legalization of marijuana

"My opponent has made it clear to the viewers that marijuana is not as negative as it appears. May I state that marijuana is a DRUG, I repeat it is a DRUG! Due to the help of drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, people and families are effected by it everyday. " I couldn't be bothered looking up the name of the fallacy my opponent is committing here, but he is taking the focus off marijuana and placing it on DRUGS, I repeat DRUGS! !1! He then posts a bunch of negative side-effects of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana, which actually shows the stupidity of marijuana being illegal. Say an alien race, far superior to our own, came to Earth. They're presented with the side-effects of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana, and told to choose which one they believe is illegal here on Earth. Do you think they'd choose one of the two murderous ones, or the one that temporarily distorts memory and coordination? Think about it. "He also stated that people who consume marijuana are nice, funny, well focused and many other characteristics, he stated apply. People should be like this without the chemical regardless. " I didn't mean that those people are like that because they are high, I mean they are like that either because smoking dope attracts that type of person, or smoking dope turns them into that type of person. Either way, my point was that the unemployed stoner stereotype is completely wrong and should not be used as an argument without evidence, which you have not provided. "Now, let us take an understanding that not only marijuana, but many other drugs that are legalized cause health issues. These health issues lead to criminal activity. " Health issues leading to criminal activity? That's a new one. "Does making another potentially bad drug legal justify the behavior people experience caused by it? No. .. it simply does not. If the nation experiences enough problems with alcohol and tobacco, why add another bad product to the list of legal substances? " For the many points I've made that you seem to be ignoring. 1. The illegality of a drug has little or no bearing on its use, as shown with references last round. 2. Pot being illegal causes more harm to society than were it legal. I have argued this by showing the tremendous amount of money that goes to dealers and gangs every day which could instead be easing the economy. 3. Smoking pot will very, very rarely be responsible for ruining a life compared to being imprisoned for pot. When we can say this of a law, we know we have an epic law fail on our hands. "Who ever is to disagree with the fact that the number of consumers will increase due to individual opinion, clearly they do not posses the capability for thinking outside their mind. " I provided evidence in Round 2 to show that in 1976 in the Netherlands, marijuana began being sold by the Government at Youth Centres, and that marijuana use subsequently dropped. My opponent has ignored this evidence (the only case-study of a nation decriminalizing pot we've got), and simply restated his opinion that the number of consumers will increase. No evidence was provided for his claim. "My opponent did state that it is not right for people to smoke marijuana out in public, but it is acceptable to posses it. For as long as they posses it, they will consume it. " You know how you're not allowed to just walk into a shop with a bottle of whiskey and drink it in public and stuff? That. I'm not suggesting we all start taking bongs to work and sitting around the lunch table smoking. Just stop arresting hard-working fathers for relaxing, minding their own business and not harming a soul. That's all. "He said that it is only reasonable if they do it in their home because they should be able to do what ever and when ever in their own home. Well, what if killing people made somebody happy and that person murdered civilians in their home. Does it make it okay for that person to do it in their home and not in public? No! There are laws that apply to being out in public like for example, obviously it is against the law to walk about in public naked. But besides those specific laws, everything else should apply. That murderer for example would still be charged for murder crimes. " I'm sure my opponent realizes the problem with his own argument here. Q: What is the difference between a) smoking pot and b) murder, rape, extortion, terrorism, assault, dangerous driving, hijack, break-and-enter, torture, manslaughter, and every other law my opponent could have used in this silly example? A: Smoking pot doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights or otherwise bring them harm. ""My opponent has stated that he is infact a marijuana consumer himself. He said that he is offended by society stereotyping consumers as stoned bugs. Do people really think that if marijuana is legal then it will change people's view points of marijuana consumers? Our nation even stereotypes alcohol and tobacco consumers. Frankly, I do not agree with stereotyping people. But that is a non controllable problem and nothing can be done about that. So, the answer to my question is NO. People will still stereotype marijuana and drug consumers and that is just the way some people think. " Boy, talk about going off on a tangent. I never said legalizing marijuana would stop ignorant people stereotyping dope-smokers. All I said was that I was sick of people who do it, as you did in the earlier rounds of this debate. "The economical side of this topic is the question whether taking drug money will help the US get out of this recession. No, it will absolutely not. Marijuana will absolutely cause more problems if it is to be legalized. " Hmm. .. let's see. Usage remains steady and therefore effect to society's well-being is unphased. Government makes bulk money. It really is that black and white, and I'm not seeing a downside. "So how exactly is it suppose to contribute to our needs financially? " Remember the whole "$10/gram with 75,000,000 daily users @ 1 gram/day" thing before? That. "Why should people be able to eat McDonald's, ski and many other things? .. .My opponent has mentioned in the comment box. " No I didn't. My opponent asked why people feel the NEED to smoke marijuana, and I said that the answer is pleasure. I then asked a bunch of hypothetical questions such as why people feel the NEED to ski, eat McDonalds, etc. The obvious implication was that just because somebody doesn't physically need something to live, doesn't mean they should be deprived of it. "For those who have read my side, you have now a better understanding of why it is wrong. By legalizing marijuana, you only get more problems. " I really don't understand how my opponent has made this conclusion from participating in this debate. In this debate, I have established, and gone unchallenged with, the following: 1. Legalizing pot won't necessarily increase or decrease usage. 2. Billions of dollars a year taken from gangs and dealers, and given to the Government. 3. Less non-violent offenders having their lives ruined and clogging prisons. I have provided much evidence to show that if marijuana was legalized, it would be a good thing for society. My opponent has failed to rebut most of my arguments while I have firmly rebutted his.