Marjuana should be legal with a few restrictions.

#1, #2, #3, #4My opponent claims that the social costs of alcohol are not representative of those of marijuana, because alcohol is a more harmful substance.He then goes on to cite a biased (clearly pro-legalization) and quite outdated source which says that the correlation between marijuana and auto accidents is “scientifically unproven”. The most recent reference in the study was from 2002. Some go as far back as the 1980’s. Date of the studies makes a significant difference since it is commonly known that marijuana potency has increased substantially following this decade [1]. More potent marijuana causes more severe impairment, thus making driving under the influence of today’s marijuana a much riskier activity than doing it back then.Two more up-to-date studies (2009 and 2012 respectively) show an obvious relationship between stoned driving and auto accidents [2] [3].Furthermore, my opponent only recognizes car accidents as a social cost, while others exist, including non-driving related accidents caused by marijuana impairment, crimes committed while exhibiting poor judgment under the influence of marijuana, and again, lost workplace productivity, all of which would increase with the increased amount of users. Looking at the effects of marijuana upon a person (which I have already specified, uncontested by my opponent), it is unreasonable to believe these social costs wouldn’t occur with this substance as well. #5It makes no difference whether alcohol is slightly more dangerous, or far ore dangerous than marijuana; this does not, in any way, shape or form, justify legalizing an ADDITIONAL substance with ADDITIONAL drawbacks for society. Again, the only point you seem to be communicating is that marijuana is safer than alcohol; I was under the assumption that this debate would be about the positive/negative results of legalization, not its pros/cons as compared with something else.A comparison with alcohol reflects nothing about the costs and benefits of marijuana. Where it ranks compared with alcohol does not alter the fact that: -Very little revenue could be gained from legalization-Marijuana indeed has adverse health effects including cancer and brain deterioration -Legalization would bring no decrease (perhaps even an increase) in crime-Legalization would increase the quantity of users; exacerbating its burden upon society.Whether or not the antagonistic fallout would be less or more severe than that of alcohol is irrelevant; it is a bad outcome nonetheless. If you were more familiar with the history of drug legality, you would know that not all prohibitions fail. Prohibition can actually be highly effective if implemented properly, like in China to combat opium addiction [4].#6The excerpt you quote is nothing more than a disclaimer. Two more excerpts (written directly after Pro’s excerpt):“That such a loss does occur, however, is consistent with what we know from animal studies. [5]”“They have shown that exposure to cannabinoids during adolescent development can cause long-lasting changes in the brain’s reward system as well as the hippocampus, a brain area critical for learning and memory. [5]” The evidence in the article in question is clear and compelling to say the least. Generally in the field of scientific research, however, the researcher tries to leave the door open for other possibilities no matter how good the evidence is.The same is true for your second quotation. The evidence is significant, however the researcher adds disclaimers to avoid making definitive statements subject to attack. “While this study cannot exclude all potential contributory factors (e.g., child abuse, subclinical mental illness, mild learning disabilities), the neuropsychological declines following marijuana use were present even after researchers controlled for factors like years of education, mental illness, and use of other substances. [5]”To ignore reliable evidence based on a couple of disclaimers designed to protect the study from naysayers would be a severe oversight.#7The excerpt you site still maintains that the risk of accident among marijuana users is increased. “…but the evidence of people driving high doesn"t show nearly as much damage as driving drunk on alcohol does…”Yet again, irrelevant. Regardless of how minor it supposedly is, why decriminalize something that would lead to any damage at all? Only if the benefits outweigh this damage, which has certainly not been proven. The only benefits you cite are financial, and those are subject to extreme rebuke and skepticism.#8No studies? I cited one in the previous round, proving marijuana to have at least 50 to 70 percent of the carcinogens in tobacco [6]. Sounds like a fairly compelling study to me.My opponent’s source later proceeds to comment on the link between marijuana and cancer/serious health issues.“However, Tashkin's (2005) research at UCLA-MC showed increased redness, swelling, and white blood cell count in regular marijuana users. Furthermore, because marijuana smoke is very similar to cigarette smoke, it seems quite likely that long term effects may be the same. [7]”“In sum, just because there is not a large scale, longitudinal study proving marijuana smoke causes cancer, does not mean it can be ruled out. Marijuana smoke, like cigarette smoke, contains known carcinogens.[7]”I ask, with the lack of advantages of legalization, why take the risk when the link has been made, and there is considerable evidence?#9You should have specified earlier.While it’s often assumed that marijuana is not physically addictive, this could be inaccurate. The existence of physical symptoms (i.e. not psychological) such as headache and nausea [8], could be an argument for it indeed being physically addictive. These symptoms show that the body is falling physically ill because it is lacking something it physically needs (i.e. physical addiction).#10 On the contrary to what my opponent says, if readers will look back at section three of my argument for the last round, they will see that I indeed cited two sources, each with negative effects of their respective drug. It is easy to see that those of marijuana are more serious and could lead to more problems in daily life.#11I have shown the differences of marijuana withdrawal as opposed to caffeine withdrawal. They are actually not all that similar (see list my opponent cited in round 1), and those of marijuana are no doubt more severe, as evidenced by the large number of people who need rehab to help cope with them.#123.9 million people are admitted to drug rehabilitation each year [9]. 16.1% of this is 627,900. Regardless of its proportion to the total amount of marijuana users, it is a significant number, and deserves to be acknowledged. Again, if the drug is decriminalized, the amount of users will increase, leading to more addicts, which, among other things, puts more burden on our drug rehab system. All Pro has managed to prove thus far is that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, which is not a valid argument for its legalization. He has not demonstrated that the benefits of legalization outweigh the costs, or that marijuana “should” be legal, as is his burden of proof.Sources: [1] http://www.prweb.com...[2] http://www.caraccidentattorneys.com...[3] http://wot.motortrend.com...[4] http://www.sacu.org...[5] http://www.drugabuse.gov...[6] http://www.whitehouse.gov...[7] http://www.psychologytoday.com...[8] http://recoveringaddict.hubpages.com...[9] http://www.oas.samhsa.gov...