Autistic children should not be allowed to smoke marijuana.

Con begins by questioning the legitimacy of medical marijuana and how one would go about getting it. Currently, at least 14 states allow for medicinal marijuana; you have to register for a card and then talk to your doctor about a prescription. The information which Con requested can be found here [1]. However, Con is right in stating that it is still illegal at the federal level. While I completely disagree with this legislation, this debate is not about whether or not pot should be legal, or even if it should only be legal for autistic kids. If that were the case, it would have been clarified in R1. However, you'll notice that R1 only talked about the lack of autistic kids in gangs and how/why they should be allowed to cut and sell drugs for profit. So, that is exactly what Con has to defend in this debate. Rebuttal: 1. Con's point makes absolutely no sense. I said, "For legal purposes, I am in favor of marijuana legalization (buying) for those over the age of 18. Autistic "children" do not fit within these parameters." That argument makes perfect sense -- my personal feelings on legislation do not apply to autistic CHILDREN (the subject of this debate). Con says that this isn't relevant, but clearly it is. 2. Con concedes the first part of the argument, but then claims that he's not telling the children to disobey their parents ~ he thinks they should be allowed to smoke if their parents agree. Well, as I already pointed out (so yes, I did refute it), it would be irresponsible for parents to be encouraging their under-age autistic children to smoke pot. That is a decision for someone of legal age to make. Further, people with autism are considered to be mentally handicapped [2] and in many cases, they're literally retarded [3]. So, given the CHILD'S age (under 18) and the probability that they're not capable of making those kinds of decisions, Con is advocating that a parent use their kids to study something that is not proven to be effective and in fact can severely harm them. This seems like it is violating the child's rights. While pot can be an incredible tool of medicinal value, it can have devastating effects on one's mental health - particularly those who are already susceptible to mental deficiencies. For instance, in addition to weakening the immune system, marijuana has been linked to the acceleration of mental disorders such as paranoia, depression, uncontrollable aggression, bipolar psychosis, schizophrenia, etc. [4]. So, for a child with autism, this can potentially be incredibly dangerous. 3. I pointed out that there were beneficial and less harmful treatments for autism than marijuana. Con countered this by saying (a) I haven't pointed out any, and (b) that I was wrong because there are no known cures. He's right about the second part - there is NO known cure for autism, including marijuana... so this is a moot point. As far as the alternatives, how about: sensory integration therapy, dietary modifications, occupational and physical therapy, play therapy, social stories, picture exchange communication systems, vitamins, etc. [5]. So, now that we've cleared that up, Con's next part of the argument claims that we should allow for this kind of testing specifically to see if/how marijuana can help with autism. A few things - Based on the evidence and knowledge that we DO have, we can infer or at least draw some kind of conclusion about the prospective benefits and whether or not this would be a good endeavor to look into. Also, why does this testing have to be done on CHILDREN specifically? Most importantly, I already detailed how one could go about getting a marijuana registration card, talking to their doctor about medical marijuana, and doing this in a safe and legal way. However, I do think people should consider the risks (especially as it pertains to other mental health disorders and associations regarding pot). 4. Regarding the legality of this issue, it was never clarified in R1 that we were discussing changing the current laws. Moreover, it was not implied or specified in the resolution. So, when I accepted this debate, the only thing up for discussion was the resolution and what Con posted in the first round: "Since we can't easily force gangs to accept autistic children among their ranks, we need to do the next best thing and provide autistic children with an alternate source of marijuana which they can consume, sell, and cut for profit." While I think pot should be legal (that's obvious), I don't think it should be legal for children as I have mentioned. Further, if it becomes legal, it should be legal for STUDIES and an advancement of science as my opponent said -- not for autistic people to consume (without knowing the dangers), sell and cut for profit. The basic point, though, is that even if it WERE legal - that doesn't necessarily mean that people *should* smoke pot, let alone people with autism, let alone children with autism. If I can prove -- and I believe I have -- that KIDS with autism probably shouldn't be smoking pot, then I have won this debate. 5. Con concedes that having an autistic gang is unethical and unfeasible. [[ Update ]] So it seems to me the only arguments in question are: 1. If those under 18 should consume pot (Con says yes) 2. If parents should be able to give their under-age and mentally ill children pot (Con says yes) 3. If pot with all of its negative connotations to mental health should be administered to mentally ill children when there are other, healthier alternatives (Con says yes) In the first round, basically Con said that autistic children need a voice (they're not represented in gangs) and should have pot accessible to them. However, as I've pointed out, children should not have this option, and parents should seek healthier alternatives which have proven to be effective. Experimentation is fine, but it should be administered first to adults and those who would probably benefit the most (which science can help us infer). Plus, if this argument applies, then it should apply to ALL people that pot can benefit - which would be most people - not just those with autism. And again, this debate is about autistic children. Even if it were legal for these individuals, their parents should have the first and foremost say about what they ingest for medicinal reasons. Most parents would probably agree that this is a bad idea. [1] http://www.mahalo.com... [2] http://www.autismspot.com... [3] http://www.autism-resources.com... [4] http://cyber.law.harvard.edu... [5] http://www.neurologychannel.com...