Cannabis should be legalised

My opponent apparently believes in the shotgun approach to debating, where one throws at one's opponent as many arguments as possible in the hopes he will miss one, giving a technical victory by forfeit. It is more respectful and productive to make one or two arguments and flesh them out, giving sources, clear reasoning, and persuasive arguments for your position. I will address each of my opponent's points in order; I apologize if this is a little rushed, as I did not have the time to properly attend to this until today, and only just barely even now. ------- 1. Reducing the amount of cannabis (which for time sake I will after this be referring to as MJ) used is dependent on compliance with the law and enforcement of the law. Making it illegal does not automatically reduce the number of users; however, it does give law enforcement the authority they need to reduce the usage. By my opponent's own source, though, the same experts expect a dramatic drop in the price for MJ upon legalization. it is only natural to assume that the people who could not afford, could not find, or were afraid to try MJ (for fear of legal consequences), no longer having these obstacles, will try the drug. Contrary to what my opponent states, then, there is a good probability that the number of users will skyrocket upon legalization. Point 1 is therefore relevant, but wrong. 2. My opponent gives no source for this, and I refuse to accept his bare assertion. His point is too vague/unsupported to be useful. 3. Again, no source. I expect my opponent realizes that his word is not proof of anything here; one must back up assertions of fact with reliable unbiased sources, such as this one: http://drugabuse.gov... Notice that here we have the effects of MJ: "distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problemsolving, and problems with learning and memory." Long term effects include "anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia," "marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke,"and "marijuana users have a 4.8-fold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first hour after smoking the drug." Heart attacks, lung cancers, and their resulting death or debilitation are certainly long-term effects worth considering. 4. My opponent tries to wave aside the dangers of MJ use, but they are very real. MJ causes "distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problemsolving, and problems with learning and memory," all of which puts other people at risk when MJ users drive or operate machinery. Parallels exist with our current laws against driving drunk, but with a twist: the dulling effects of MJ can last for days or weeks after the acute effects wear off. [1] Clearly, the risks posed by MJ users to the rest of the population are a reason for concern. 5. This point is irrelevant. "Cannaboids" are chemicals found in tiny quantities in MJ; MJ is not, by itself, necessarily helpful in any of those diseases. Indeed, the lung irritation, increased risk of heart attack, heavy concentration of carcinogens, and tar deposits associated with smoking MJ more than offset any dubious possible benefits for any reasonable user. 6. Making it legal puts innocent lives at risk. I don't need to point out why that's bad. More than that, this is a case of sloppy thinking. Making something illegal to sell automatically makes any selling of it a crime. That's completely obvious. Why point out that making something popular illegal will increase crime? If it needs to be illegal to protect the lives of the law-abiding, those that choose to become criminals despite that risk deserve what they get. 7. Utterly irrelevant. We can make nuclear bombs or graffiti legal and tax their use; this does not make them any less dangerous or obnoxious. 8. Partially true, but irrelevant. We can also grow fast-growing renewable plants, such as white pine or certain bamboos, that have the same benefits without the dangers. ----- Conclusion: My opponent has given no good reason to legalize MJ. He has not refuted the dangers of MJ use, short or long term, and he has shown no greater societal good that would come from legalization. The resolution is negated. I return this debate to my opponent; good luck! C. All quotations and references are from http://drugabuse.gov...