Marijuana Should Be Legalized

Thank you for your response, as I will now rebuttal. "Contention 1: Marijuana is addictive." First of all, my opponent as failed to reveal to me if Marijuana is physically addictive or physiologically addictive. In response to his posted links, it reveals to Americans on how the "War On Drugs" has really failed to limit the use of cannabis, especially amongst the youth. Reverting back to your statement, many studies show that in order for any addiction of cannabis to take place there has to be a very large consumption of THC. In Medical Marijuana, especially if regulated, the THC content can be manipulated to a point where it is irrelevant of any form of dependence. http://www.erowid.org... The addiction contention is furthermore perpetuated and led by the mainstream media (especially no-conservative) as it is the "gateway drug". However, 32% of Tobacco users are guaranteed to be addicted to it because of the nicotine. Yet, no one asks why it is the "gateway drug" instead of Marijuana? http://www.psychologytoday.com... I ask the question since my opponent so graciously posted the links for us -- if 42% of marijuana users have had access to marijuana (untaxed and black market priced), is it not wise to shut down the drug dealing/cartels/distributors by regulating and taxing it like we have with cigarettes? "Contention 2: Marijuana has a significant amount of negative impacts on the brain" There is no doubt that with a certain dosage of THC, there is significant psychological impact on your brain. However, if you base your argument on why it should be illegal because of this, then your contention is a fallacy and thus, flawed. Skeletal/muscle relaxants, alcohol, inflammatory drugs, anti-depressants, are all legal drugs but cause significant damages to the body and the brain if not used responsibly, which should apply to marijuana as well. "I will now refute each of my opponents arguments. Your first point was "The "War on Drugs" was and is an economic failure. The media perpetuates how evil Marijuana is and how it will kill, but there has never been any linked evidence in history that Marijuana caused any kinds of cancer related deaths. On the contrary, it has been proven marijuana causes cancer." My opponent never directly challenged my contention and threw a red herring into the rebuttal, as the "links to cancer" was only a small part of my argument. It is misconstrued thinking that cannibas directly causes cancer based on my side of the research. If we were basing on why things should be illegal because of cancer or carcinogens, than aspartame and preservatives found in our "tv dinners" should all be illegalized. Cannabis has far less carcinogens than most drugs on the legal market today. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Smoking Marijuana would ensure a trip to the hospital, because when you smoke even a pile of pine-cones, you already are risking your throat to bronchitis. I want to beg the question though: have you ever heard of a person overdosing on marijuana? I will let you simmer into that thought process and also mentioned, that marijuana if consumed alternatively via vaporizer or pill form eliminates most of the cancer related risks. http://www.askmen.com... "Based on this evidence alone, any drug illegalization is generally unconstitutional especially if the government wants to step in and protect you from yourself Once again, this focused on drugs overall. Even if you substituted drugs to marijuana, I fail to see how economic factors make opposition of marijuana unconstitutional." The opposition of marijuana is unconstitutional because I stress that it is lobbied by corporations to politicians in response to how competitive it would be in the industry. The government can negate certain liberties like theft and murder because it affects another person's civil liberties. However, it is unconstitutional to negate your right to consume whatever it is in your body and police your actions. "Your second point was Corruption in politics. I don't understand how the first paragraph of this point is relevant to the resolution." My point was relevant because it is dangerous for lawmakers to be influenced by puppet politicians paid by the drug cartels. Wouldn't you agree that the prohibition of alcohol caused Al Capone to rise into power because he had the means to pay off judges and politicians to keep alcohol illegal? "Your sub point was marijuana for a fiber and textile usage." It's such a danger for the textile factories because it's almost impossible to determine whether the employees are using it for its intended use or using it for recreational activity." False. The law enforcement in Canada and most European countries recognize that the THC content in industrial hemp is so low, that you would have to smoke a bushel to be intoxicated by it. Furthermore, industrial hemp actually hinders the potency of Marijuana surprisingly! If businesses cannot police what their employees are doing with the hemp, then they don't have the credentials to run a business. Either way, the workers cannot get intoxicated by it unless they want to smoke the whole factory. In rebuttal, why does law enforcement never constantly interfere with alcohol and tobacco production? It is a straw man in itself to assume employees will smoke legal hemp they cannot get high of in a factory, but you don't give fair treatment to farther more dangerous drugs that are prescription like Ritalin or Methadone. "Adding to this, the FDA opposes it only because of it's difficulty to commercially regulate it and profit enough. It's important to ask how many legal drugs today can kill someone, but a natural herb that grows from the ground is kept in hostility?" "The fact that is held in such a hostile regard is for the numerous negative health effects. Health uses Actually alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than marijuana Two recent studies have been published showing that alcohol -- a legal substance (though not legal for teens in the U.S.) -- is considered more dangerous than marijuana, which is illegal in many countries. [1] http://www.kindclinics.com...... [2] http://www.physorg.com...... Unconstitutional I have shown how alcohol and tobacco is more harmful than marijuana." My opponent's rebuttal is irrelevant and only fuels my argument. "The fact that is held in such a hostile regard is for the numerous negative health effects." "I have shown how alcohol and tobacco is more harmful than marijuana." Two of these points obviously conflict with each other. If the FDA you say, does not condone it's use because of it's "numerous negative effects" YET you have "shown how alcohol and tobacco is more harmful than marijuana", it shows me even more the political bias, unconstitutional favoritism, and regressive these impractical drug laws really are.