Should marijuana be legalized

Observation: We are arguing if something should or should not be legal. It is important to note what it is we are not arguing. For example, we are not arguing what punishments are or are not justified. Likewise, we are not arguing about overcrowded prisons, or mandatory minimums, these are not relevant topics to the resolution. Many who argue about marijuana often argue that it should be decriminalized. Again, while an interesting and important topic it is not directly related to this debate. For example, It is feasible to argue, as many do, that something should be illegal and decriminalized, or to argue for less stringent punishments for violations. Now that we have covered what is not being debated, we can get to the core issue. This debate rests solely on the question of if Marijuana should be legalized. I will present my argument in two parts. The first being that the U.S. Government ought to protect citizens from Marijuana, and the second, that the Government protects citizens through the rule of law. By arguing such it will become clear that the U.S. Government should not legalize recreational marijuana. Argument Part 1: The Government ought to protect citizens from Marijuana. My case here is quite simple (P = Premise, C = Conclusion) P1: The U.S. government ought to protect citizens from harm. P2: Citizens can be and are harmed by Marijuana C: The U.S. Government ought to protect citizens from Marijuana. P1: The U.S. Government ought to protect citizens from harm To understand what the government ought to do it is important to understand the Role of government. The supreme Law of the U.S. is the Constitution. The authors included a preamble that summarized the core values and purpose of Government. Some of those values and goals listed were “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare….” Such governments could only accomplish these goals and realize their purpose if citizens are protected from harm. There can be no justice, tranquility, general welfare etc. if citizens are subject to harm that the government could reasonably prevent. That is to say Governments ought to protect their citizens from harm. P2: Citizens can be and are harmed by Marijuana From the U.S. government website devoted to facts about drugs, we read that marijuana can alter the user’s sense and mood. It can impair body movement, alter memory, and decrease the ability to problem solve. It is known to affected brain development negatively. It can cause breathing problems, hallucinations, and paranoia. It can cause anxiety, depression, and has been shown to induce suicidal thoughts in teens. (1) Talk about harm. It is not a stretch to assume that someone who’s mood is altered, having hallucinations, is paranoid, and having suicidal thoughts poses a threat to themselves and others. One such example was given in the New York Times. "There is the Denver man who, hours after buying a package of marijuana-infused Karma Kandy from one of Colorado’s new recreational marijuana shops, (where marijuana has recently been made legal.) began raving about the end of the world and then pulled a handgun from the family safe and killed his wife, the authorities say."[2] You tell me, Is this Tranquility? A more perfect union? Was justice established Etc… Is this man’s family more safe? The harm posed by Marijuana is not hypothetical. Legalizing a drug does not remove the harms inherent to that drug. Thus we see that Citizens can be and often are harmed by Marijuana in the U.S. Conclusion of Part 1: As P1 and P2 are affirmed that the U.S. government ought to protect citizens from harm and that Citizens can and often are harmed by Marijuana it follows logically that the U.S. Government ought to protect citizens from Marijuana. Argument Part 2: The Government protects citizens through the rule of law. How does a government “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility… , promote the general Welfare….?” Simple; through the rule of law. Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including law makers themselves. Put another way. The Government is subject to law as are citizens of this nation. How is it that the government can protect citizens from the harm of marijuana as we have established it should if the laws that make this protection possible are repealed? Simply put it cannot. If Recreational Marijuana is legalized the government cannot fill its duty. Governments ought to protect citizens from Marijuana. To do this it becomes necessary for the law to enable the government to do so. Marijuana is harmful and is thus rightly outlawed. Conclusion: It has become clear that; 1: The U.S. Government ought to protect citizens from Marijuana. How is that done? 2: The Government protects citizens through the rule of law. From these two points it logically follows that; C: The Government through the rule of Law should protect Citizens from Marijuana. This is why I am opposed to the resolution; that is to say that the U.S. Government should not legalize recreational marijuana. Thanks for watching please Vote Con! Sources: (1) http://www.drugabuse.gov... (2)http://www.nytimes.com...