Marijuana ought to be legalized

This round, as the final round, will be entirely dedicated to rebuttals. Because of the intricacies of our responses, for this round, I will list my references to this debate in chronological order, label them accordingly, and indent them, and my statements regarding these references will follow unindented Regarding the control of legalized marijuana: “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, otherwise known as the FDA, could easily control the usage of marijuana if it was legalized.” - Pro in round 2 “Any control exerted could be circumvented. The sheer number of prescription drugs on the street testifies to the willingness of desperate people to get their fix by whatever means necessary. As the only established reasons for legalization so far have been medicinal purposes, any of those people who do not have a corresponding medical problem would be acquiring their weed by illegal means. Again, legalization has solved nothing.” - Con in round 2 “Once again the FDA could regulate the movement and usage of marijuana, they can supplement who gets it and who uses it, also they can regulate the quantity of marijuana being issued” - Pro in round 3 Note that Pro has simply repeated a claim he made in the second round, and this claim in no way nullifies what I said in response. My objection will be extended. Regarding the military use of marijuana: “Your argument was 'the military has access to many things that the public simply does not.'" Well having it legalized only for military and combat purposes would permit a long and tedious process that the organization in question is forced to abide by.” - Pro in round 3 Nonsense. Again, the only established reason you’ve given for marijuana is for medicinal purposes. All that would have to occur is for these organizations to be able to refer people to a doctor from whom the patient can get the prescription. Regarding the safety of marijuana: “It clearly states "While it has not been conclusively proven that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer, the evidence is highly suggestive." So , regardless, that there is no prove that the claim is correct, there is also no prove that shows that claim is incorrect.” - Pro in round 3 You have absurdly high standards of evidence if you think that a marijuana supportive site admitting that the evidence is “highly suggestive” of marijuana causing lung cancer is not convincing enough. I can cite several other sources which indicate the same thing. [1][2][3][4] Regarding the legtimacy of NORML as a source: “I will quote directly from NORML's website "In fact, the most recent studies..." There sources are clearly from other non-biased parties.” - Pro in round 3 I will acknowledge and drop this topic as my first rebuttal was more than enough to carry my point through. Regarding the effectiveness of the THC vs smoked marijuana: “If the patient refused to take the THC spray in favor of the actual marijuana substance, the doctor would have to give said patient the marijuana as the alternative of him dieing is less than him being giving the marijuana.” - Pro in round 3 You’re basically saying that if the patient throws a tantrum and refuses to take a safer, more easily approved, and just as effective medication, the doctor MUST provide him with medicinal marijuana? You evidently do not know how the process works. As my opponent has not made a cohesive case whatsoever for the legalization of marijuana, and as I have proposed an effective alternative for the positive effects of medicinal marijuana, marijuana ought not be legalized. Additionally, as the effects of marijuana ARE damaging, marijuana has NOT been passed by the FDA as even having medicinal value in its smoked form, and there appear to be no utilitarian reason for legalization, I, again, state that marijuana ought not be legalized.