Marijuana should be legalized in Canada

This is the first time I debated this topic and I learned many things from my opponent. Before I begin my arguments, I will summarize the contentions used on each side. Pro believes that marijuana should be legalized for two main reasons:Marijuana is not a very harmful substance. Marijuana can be potentially used to treat many different ailmentsMarijuana can replace prescription drugs which are more harmfulThe series of arguments I have used so far are:Long-term marijuana is addictive. Marijuana alters your brain structure. Marijuana Smokers Faces more Rapid Lung Destruction than Cigarette Smokers. Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels of Certain Toxins than Tobacco Smoke. Marijuana can cause impairment of the senses, which can then lead to accidents. Marijuana is not good for long-term economic growth. Most scientific research today agrees that marijuana is more detrimental to our health than it is harmful. Marijuana will lead to higher crime rates (as proven by the Amsterdam experiment)"Legalizing" marijuana will send the wrong message to teens, many of whom are not using marijuana for medical purposes, but for "coping mechanisms" or to appear "cool"Most scientists agree that further studies on marijuana are necessary to resolve the debate. Legalizing marijuana is easy, but banning it is difficult. If marijuana does prove to be detrimental to the health, and it does damage health, it would be costly for the lives of many individuals. Points 8 and 9 are built on the premise that prescription drug abuse is rampant, and that marijuana is currently used illegally. Regarding the second, legalizing marijuana would encourage more widespread use of the drug for "casual uses", as people would perceive the government to be stating that "marijuana is not harmful". Points 7 and 10 can exist together logically (for instance, if 51% of the research points against "medical marijuana). Pro has so far refuted points number 3 (which I will concede), and has tried to refute points 6, 7, and 10. As of the last round, Pro has not refuted my other arguments or countered my defences, so I extend them. I will now begin my arguments. Opponent's First ContentionMarijuana is not a very harmful substance. This is an argument stated repeatedly by my opponent. However, there is much uncertainty regarding this topic. For instance, all of the below sources (there are many more) agree that research on marijuana is inconclusive. . http://www.revisiondrugs.org...http://archive.coloradoan.com...http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com...http://www.medscape.com...Dr. David M. Labiner, a neurologist with the university of Arizona, said that while there have been anecdotal evidence about the medical properties of marijuana,"there is limited high-quality evidence about the efficacy and virtually no data about the safety of using marijuana or cannabinoids". Pro also claims that Huffington Post is a reliable source. While Huffington Post may or may not be a "reliable" source, the data they used is not. With such a wide variety of results of the effects of marijuana, we should consider the entirety of the scientific research regarding marijuana. Today, experts agree that that the debate on marijuana is inconclusive, though most of the research is against the claim of "medical marijuana". Pro has not refuted this contention as my opponent has only looked at a few studies for marijuana, and hasn"t looked at the studies as a whole. Consequently, we should not legalize marijuana, as the risk is too great (If the drug proves to be damaging, banning marijuana later would be very difficult and costly for the lives that had been exposed). Marijuana also has higher levels of hydrogen cyanate and ammonia (and other toxins) than tobacco smoke. This is easily quantifiable and cannot be refuted. Marijuana contains hundreds of chemical compounds. The effects of these compounds cannot be easily determined. Opponent's Second Contention: Marijuana can be potentially used to treat many different ailmentsAgain, my opponent"s position is uncertain as the benefits of marijuana are uncertain (shown above). Cocaine was the "miracle drug" prescribed a couple of decades earlier by doctors. Look how that has turned out today. Opponent's Third Contention: Marijuana can replace prescription drugs which are more harmfulThere are two arguments which speak against this. One of them being that marijuana can already be prescribed in Canada (Though it is not "legal" in the way that Pro described it). If you truly believe in medical marijuana, are willing to take the risk, and your health is in a state which require you to take the drug, you can take the lengthy process to acquire it. The process is listed below:. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca...Which means that Canadians can already use it to replace dangerous drugs such as morphine if they truly deem it necessary. Second, marijuana may be harmful. If this is true, then we want to limit the effects of cannabis on society. Maybe most importantly, cannabis is mostly used recreationally and to improve people's "quality of life", not as medicine. If that is the case, when government decides to legalize marijuana, it will send a message to citizens in Canada that marijuana is safe (when there isn't enough evidence), and drastically increase the rate of use. For my concluding statement, I would like to point out that it was once legal for pharmacies to sell marijuana in Canada. However, the pharmacists themselves removed themselves from this law, stating that they were uncomfortable distributing products without enough research. . http://www.ctvnews.ca...Until more conclusive evidence can be found regarding marijuana, we should maintain the status quo. The status quo does not equate the complete banning of marijuana, and only maintains a strict control over the distribution. This is ideal for the current imbalance of opinions surrounding marijuana. As the burden of proof is on Pro and my opponent has not proved why we should extend the selling of marijuana to pharmacies, I urge a Con vote.