legalize cannabis

I will begin my addressing my opponent's rebuttals.' he's going against pure common sense and then contradicting that and he doesn't seem to realize it'My opponent above statement is nonsensical due to that his position is not common nor is it sensible so it should be not regarded as 'common sense'.'my opponent says no there isn't any whatsoever,then he contradicts it,by saying this "Serious addiction of cannabis only accounts for 9% of said"My opponent, once again, is putting words into my mouth. If he had read my previous arguments, he would've seen that I said there are no noticeable long term health effects for people without mental illness, and the "9% addiction" figure does not even meet the clinic definitio of substance addiction but rather serves as a figure for substance abuse. 'My opponent says it doesn't , then again contradicts his own argument by saying this "This is not ALWAYS true" and this "People do not want to go to the dark side of society for cannabis, they would rather jump through a few regulatory hoops by purchasing legally than suffer jail time." 'This is by no means a contradiction on my part. There is no evidence suggesting that legalization increases usage rates significantly, so my point was more related that RATHER than people funding illegal drug cartels and the black market, there money can go to a legal institution which helps the economy and helps stop ou illicit drug culture that was formed from the black market.'.Making the claim that in every country where cannabis is available it's also available in every single village or town.'I never made this claim, I said it exists virtually in ever corner of the Earth. I would like for the judges to take note that where cannabis is produced (South America, primarily), usage rates of cannabis are extremely high. However, where cannabis is illegal is typically where usage rates are the highest on the grid (United States, many parts of Europe, ect.)'So my opponent brings to the table two contradictory arguments one argument is that "there is entirely no negative affects of cannabis and by legalizing cannabis no one extra would be exposed to it"My opponent dumbfounds his own position in this claim. He completely forgets that the prohibition of cannabis exposes cannabis and other illegal drugs to our youth. 'As this point I would like to provide a link regarding cannabis addiction http://www.cannabisaddiction.co.uk......'My opponent's source 'cannabisaddiction.co.uk' bears no studies (let alone credible studies) or content giving reason to the unfounded assertion that cannabis is 'addicting' in the same sense that drugs like cocaine, nicotine, and heroine are 'addicting'. My opponent is exhibiting poor critical thinking skills by not even being able to make the basic distinction between physical addiction and habit-forming. 'When the precedent shows with regard things such as alcohol and cigarettes that the more taxes increase on these things the more demand there is for these things illegally.'This seems to contradict my opponent's previous position that my position is contradictory, but his position here contradicts himself in regards to him being the self-claimed arbiter of 'common sense'. It's common sense that the illegal market of legal substances like tobacco and alcohol is almst nonexisent when taking into account the illegal market of illegal drugs. Here in the United States, the only noticeable accounts of illegal alcohol activity comes from the brewing of moonshine which mainly doesn't come out of a demand for illegal whiskey but rather it became a part of Southern tradition due to the Prohibition of Alcohol in previous years. My opponent fails to see that almost all of the harmful aspects of drugs like cannabis comes from the prohibited aspect of it. 'it's exactly the same as arguing that if we only made lager legal it would stop people wanting spirits.'My opponent's above statement is not only a strawman argument but also a faulty syllogism. 'Then he contradicts himself again by using the fact that I showed how government waste money ,particularly in using taxpayers to pay of government debt'My opponent is leaving himself blind to reason in this statement. I beg the question, then what is the government to do with its money? Is there no feasible means of fiscal policy? My opponent's skepticism of smart government only further cripple his principle argument, and it leaves me dubious to if my opponent's is a minarchist of some sort for his source's headline 'The only news you can profit from' leaves me to believe my opponent's position lacks any sort of altruism.'that the governments cannot be trusted to spend taxpayers money wisely.'Than what is the government to do, I beg? Is the central government to sit around, doing nothing? 'Secondly by his own admission that he want's the governments to waste that money 'This claim was never made. I would like to point out that I have well established by now that my opponent is arguing merely on principle and not practicality. I will make a summation of the debate thus far:My opponent has failed to make a distinctive contention showing his position to the topic.My opponent's arguments are still founded on faulty syllogisms, strawman arguments and bare assertions.My opponent's sources contain minarcho bias, and his cannabis addiction source has no content regarding facts of addiction.My opponent exults in 'common sense' but then later abandons it in regards to government fiscal policy.My opponent has not made a single founded argument based on peer-reviewed studies, statistics, intellectual speculation, or factually sound reasoning for that matter. My opponent's position says that medical cannabis is OK as long as it is regulated and strict, which contradicts his rebuttal that 'government is not responsible' in such matters. My opponent's arguments seem to be merely formulated based off his own experiences with the drug, rather than jointly experience and facts from studies abroad. (No pun intended)My opponent has failed to address my contention regarding the drop of violent crime rate after legalization.I highly advise the audience of this debate to vote in an affirmative manner for I have bought and defended my main value of this debate, practcality, and my criterion being either completely ignored by my opponent or misrepresented by my opponent.