Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use

Thanks, you bring up some very good points - however, I would like to remind you that this debate discusses the recreational use of marijuana, not medical. In your first rebuttal, you describe the medicinal benefits that marijuana can possess. As of the present date, twenty-three states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows for the legal use of medical cannabis in conservative amounts. In response to your description of benefits, a carefully measured, legally dispensed amount of medical marijuana can be effective in treating or bringing relief from said medical issues. However, I would like to again highlight that this debate is centered on legalization of recreational use of the drug. As with the majority of prescription drugs, these medicines are more difficult to access than over-the-counter drugs because potential misuse could have disastrous effects. This is why a doctor's prescription is required to obtain these prescription drugs. Should marijuana be legalized for recreational use, thus giving it the same accessibility as over-the-counter drugs, it is far more likely to be misused for purposes beyond medical reasons. By keeping it as a carefully monitored, limited, and measured and prescription drug, we as people are allowed to take advantage of such benefits you have described while avoiding the disastrous effects of potential abuse. In response to your second rebuttal, it is true that a tax on marijuana could contribute to government profit. However, as I mentioned in my introductory argument, its legalization could lead to even greater hikes in national spending by needing to provide for greater health care and educational needs that would need to be met as a long-term result of the drug's harmful effects. The government also realizes and embraces the fact that there are many other forms of taxation that they currently impose to gain revenue (whether we agree on them or not), and that the consequences of recreational marijuana legalization could far outweigh the benefits. It is true, in the meantime, that America is a country founded on principles of human rights and freedom. However, our forefathers established a government for many reasons - among these is to "promote the general Welfare" of our people, as quoted from the Constitution. This concept of general welfare can be defined as "the concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...). In carrying out this mission identified in the Preamble, the government works to protect its citizens by keeping from them the dangers and threats that this drug poses to the health and welfare of society. It is much the same reason as to why the government prohibits the public from accessing nuclear weapons - but it's a free country, right? Well, yes, but the government has good reason to be keeping such potentially lethal things from public use, even if the majority of users are responsible individuals who "promise it doesn't affect them." Despite the fact that marijuana addiction itself is rare, the influence the drug (in non-medical use) can and does have upon users and those around them as described in my introductory argument is too significant to put aside. The government, though recognizing our freedoms, is remaining faithful to the law of the land by watching out for its citizens - providing safer ways of having a good time and relieving one from the pains of life. This, in my opinion, is something to be thankful for. :) Citations: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... http://www.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.archives.gov... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...