Cannabis should be fully legalised to over 18's.

Observation:We are arguing if something should or should not be legal. It is important to note what it is we are not arguing. For example, we are not arguing what punishments are or are not justified. Likewise, we are not arguing about overcrowded prisons, or mandatory minimums, these are not relevant topics to the resolution. Many who argue about drugs often argue that they should be decriminalized. Again, while an interesting and important topic it is not directly related to this debate. For example, It is feasible to argue, as many do, that something should be illegal and decriminalized, or to argue for less stringent punishments for violations. Now that we have covered what is not being debated, we can get to the core issue. This debate rests solely on the question of if all Marijuana should be legalized. Emphasis on all, if I can reasonably show why Marijuana should remain illegal my opponent loses. Also of note, my opponent has brought up alcohol. This has no bearing on the topic at hand, the legality of alcohol does not impact marijuana at all. I will present my argument in two parts. The first being that the U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from Drugs, and the second, that the Government protects citizens through the rule of law. By arguing such it will become clear that the U.K. Government should not legalize Marijuana.Argument Part 1: The Government ought to protect citizens from Marijuana.My case here is quite simple (P = Premise, C = Conclusion)P1: The U.K. government ought to protect citizens from harm.P2: Citizens can be and are harmed by Marijuana C: The U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from Marijuana.P1: The U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from harmTo understand what the government ought to do it is important to understand the Role of government. The role of government “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare….”Such governments could only accomplish these goals and realize their purpose if citizens are protected from harm. There can be no justice, tranquility, general welfare etc. if citizens are subject to harm that the government could reasonably prevent. That is to say Governments ought to protect their citizens from harm.P2: Citizens can be and are harmed by Marijuana Pro states, “I am not arguing that cannabis is unharmful” he is correct, it is harmful. Marijuana can alter the user’s sense and mood. It can impair body movement, alter memory, and decrease the ability to problem solve. It is known to affected brain development negatively. It can cause breathing problems, hallucinations, and paranoia. It can cause anxiety, depression, and has been shown to induce suicidal thoughts in teens. (1)"There is the Denver man who, hours after buying a package of marijuana-infused Karma Kandy from one of Colorado’s new recreational marijuana shops, began raving about the end of the world and then pulled a handgun from the family safe and killed his wife, the authorities say."[1]You tell me, Is this man’s dead wife more free? Is this man’s family more safe? Is this harm hypothetical? Talk about harm. Marijuana harms in many ways. It is not a stretch to assume that someone who’s mood is altered, having hallucinations, is paranoid, prone to erratic and violent behavior, and/or having suicidal thoughts poses a threat to themselves and others."The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Household Survey on Drug Abuse asks individuals living in households about their dug and alcohol use and their involvement in acts that could get them in trouble with the police... those who use cannabis or cocaine were much more likely to commit crimes of all types than those who did not use these substances. Of those reporting use... during 1991, 26.1% also report that they committed violent crimes during the year."(3)We see that drug use is linked to violent crime. That is to say harm to others. Legalizing a drug does not remove the harms inherent to that drug. Thus we see that Citizens can be and often are harmed by Marijuana use.Conclusion of Part 1:As P1 and P2 are affirmed that the U.K. government ought to protect citizens from harm and that Citizens can and often are harmed by drugs it follows logically that the U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from Marijuana. Argument Part 2: The Government protects citizens through the rule of law.How does a government “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility… , promote the general Welfare….?” Simple; through the rule of law.Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including law makers themselves. Put another way. The Government is subject to law as are citizens of this nation. How is it that the government can protect citizens from the harm of drugs as we have established it should if the laws that make this protection possible are repealed? Simply put it cannot. If all drugs are legalized the government cannot fill its duty. Governments ought to protect citizens from Drugs. To do this it becomes necessary for the law to enable the government to do so. Many drugs are harmful and are thus rightly outlawed.Conclusion:It has become clear that;1: The U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from Marijuana.How is that done?2: The Government protects citizens through the rule of law.From these two points it logically follows that;C: The Government through the rule of Law should protect Citizens from Marijuana.This is why I am opposed to the resolution; that is to say that the U.K. Government should not legalize Marijuana.Sources:(1) http://www.drugabuse.gov...(2) http://www.nytimes.com...(3) http://www.bjs.gov...