Marijuana should be legalized

In this round, I will rebut my opponent's case and defend mine. Economic BenefitMarijuana has never raised any money in taxes anywhere when it's been legalised. His source only made an estimate based on current consumption patterns, without taking into account any of the costs of legalisation. I've already shown you the example of Amsterdam - you don't raise money with marijuana. As to the war not working, there are a lot of non-working expensive-to-enforce laws. For example, murder rates are on the increase in many countries, and catching murderers is certainly very expensive, but that's no reason to legalise murder. On creating jobs, what's often forgotten is that the marijuana industry already employs a lot of people - the figure just isn't reported. The only way the industry would create more jobs is if more people buy more cannabis. Trouble is, however, if people spend more money on cannabis, they won't have so much money to spend on other stuff, like food. That means that producers in other industries earn less money (negating any economic stimulus) and thus have to lay off staff (negating the hypothetical job gains). Holistically, the economy will lose production because of the extra sick days of smokers. More on that later. Personal AutonomyFirst, I don't accept the presumption that marijuana has no third-party harms, but I'll deal with that shortly. Second, the government regulates things all the time that don't harm others, such as the wearing of seatbelts or bicycle helmets, if there is a legitimate rational that the user may otherwise be in danger. The current cannabis policy is entirely consistent with that. Third, just because an answer is widespread doesn't mean it's justified. My opponent offered no justification as to why we're free to harm ourselves. Personal autonomy will always be tempered by our obligations as citizens, one of which is not to put ourselves into excessive amounts of danger (such as by smoking marijuana or not wearing seatbelts). As to consistency, that's a whole different debate. I'd gladly argue that the sale of alcohol and cigarettes should be much more restricted or outlawed some other time. Right now, we're arguing about what should be done with cannabis. Health BenefitsIt seems my opponent and I agree that pure THC should be legal (in fact, in many western jurisdictions it is). Great! THC, however, is not marijuana, which if anything causes more cancer than THC suppresses. My opponent's argument is like saying "marijuana contains water, which has been proven to be good, so let's legalise marijuana. " That's illogical. Water can be procured from the tap, just as THC can be made in the lab. The advantage is that are there no other dangerous chemicals from marijuana mixed with the medicine. That's why proving water or THC to be good is a great argument for legalising water or THC, not marijuana! By the way, I also agree marijuana should be legal for research purposes, just not recreational or medical. As the example of Donald Tushkin proves, that's the status quo. I'm glad my opponent at least admits that there are an abundance of carcinogens in cannabis. As to the minor effects, such as pain relief, I've already stated cannabis can have a suppressive effect. Any trip to the pharmacy, however, will reveal that the world has no shortage of pain killers or nausea drugs. I agree Vioxx was a mistake, but millions of pain killers have worked with very little issue, such as Panadol and Neurofen. They probably won't give you cancer or mental issues either. To spare my opponent the trouble, yes overdosing is a problem, but the reason why people overdose is typically not because they're dumb, it's because they have some mental issue and feel a little suicidal. That's the problem we need to target. Often the reason for this mental issue, and therefore the problem, is marijuana. You don't need to legalise more drugs just because the few that are available are sometimes abused. On to self-medicating. My opponent didn't address this directly but he cast doubt on my sources for people who did self-medicate. On AIDS self-medicating patients, my opponent should note that AIDS is a type of immuno-deficiency, meaning the immune system IS already deficient. On cancer self-medicating patients, even if my study did not directly prove causation, a thirtyfold increase on tobacco (already known to be a leading cause of cancer) cannot really be mere coincidence. Individual HarmsMy opponent's right - 30,000 deaths is far too low, since I've already established cannabis is far worse than tobacco. If 1 in 10 cannabis users get schizophrenia, that's not a 'very small' number! That's a huge problem. That's 1.85% of the United States (extrapolating from pro's round 1 18.5% figure) getting mentally ill because of cannabis - not to mention the other mental issues cannabis can cause. That's about 5.5 million more mental patients burdening the USA's hospitals and, given the higher crime rates for people with mental problems, the USA's prisons. Can you really afford that? On addiction, I agree cannabis is less addictive than some other drugs, but as I've said whether or not we ban other drugs is a matter for another debate. Just because something is presently legal doesn't mean it should be! However, my opponent's chart only looked at physical addiction, dependence and tolerance. Note that my research is about mental addiction. And no, our brains haven't changed that much since 1984. Cannabis is highly mentally addictive, even if it isn't physically addictive. As to the education point, I wonder why my opponent thinks more school kids smoke tobacco than cannabis, even though both are illegal for young people? As I continuously reiterate - people do that which they are normalised to. I've also proven that normalisation starts in school. It doesn't matter whether he'd keep purchasing illegal, because his policy will hook more young people on cannabis anyway. Look at the Alaska example I sourced last round. My opponent said nothing about the gateway effect, other than to suggest my study was not sufficient evidence. First, it was enough for the British government statisticians to attribute it in their report. Second, I provided a strong logical basis for the figures that my opponent ignored. FamilyMy opponent denies my source about sickness says anything about getting sick. Actually, yes it does (unless you don't count cancer etc as sickness). In addition, here is a report of a study that proved a 78% increase in absenteeism among marijuana users: . http://www.nytimes.com....On stealing money, here's the UK police saying marijuana users steal money and property to fuel their addiction: . http://www.nidirect.gov.uk.... Here's an example: . http://www.pottsmerc.com....SocietyLegitimate traders would not benefit more then illegitimate - just look at all the real world examples I pointed to, like Amsterdam or Alaska. Who benefited more there? Why would we be any different? Marijuana is expensive enough as-is, and gangs aren't going to disappear just because you legalise their main source of income. As to property damage, the article I sourced cited dozens of studies showing property damage, but I guess voters can see that for themselves. On lobbying, no, that's just the drugs industry. Do we see political corruption around the kiwifruit industry, or the plaster industry? I thought not. At this point my opponent runs out of characters, so he clearly hasn't refuted all of my points. Out of fairness I'll offer no new points, so long as my opponent does try to tackle the remainder of my arguments, though I suspect it will be too little, too late.