Medical Marijuana

. . . . . . . . REBUTTALS TO REBUTTALS -------------------------------- //Yes, it is the user's choice and it is also a choice that most users regret later. Not all users regret it but the majority of users do and the majority is a bigger number than the minority. // Unwarranted and sourceless claim. My opponent has not provided proof of this statement! Furthermore, even if the user regrets it, that is his or her fault. //I know this from experience so I guess I will use myself as a source. I use to smoke marijuana with some friends about a couple of years ago and it was amazing at first however, I quit because I realized how it was affecting me. My reaction time was slower, I was craving food constantly. I would eat about $60.00 worth of food a day. I didn't use marijuana that much at first but then the addiction started to get worse and worse. I was constantly craving it and I would be stoned at least 15 hours a day if not longer and not only me, but my friends as well. // Personal experience means nothing in a debate, as you basically ask the voter to trust you without any substantial evidence as to why. Furthermore, marijuana is NOT addictive. (1) Also, if your friends smoked it, then it is their fault, and not yours. //I gave sources in my last round. .. .// Just citing sources doesn't prove anything unless they are used in conjunction with the relevant topic at hand. You gave sources, yes, but you didn't show that your claim, 'Marinol is better than medical marijuana,' was contradicted by many studies, as I did. //I didn't try to hide anything, you talk about how people should have choices, it was my choice not to respond to your sixth argument during the last round but I did respond to your fifth argument. // So you basically admit to dropping the argument. That's always fun. Now that my argument went uncontested, the resolution is refuted, unless you have provided a refutation later in this round. //My opponent is technically saying that if you have kids and/or pets that depend on you and you decide to get really drunk, smoke marijuana, and/or inject heroin and you beat, rape, and/or kill your kids and/or pets, it's alright because it's your choice. Stuff like this WON'T ALWAYS happen but it's bad enough without marijuana and other drugs being legal whereas being legal will probably make it worse. It's better to be safe than sorry. // Straw-man. I have noted very specifically in that if it harms the user and only the user, then they can do whatever they wish to their bodies. Not once have I stated that it was morally correct to beat, rape, and kill others. I have said that marijuana is not morally reprehensible because it does not infringe upon the rights of others. It only harms the user. //My point is that it's not only harmful to you, but also to other people and pets around you. // No, your point is a strong straw-man. Anything that indirectly results from your actions while under the influence of marijuana is your fault, not the drugs'. //The government isn't telling you that you can't,// Yes they are, that is what a government does. The laws they make dictate what you can and cannot do. //they are telling you that it's against the law. No, they are telling you that you SHOULDN'T do whatever action under PENALTY OF LAW. //You still have the ability, so technically you still can even though you shouldn't. // The 'shouldn't' is contained within the 'can'. When a government passes a law, they basically say that you can not, and therefore should not, do something under penalty of law. //Exactly, which is why tobacco and alcohol should also be illegal! // 'Kay. //I already gave some reasons in my last round// Which I debased. //however, I will give a few more in this round. Marinol is taken orally, thereby eliminating exposure to other chemicals found in marijuana. // I debunked that claim, view my round 2. Marinol is, in comparison to medical marijuana, an inferior drug. //Once it reaches peak levels in the blood, Marinol stays fairly steady and lasts twice as long as marijuana therefore medical marijuana wouldn't be needed. // View my round 2, which you seem to have glossed over, really. //I don't want my taxes to go to drugs. // The taxes do not 'go to drugs' as you put it. When they are illegal, they go to drug cartels to do whatever with it, likely to grow more pot and thus sell more to the consumer. When it is legal, however, it can go to the government to do infinitely more rewarding things. //This would actually make users have less money because of taxes. // When on the black market, things are higher in value because they are illegal. When they are legal, however, they increase in supply, and thus decrease in value. That's how a black market works. Now, if prices for marijuana went down, they'd have even more money in comparison to before, even given the taxes imposed. //The government would get richer while the pot heads would get poorer. // False. //True, however marijuana speeds up the process where you get hungry more often where you have to spend more money on food and marijuana. // Back to wild claims, eh? Well, as much as I'd have loved for you to source them, you didn't, and I'm just going to debunk this anyways. Marijuana does not speed up any digestive tract processes, as far as I'm aware of. The only thing you can possibly be talking about are hunger pangs, one of the main things marijuana is praised for, because it helps anorexics, patients who undergo chemotherapy, and glaucoma patients get their hunger back so they do not have to be fed through a tube. Anyways, even if you do get hungry while under the influence of marijuana, which is a side effect not seen in many, the cravings do not automatically make you go in a rabid food devouring spree, much to my opponent's dismay. It does not turn you into any sort of wild beast fraught with feelings of starvation. If you do get hungry while under the influence of marijuana, the worst case scenario would you be eating that entire turkey dinner you had planned for Thanksgiving. Drats. //Voters, take note that my opponent was talking about how we should have choices and I chose to drop it during that round but it got responded indirectly in this round. // Not really. And any attempt at doing so was utterly thrashed, if I do say so myself. //I think it's ridiculous that my opponent pointed this out because if you took the time to read the previous posts from the other rounds you would know this. // Nope, because of the simple fact you didn't actual mention it up until this round. Anyways, I again thank my opponent for this debate. The voters however, I apologize to, as no new arguments were made, and the same points made time and again. I am deeply sorry. Vote Pro, if you took the time to read through this rehashed debate. SOURCES ----------- . http://www.drugpolicy.org... (1)