Legalization of marijuana

1. Benefits are relavent because you made up a whole story about Johnny and about how the government is evil for depriving him of it. "If they aren't harming others, it shouldn't be illegal." They are, therefore it should. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com... So the government should just allow this to occur and legalize marijuana? 2. I still don't understand. Just because blacks were jailed what does that have to do with the law itself? The law was intended for all races and religions. 3. "People are going to be addicted either way." You are strengthening my argument. I they are going to be addicted either way legalizing it would not solve the problem. You have forfeited that legalizing marijuana will not stop the addiction. "Because people do it anyway, so what the hell are we protecting?" It is sad you are unaware of the resolution but I will explain it to you. They are trying to stop the use of marijuana because of the deaths it has caused to others. You have no argument for benefits to marijuana because you have already admitted that users will be addicted either way. 4. "Making school lunches healthier doesn't stop students from buying bags or chips and pigging out at home" while this is a very unrelated example, at that moment when they are eating the healthy school lunch they are not pigging out so they are benefiting. "just like making something illegal doesn't make the product less easy to obtain." Yes it does! In every way. Just because America hasn't been doing a good job enforcing it, that doesn't mean they haven't caught people. You were arguing and complaing how so many people get caught and their lives get ruined, it has had an impact. (I am using my opponent's argument as a source). "how does anything help an addict if they are already addicted?" I don't remember saying this I don't think I did. And to answer that, physical therapy, not letting them have access to it, and uh.. Oh yeah make it ilegal! "Again, if they aren't harming anyone, then leave them alone!" AGAIN, refer to the sources I gave you in this round and in previous rounds which proves that it is harming others. This argument of yours has been disproven in round 1 move on. "So why waste the time making an effort to make them care? They obviously don't and won't." That has nothing to do with the basis of the law but how strong the law is. We should make them care. We should not disregard a law simply because people "don't care". "denying citizens of their free will to do drugs is a problem." Okay for the third time I will determine the difference between your examples and drugs. Woman's rights: we are depriving women of the BENEFIT of voting and other rights. Slavery: we are depriving people of the BENEFIT of freedom (with limits and laws!). Marijuana: We are depriving people something that harms them and others. This sounds great. There are no benefits to marijuana that is why they are different therefore, your examples of slavery, women's rights... Is unrelated to this debate. 8. Okay I will use that against you. My opponent admitted marijuana is harmful and you forgot to mention that I have proved that in fact, marijuana has harmed others whereas my opponent claimed marijuana has not harmed and therefore should be legal. Another argument disproved. "Use sources. If you don't, you aren't backing up your information, so you'll lose credit for that. Also, if you don't back up your information, all words can be perceived as an opinion. Opinions only make up half of a debate." My opponent is vague and hypocritical. My opponent has not used one source this round. I don't think I have said something in the last round as a fact and not state sources. My opponent, on the other hand, said something as a fact and provided no evidence. "The law was made to help protect people. Well guess what, it isn't protecting anyone because the percentages for usage are higher than ever" Sounds liked you said that as a fact with no source. I would also like to make clear that I have used my opponents argument as a source.