cannabis should be legalized.

Purpose of Laws in a representative democracy. Pro has agreed that we are discussing the legalization of cannabis in a representative democratic government. However, he seems to be confused about the purpose of laws in this type of government. In this type of government, the populace elects a person who represents their beliefs and the elected person would make decisions for the populace. The founders of the constitution thought this was best because they knew that the common people are not virtuous nor smart enough to rule over themselves. They kept in mind that most of the population will rule based on what gives them pleasure, and not what benefits them. They feared the so called "mobocracy." In a representative government, a person is elected if the majority of the population vote for him or her. And it is these elected person that determine what laws would be best in the United States. So if pro believes that "majority rules would not be a fair way to look at it", ("it" meaning the legalization of marijuana) then he is in fact not talking about legalization in a representative democracy. However, fact is fact, and the United States is a representative democracy. So, my argument that Marijuana should stay illegal if it harms more than benefits the majority of the people stands. Before I go any further, I want to note my opponent's concessions.Concessions1. He does not deny that "Using marijuana is known to cause hallucinations, delusions, impaired memory, disorientation."2. He agrees that using marijuana can cause mental addiction. 3. He does not deny that "A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia." (I will address the problem he had with this premise later.)Most people would agree that hallucinations, delusions, impaired memory, disorientation, mental addiction, increased rates of anxiety, increased rates of depression, and increased rates of schizophrenia are harmful.Rebuttals1. If prohibition has failed, this does not mean that the government should stop all efforts to prohibit something they believe is harmful. If a child causes havoc no matter how many times he is punished, does this mean that the parent should stop punishing him altogether? No. The smart parent would increase the severity of the punishment. According to my opponent, something harmful should be left alone because it is too difficult to stop it. 2. Here, my opponent makes a contradiction. First, my opponent admits that he is a teenager and also a "casual cannabis user". He also says that marijuana smokers "can both benefit and be happy." Then why does he believe that marijuana should be legalized because it would "keep it out of the hands of teenagers." So, he, as a teenager, is saying that teenagers should stay away from marijuana. Now, why would he say such a thing? Unless, of course, he has found harm in using marijuana himself. And if he believes users will "benefit and be happy", why does he believe it a benefit to keep marijuana away from teenagers?4. My opponent believes that marijuana should be legalized because "cannabis is non-lethal and is safer than alcohol and tabaco." And I assume that my opponent believes it is safer than the other two because the numerous harms of marijuana are not as severe as the harms from alcohol and tobacco. And I agree with this. I agree that marijuana is safer to use than alcohol or tobacco. However, my opponent has agreed that there are indeed harms to using marijuana. So according to my opponent's logic, since there are already two harms legal in the U.S., the U.S. might as well add a lesser harm to the mix. Since there are already harm present, what is the harm in adding more harm? Is it just me or does this logic seem a little off? 6. Just because something does not kill people does not mean it will benefit society. Therefore, this premise is irrelevant. Counter Arguments1. My opponent agrees with my first argument except the paranoia part. A person who is under the influence of marijuana is likely to become more paranoid than a sober person under the same conditions. 2. "Nonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, and a heightened risk of lung infections. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than non smokers."It seems our information contradicts each other. I am not an expert on this subject so I get all my information off the internet. I would like to see my opponent's sources to compare the validity of both sources.3. I wrote argument three knowing that personal opinions and experiences do not mean anything in debates. However, the account I told my opponent is true. Anyways, that does not matter. 4. My opponent agrees that marijuana can cause mental addiction. My opponent notes that mental addiction is extremely common. However, just because something is common does not mean that it is not harmful. So the question becomes, is mental addiction harmful or beneficial? First, what is addiction? According to dictionary.com, addiction is "the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming." My opponent may not agree with this definition, but let us emphasize two phrased from this definition. The first is "psychologically." This definition does not only apply to physical addictions. The second is "the state of being enslaved." I cannot see how in any situation, being enslaved would not be harmful. Just because mental addiction is common among people, this does not mean that mental addiction is not harmful. I disagree with my opponent's claim that " Mental addiction is not controlling." If it was not controlling, it would not be called an addiction. 5. I apologize to readers and my opponent for poorly wording my fifth argument. What I meant was that if marijuana was not present, people would not have to risk the increased rate of being diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. Why make the risk present for people to take? I again apologize for my poor wording. The mindset of lawsI would like to address an important issue regarding laws. Why do governments pass laws? Governments pass laws with the hope that people will obey them. If people do not obey the laws, and if the laws are indeed beneficial, then the government should better enforce the laws. Marijuana usage in U.S and Amsterdam chart.I found this piece of data very interesting. Lets remember that one of the argument that my opponent made for legalizing marijuana was that legalizing marijuana "would keep it out of the hands of teenagers." If my opponent is a marijuana using teenager, it would be logical to assume that he knows of harms that marijuana has. If not, why would he believe it a benefit to keep marijuana away from teenagers. So regarding this data, the U.S. government illegalized marijuana in hopes that less people, and ideally zero people, will use it. But this data shows that the U.S. should actually legalize marijuana to have the effect that banning marijuana should have. Should the U.S. legalize murder in hopes of reducing murder? Don't be ridiculous. The government is doing what it is suppose to do, it is the people who are not.It seems my opponent has taken my analogies too literally. My two analogies were introduced not to prove that marijuana users will kill people (as my opponent believes), but to prove two points. 1. What someone thinks is best for him might not actually be best for him. 2. What is beneficial to a person will not always make him happy. And my analogies have sufficiently proved these points. Sources Please & I look forward to your reply. My sources are in the comments.