marijuana should not be legalized

1. The articles The article's filled with a bunch of scare stories. He repeatedly calls marijuana a "poison", bashes big business (specifically, the tobacco industry), and appeals to pity by assuming that all pot use will be in a smoke-filled house where the father is abusive, the mother is always high, the older sister is stealing her mother's weed and skipping school, and the younger brother is cowering in the corner while the water, gas, and electricity are shut off because smoking somehow destroying everyone's capacity to pay the bills. Even if that were the case for EVERYONE who smoked marijuana, that doesn't justify paternalism. It's never proven that the government has a right, much less an obligation to protect people from their own bad decisions. Breakups are emotionally harmful; they can lead to self-abuse, and even suicide. Does that mean that the government should use force to keep couples together? This is as absurd a case of paternalism as keeping marijuana illegal. b. First of all, the article claims that marijuana might be a gateway drug. One, slippery slope fallacy. Two, marijuana was partially legalized in Holland in the 1970s. The use of heroin and cocaine ("hard" drugs) declined; in 1993, the RAND Corporation did a study of states that had decriminalized vs. those that haven't. It found that "where marijuana was more available-the states that had decriminalized-hard drug abuse as measured by emergency room episodes decreased. In short, what science and actual experience tell us is that marijuana tends to substitute for the much more dangerous hard drugs like alcohol, cocaine, and heroin." [http://www.drugtext.org...] Second of all, the article argues that "marijuana contains an ingredient that produces a euphoria that warrants its continued distinction as an illegal substance." This makes absolutely no sense. How exactly is the fact that marijuana gets you high grounds for keeping it illegal? By that same logic, we should ban sex, because it feels AMAZING, and because some people can get addicted to it (not to mention the possible "side effects": STDs). This next claim makes me laugh. "Legalizing marijuana would send a mixed message to teenagers whose parents are able to use the authority of law to support their own opposition to its use." So, because legalizing marijuana would make some parents look bad because they told their kids "marijuana is illegal, therefore, it's bad", we shouldn't legalize it? I think a proper response would be that parents shouldn't be so prudish and paranoid about marijuana in the first place. The rest of the article is just "marijuana is harmful". You know what I have to say about that: let individuals assess the risk. c. This third article is the same old thing. It's addictive, it's harmful, gateway drug. I've refuted it all. d. The final article isn't even an article. It's an essay on one of those "you were too lazy to write your paper, so buy one from us" sites. It's not even the entire paper. It's a short summary and an excerpt. That's not even credible. 2. Pro's arguments a. Pro's first four paragraphs don't say anything except "Marijuana gets you high, and here's how". That has nothing to do with keeping it illegal. b. The rest of my opponent's arguments are the same old "marijuana could be harmful" arguments; note, though, that his only proof is that some study said it at some point in time. -------- Let me just explain why Con wins this, hands-down. Pro isn't actually debating the resolution. He's supposed to tell you that marijuana shouldn't be legalized. Here's what he tells you instead, and has been telling you for the past three rounds: > Marijuana gets you high > Marijuana could have harmful side effects Essentially, he's saying this: Marijuana is bad. :. The government should maintain a ban on marijuana. First off, it's clear that something being "bad" isn't a good enough reason to ban it. Simple case of "does not follow". Secondly, smoking marijuana doesn't inherently violate anyone's rights. Thirdly, there are other harmful substances that are already legal; it would be a huge double-standard to argue that tobacco and prescription medication (both of which can be abused) ought to be legal, while marijuana shouldn't be by virtue of the fact that it makes you feel really, really good in the process. In short, Pro just doesn't do his job. Let's go to the points breakdown. Conduct: Tied S/G: Con - Obvious reasons. Arguments: Con - Pro was arguing "marijuana is bad" rather than "marijuana should remain illegal". Sources: Con - Con's sources not only disproved Pro's assertions, but showed that the sources that Pro did provide either didn't substantiate his claims, or were altogether irrelevant. Overall: 6 points Con.