Marijuana Should Be Legal

Rebuttals:Medical Use:This argument is common, but highly flawed; especially given the primary example my opponent uses to "support" his side. He references glaucoma, and asserts marijuana can help those affected by this. However, the assertion is incredibly false. On glaucoma's website, Henry D. Jampel, MD, MHS, (the Odd Fellows Professor of Ophthalmology at the Wilmer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins, and a practicing glaucoma specialist) explains "Although marijuana can lower eye pressure, recommending it does not make sense given its side effects, short duration of action, and lack of evidence that its use alters the course of glaucoma. " [1. . http://www.glaucoma.org...] In the same article, he explains alternatives are better to assist the problem other than marijuana, which also comes with a host of problems. King also mentions other supposed "benefits" in smoking tobacco, but I won't bother rebutting these individually. Most of them have the same result as glaucoma A) they come with harmful side effects of smoking the drug, and B) there is almost always a superior method to use as an alternative to better help the problem at hand. Besides, arguing health benefits is largely illogical, as there are a plethora of harms including the following: Trouble thinking and remembering Bloodshot eyes Dry mouth (cotton mouth) Increased appetite (the "munchies") Fast heart rate Slowed coordination Harmed blood flow in the brain Less attention span Stifled brain development Anxiety Depression Suicidal thoughts Increased chance of heart attacks Cancer risks increased Unsteady walking [2. . http://www.webmd.com...] That's just the beginning, there's many more harmful effects as I mentioned in my case. Marijuana is not lethal:While the substance itself isn't necessarily lethal, the side-effects of smoking the substance are very deadly. I mentioned harms in my first contention of my case as well as in my rebuttal. Preventing someone from smoking cigarettes is good, but not when the alternative is smoking another substance nearly equally harmful to their health and wellbeing. Moreover, the secondhand smoke from marijuana ensures that marijuana legalization only facilitates the decline of other people's health as well. It's not only affecting the individual smoking, but those around them as well. The claim that it reduces car crashes is illogical, as some of the side effects would prohibit an individual from driving safely. Marijuana Helps with the Economy:This is yet another point which should be nullified. My opponent only references taxation, but doesn't include the economic impact of the abuse of the drug (which legalization would facilitate) as well as medical expenses which would indubitably be subsequent. Annually, the US spends roughly $180.9 billion on drug abuse [3. . https://www.ncjrs.gov...] and medical expenses from cigarettes totalled a dizzying $170 billion per year. [4. . http://www.prevent.org...] As I've shown marijuana has equal (and perhaps worse) effects than smoking, it's only reasonable to assume marijuana would result in the same medical costs (if not more). Environment:This is really an absurd argument, but I'll address it nonetheless. This argument falls without much merit when weighed against economic detriments and health detriments not only to the individual smoking, but also to the people around them. This argument falls for two reasons: A) it's of virtually no significance when weighed against other, more impactful arguments and B) legalizing marijuana doesn't teach individuals how to grow the weed correctly, so the toxins can still be emitted. This rebuts any environmental argument. Moreover, if legalized, chances are, more people would grow it, which means more people would be using more electricity and water -- the exact thing my opponent says is wasted. Defense:Dangerous Drug:My opponent concedes the drug is harmful, contrary to his previous statements. You thus disregard that and prefer my arguments that it is harmful. Moreover, his reasoning for not legalizing it despite its danger is already refuted. He asserts we will have economic problems by illegalizing the drug. However, this is untrue. Not only does legalizing actually provide the detriments economically, the drug isn't widely legal anyways. It's only legal in a few states, which means HE'S trying to change the status quo of it being illegal, not the other way around. The Prohibition isn't necessarily related, and regardless, it wouldn't change the status quo. Marijuana hasn't been legal (in most places) so there wouldn't the be a similar effect. Tobacco:This is a point that I believe is essential to bring out. Regardless of whether or not tobacco/cigarettes/alcohol is "worse" than marijuana doesn't matter. This debate is about marijuana, not any of these. Simply because those other things are legal doesn't necessarily mean the should be, and doesn't justify marijuana's legalization. His argument here is flawed, and I've shown the contrary to his assertion there are health benefits. Furthermore, he conceded that point (that marijuana is dangerous) in his last round. Increased Use:Increased use, as I've explained (and King conceded) only furthers the abuse and detrimental consequences of marijuana, and no pragmatic or just government would allow that. Legalizing marijuana will NOT decrease the amount of deaths when it causes cancer and increases the risk of heart failure. There's literally no evidence or logic provided by my opponent that supports this claim, whereas I've overwhelmingly shown that it will only result in more deaths when legalized. Medical:This has been addressed thoroughly, but I'll provide some specific rebuttals here. Evidence overwhelming supports the idea that marijuana has harmful effects, and you can refer to my evidence to view that. That, by definition, means it can't CURE cancer when it's a facilitator of the disease. It also indicates there is not evidence to support the view it can treat health problems when it causes them. Even if it could (thought highly doubtful and not research backed), it's supposed assistance would be outweighed compared to its health harms. Value of Life:My opponent claims the legalization would cause job losses and cause businesses to shut down. However, these jobs and businesses are not the kind we want, becuase by staying in operation, they continue to harm the lives of the recipients and the people around them. Economically, we'd be better off to NOT legalize marijuana, as I've shown previously. Moreover, as I've already shown, it is ENTIRELY false that marijuana legalization would result in less deaths. It would ONLY result in more, and I've provided evidence supporting this. Colorado:My opponent concedes that this example is a bad demonstration of marijuana. However, it's one of the very few (and until quite recently, was the only one) examples we CAN use. This means the implementation of a legalized marijuana policy has PROVEN itself harmful. he success story to which I was referring WAS Colorado, as many claim it's been beneficial. Statistics show otherwise. My evidence I showed earlier indicated this. Traffic fatalities of marijuana users also increased drastically (100%) [5. . http://dailysignal.com...] Besides, it's shown that "Even where decriminalized, marijuana trafficking remains a source of violence, crime, and social disintegration. " [6. . http://www.heritage.org...] It's simply that the legalization HAS NOT shown net positive effects. Conclusion:Indeed, it is not my arguments that fall apart, but those of my opponent. The negative health consequences lead to death, and because they facilitate awful health consequences, they simply cannot be the cure for them simultaneously.