Resolved: The state of Georgia ought legalize the recreational use/possession of marijuana.

My opponent has responded to my arguments in the same order that they were first presented to one another, so I will go on toward the response of each argument in the same fashion: My Opponent’s Case: Before continuing toward the rebuttal of the counterarguments, however, I’d like to point out that while my opponent brings up some counterevidence and counterarguments against the claims I’ve made in my case, he doesn’t really outline any particular reasons as to why marijuana ought not be illegal in the state of Georgia. This doesn’t mean that he automatically loses the debate or anything, but it means now that my only burden in this case is to defend my case against his counterarguments as my opponent has provided no argument of his own. Judges, I’ll just leave that fact to you in order for you to measure out who acquires the argumentation point accordingly. Sub-point 1a: My opponent agrees with me in saying that the state of Georgia could acquire monetary income from the legalization and taxation of marijuana. The questions he poses aren’t necessarily counterarguments inasmuch as they are just questions of balancing monetary income with expenses. For that reason, you can extend this sub-point across the flow. In response to the questions my opponent made, I offer the following responses: a. Before continuing, I’d like to point out that the claims that my opponent’s evidence make are a bit contradictory vis-à-vis the predicted amount of marijuana use that could severely impair a user’s function to operate a vehicle. While his first piece of evidence mentions that acute marijuana use has no significant effect on a user’s ability to operate a vehicle, his second piece of evidence mentions that the most acute marijuana use is capable of doubling the chances of a car accident. There’s really no consistency in terms of the evidence he provides, so any argument that he made with respect to impairing motor function is really a bit nebulous with the evidence he provides. b. Furthermore, his second piece of evidence also mentions that marijuana has involvement only in 7% of fatal car accidents, meaning that if my opponent projects that legalization of marijuana would cause car accidents, his projections don’t show a significant increase. This is, of course, without the understanding of the methodology of the survey that was conducted in this article or how they checked for lurking variables, such as use of other drugs, drowsiness, use of alcohol, amount of years of experience with driving, conditions of roads, shapes of roads, conditions of cars, and other factors that can play into fatal accidents. The study in no way explains how it measures that marijuana is a significant factor in these fatal car accidents. Again, his evidence makes his counterarguments nebulous at best. c. In terms of how much money Georgia would make in order to make up for any harms, I’ll answer that in two ways. For one thing, the economic study on the potential economic benefits of marijuana was estimated with a hypothetical tax rate of 10%. While the amount of tax collection on marijuana is great under 10%, the state of Georgia has the complete freedom to make this tax rate higher if the government so wishes. Although I would imagine a 20% tax rate would be a bit draconian, if the state of Georgia feels this is appropriate in balancing the benefits with harms in terms of money, it is plausible even at some level. For another thing, I mentioned that my argument was to tax marijuana like alcohol, and the same can be applicable for intoxicated driving and fines. Not only would more stringent laws on intoxicated driving aid in the compensation for everything my opponent mentioned through fines, but it can also provide a deterrent in order to prevent intoxicated driving from occurring, as studies on driving while under the influence of alcohol show: “The study, published in the August 2007 issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, looks at data from 46 states and is one of the most comprehensive studies on the impact of drunk-driving laws in the U.S. It finds that suspending a drunk driver's license immediately at the time of arrest reduces alcohol-related fatal crash involvement by 5%, which translates to at least 800 lives being spared in the U.S. per year.” [1] Sub-point 1b: Extend any part of the case showing that the legalization of marijuana would not increase adolescent use. As for the part of legalization providing a better deterrent, my opponent states that he disagrees, but he provides absolutely no arguments as to why he disagrees or why my arguments are wrong. Even if I didn’t have any evidence to back up my claim, my opponent doesn’t even provide a counterargument against my initial claim. However, if my opponent remembers how I mentioned most adolescents agree that marijuana is more accessible than tobacco or alcohol (substances regulated in the state of Georgia and the US), he will notice that my evidence is therein. To elaborate, the regulation of a substance and establishment of an age minimum in order to acquire a substance makes it difficult for underage people to acquire a substance. That was my argument. Judges, you might as well extend this part of the argument as well as my opponent didn’t argue against it. He just said he disagrees with it. Sub-point 1c: To be fair, while the decriminalization of marijuana didn’t reduce drug arrests, we must understand that the state of California didn’t go the full way into legalizing marijuana. They just decriminalized it. My point was to show that the mitigation of draconian legislation against marijuana at the very least provides a reduction in the amount of crime. He also seemed to forget the part that in 2011, decriminalization reduced the amount of drug arrests as well, however. What my opponent doesn’t understand is that many offenders find it difficult to adjust to society after being entered into the criminal justice system, especially adolescents and young adults. Once being introduced, they usually become part of a vicious cycle of recidivism into the system with increasingly violent crime. The studies on that are plentiful, but had my opponent looked deeper into my evidence, he would’ve also found that my own study states the same: “Given these trends—a much larger, more racially diverse youth population subjected to decreased policing (especially for marijuana) and greatly decreased incarceration, more troubled adult influences, high poverty levels, and more explicit popular culture—normally would lead authorities across the spectrum to predict high and increasing rates of youth crime. Indeed, such predictions of a coming youth crime wave have repeatedly been made over the last two decades (for a typical example, see Fox & Piquero, 2003), and repeatedly proven wrong.” [2] My opponent then goes to say that the 30% estimated reduction is a best guess at best without even so much as reviewing the methodology and showing that it could be minimized to just a guess, and it’s not like my opponent offers any evidence of his own to say otherwise. One should really understand the difference between a guess and an educated one. The Mob lost a lot of ground after prohibition ended, but yes, it did manage to get back on its feet through the sale of other illicit substances…such as marijuana, the very thing we’re arguing about reducing Mob income with its legalization. [1] Rooney, Katie. "Revoking Licenses Deters Drunk Driving." Time Magazine, July 25, 2007. http://content.time.com... (accessed October 9, 2013) [2] Males, Mike. "California Youth Crime Plunges to All-Time Low." Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (2012): 7-8. http://www.cjcj.org...... (accessed October 4, 2013).