The use of cannabis by adults should be legalized in the United States.

Okay, i will try to address all the points he makes, but as he did not roadmap them out as i did, i apologize if i miss one, and i hope the voters would not penalize me. My opponent says that my version of how cannabis was outlawed was not the case. If so, I'd appreciate his version of how it all went down, unless this is his version: "There were in fact studies done to show how cannabis is dangerous." If this is indeed his version, i suggest he look into the matter more. Perhaps read the links i provided, yes yes? I did paraphrase the whole matter, but it is essentially correct. Anyone interested should read those links and do some more research on there own. There was in fact very little to no research on the matter at the time of it's banning. But, as he also points out, research has been conducted that has shown that smoking marijuana is bad for you. The problem is, the research leaves out some important words and emphasis. It should probably read more like this: Research has been conducted concluding that SMOKING marijuana all day, every day, for years, is bad for you. Studies and research have been arranged by the government for years to show that marijuana is bad. They've also been carefully and conveniently edited to leave out the parts where it is beneficial, and not as bad as thought. Furthermore, your links and sources and that man's testimony all ignore the fact that smoking is not the only way (or most efficient way) to use marijuana. Vaporizers are the most efficient for using marijuana, and you avoid smoke. You can also ingest marijuana (or other THC products) by way of mouth, in brownies, baked goods, any recipe that uses butter, all sorts of things. There are many safer ways to use cannabis, the only reason smoking is so popular is it is more portable, and easier to hide. A vaporizer won't fit in your pocket, and generally baked goods don't belong in your pocket either. A pipe will easily fit in your pocket and is easily stashed in case of POLICE (AGGH!) Smoking is just easier to get away with as it takes less time and preparation. He says that weed smokers inhale more smoke for a longer time. They also smoke less, and less often. Next, he claims my argument is rash and not well thought out. Thanks. he points out that cannabis can relieve pain, obviously. He then ignores the rest of the benefits, but says that they can all be achieved by other medicines. This may be true, i'm not sure about all of them to be honest, but adding one more option, one more arrow in the quiver can't hurt. Some patients are allergic to one treatment or are otherwise unable to use that treatment, then another can step in. Diversifying the medicines and treatments for an illness does not hurt. Then he provides a link to testimony by a doctor during hearings when medical marijuana was considered in connecticut. First off, i would ask that if he expects me to reply to those points made (and the voters to vote on them), my opponent should make them. He simply provides a link to a doctor's opinion. The testimony provides little to no actual research or links to research, just the typical "studies have shown" phrases. If you want me to reply to the points, make them yourself and i would suggest bulk them up instead of have a doctor make them, because we can both find many doctors testimonies and opinions regarding the matter on both sides. What my side has that his does not is patient testimony. It works, it helps. And if you do get high by it too, who cares? Next, he claims that we would be harming the general populace by legalizing marijuana. I ask how so? We would not force marijuana on anyone. Marijuana is not a toxin. It is a plant with psychoactive and medicinal properties. Medicines have side effects, and so does cannabis. When considered carefully, cannabis used in ways other than smoking is much safer than many drugs on the market. Some would say even if smoked. You can't overdose on it. How many drugs on the market can you overdose on? Many! How many are potentially habit-forming? Many. Marijuana is not physically addicting. You may become psychologically addicted to it, but you may also become psychologically addicted to: sex, video games, eating, TV, and many other things. You may potentially become psychologically addicted to virtually anything. Marijuana is not physically addicting and has no potential for overdose, two worries that many legal drugs can bring (especially things like sleep-aids). We are not poisoning citizens for money by legalizing. Marijuana is not poison. Next he misunderstands or mischaracterizes my argument about safety. Cannabis will not be safer when legalized because citizens suddenly obey directions on the label. The point is not about controlled doses, an idea my opponent seems to have pulled out of thin air. It is about quality and purity. Let me explain. The better quality of cannabis (the more potent it is), the less a user has to inhale to get high. The less he uses, the less health risks he runs, especially if he chooses to smoke his weed. With legalization, yields and crops would gradually increase in quality until we had more of what stoners call "headies", which is just good weed. It is not common, but not unheard of to obtain a bag of laced marijuana. This means that the marijuana is laced with a more harmful or addictive drug. If the government regulated weed, there is no risk of getting laced weed. Safety would not increase because someone uses it the way the government says so, like my opponent says, that is ridiculous. It would increase because of quality and purity increases. Then he says government controlled doses are still unsafe (although he likes to use all caps for that). This is part of his misunderstanding of my argument. He asks you to look further into the detriments of cannabis. I fully encourage this, especially if you are considering using. But look at the benefits as well. Don't be afraid to ask why not, but don't be afraid to ask why either. Fully consider this decision. Next he writes (in all caps): MARIJUANA HURTS THE USER. PERIOD. First, (comma) I must protest the writing out of punctuation.(Period) It is unnecessary and frivolous. (Just kidding, I had to say that though). Marijuana indeed hurts the user. Tobacco hurts the user. Alcohol hurts the user. Many prescription drugs hurt the user. Food can hurt the "user". Many fun or tasty or exciting things in this world hurt the user. Moderation, responsible use, and education are the keys to wisely and safely enjoying any activity, especially drugs. Marijuana, especially if not smoked, hurts the user at such a minimal rate that it is not much of a concern (especially when contrasted with alcohol and tobacco). Next my opponent says that my attitude about the war on drugs is wrong, and un-American. He compares the War on Terror with the War on Drugs. He essentially says this: that no matter how futile a fight may be, we, as Americans, should continue the fight. Fighting against terrorists is fruitless i would agree, as is fighting against drugs. So why keep it up? The war on terror is a completely different subject that i don't want to talk about, but in my modest opinion, i think we should shore up our defenses and should have stayed the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't win a war on terror and there is nothing honorable or right about occupying countries for years on end in search of a terrorist leader. If you want to take out a terrorist leader, use a smart-bomb, a black-ops team, whatever, but don't occupy a country for years. It doesn't work. The war on drugs (and in the context of this debate i mean the war on Pot) is fruitless, and fights not against an enemy wishing to annihilate us, but a plant, and personal freedom. Pot smoking doesn't hurt anyone but the user, and it doesn't hurt the user much either. I would comment more on this but i am running out of charac