very well with your poor argument about getting high off a 80 page hemp notebook. Con needs to prove this to be te case and no just by his word, let's see some evidence for once Con. 'I am sorry that me pointing out your mistakes is arrogance' it's not that which is bad conduct it's that you so said 'I would like to thank pro for winning this debate for me. ' This claim is far from the truth and you know that so you still try to be cheeky and rude because your own argument lacks facts, points, evidence/proof. If you think you can succeed in a debate by making notice to a typo or grammar mistake etc. that you have automatically win. This is not the case sorry Con, you lack a truthful argument on your behalf. 'Vote con, and next pro needs to argue, not youtube. ' well i did i just used youtube as a primary source for two of my points and this is fair, I AM allowed to do this so there's no need to get upset. Please vote Pro as overall I contributed more factually and convincingly also reliable evidence in my argument, not just made small weak disagreeements with a word or two which were wrong in the debate. My original argument outweighed Con's rebutttal as he only made small weak unsupported points of his own claim as a response and not even did he respond to all my points. So I fail to see how he thinks he deserves a win.