AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally.

For this round, I'll go ahead and rebut each of my opponent's claims.The Commerce Clause:Here my opponent basically explains that marijuana can be illegal, and that states have a right to prohibit the use of cannabis (and other drugs). It is important to remember that just because a state can do something, doesn't mean they should. Throughout my constructive, I have shown that keeping marijuana illegal works against the common good and takes away from freedom of the people. Though my opponent's point may be correct, this is not what we are debating today. I aim to prove that prohibition of cannabis is wrong on both a pragmatic and moral level and whether or not marijuana can be illegal has no effect on that.The FDA:I think what my opponent is trying to say with this point is that marijuana is not going to be legalized under the status quo because marijuana will not ever be found as "safe and effective." The first thing to realize is that this point is clearly talking about medical marijuana. That is not what this debate is over. Never once in my constructive did I list marijuana as a "cure" to some diseases. Rather, I explained that marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, therefore it can be seen as a less harmful alternative to currently legal (and more dangerous) drugs. Now, if the FDA has approved tobacco and alcohol for recreational use, why should they not approve marijuana? Even if the FDA would keep marijuana illegal, within this argument, my opponent assumes that the legitimacy of the status quo to attempt to keep cannabis away from the public. If this indeed is the status quo, it works against the common good (as I have shown in my case).Laetrile:For this point, my opponent talks about a drug known as "Laetrile," explaining that Laetrile was advertised as a potential cure for cancer, but ended up being completely ineffective. My opponent then goes on to explain that the Laetrile situation is similar to Marijuana situation. This simply is not true. NPR notes, "nnobody argues that marijuana is the new laetrile. For one thing, nobody's claiming it cures any fatal diseases. But it is a departure from the usual rules of evidence for drugs (1)." If marijuana indeed is the new Laetrile as my opponent claims, evidence must be provided that shows similar properties between the two drugs. Moreover, this debate is not over medical marijuana, rather it is over recreational marijuana; I'm not trying to argue that marijuana should be legalized for medical use in this given debate so so my opponent's point ultimately proves nothing.Tobacco:My opponent proceeds to explain how the FDA used to exclude tobacco from the law, and later on began to regulate it. This point has absolutely nothing to do with the given debate. One cannot compare two drugs with almost no similar properties. I'll get more into the tobacco point in my next rebuttal.Marijuana and Making it legal:My opponent's last two points are definitely the main argument he is making in this case. He explains that, "Bbefore marijuana can be legal for consumers it must be shown to be a “safe and effective” drug because marijuana use is often confounded by other drugs or studies." Looking at the sources supporting this contention, it is quite obvious that this argument pertains to medical marijuana; obviously recreational drugs are not meant to be "effective" in any way. Even if this argument did pertain to recreational marijuana, I have proven in my constructive that marijuana is not a harmful drug, especially in comparison to alcohol and tobacco. If the FDA approves both alcohol and tobacco, why not marijuana (as I noted above)? Even if my opponent is correct and it is within the status quo to keep marijuana illegal, my opponent has provided no evidence that suggest marijuana should be kept illegal.ConclusionMy opponent's arguments pertaining to the actual negative health impacts of marijuana are very weak. I have shown in my constructive that marijuana does not harm mental health, physical health, or the well being of non smokers, and in some cases actually positively impacts it. Marijuana positively impacts the economy, and the drug will ultimately become less dangerous when bought from a reliable source. The problem with my opponent's case is that he includes no facts that actually prove society would be better of by keeping cannabis illegal.On the other hand I have shown how car accidents go down by nine percent through the legalization of marijuana, how the tax revenue will benifit the people in any area that legalizes marijuana, how cannabis legalization positively impacts the economy, and how in the end over 750,000 unneccessary arrests can be prevented.Therefore, I am pro. On to con...(1) http://www.npr.org...