Medical Marijuana

Now let's move on to the rebuttal. R1: Terrible Health DefectsMy opponent makes a rather presumptuous claim by immediately stating that it has "terrible health defects" with only one source to back it up, an anti-drug website (primarily to inform children). The first problem with this is that it states "may be hazardous" so we already know that there is no definite harm. Smoking is also not the only way of consuming marijuana. Also, what the source is implying is that smoking marijuana to an extent will cause harm, not medically or with care. My opponent must also believe all kinds of drugs should be illegal for medical use because of side-effects such as morphine, levitra, novocaine, and other painkillers. Marijuana would be prescribed safely as it is a non-addictive drug. The U. S. Department of Justice as well as the FDA have both confirmed that marijuana has not killed anybody and is not fatalistic or even as close to as harmful as most toxic drugs. [1,2] My opponent has not justified his contention and a slight possibility of damage can easily be avoided with proper medical care. Even tobacco is far more dangerous than marijuana. R2: FDA statement My opponent provides no source so we can not even say that this statement is true. Also, as I stated earlier the FDA also stated that marijuana is safe even in recreational purposes. When he provides a source we can further deplore into the contention's validity or invalidity. R3: Schizophrenia Here Con merely confuses causation and correlation. As his source states, “One explanation may be that the two factors are coincidental, not causal: perhaps people who have a genetic susceptibility to schizophrenia also happen to especially enjoy marijuana. ” The article also later states “But when the researchers controlled for other factors known to influence schizophrenia risk, including gender, education and socioeconomic status, the association between disease onset and marijuana disappeared. ”[3] So interestingly enough Con's single source blatantly contradicts his statement proving its falsehood. Thus we can come to the conclusion that this contention is completely invalid. R4: Testicular Cancer Not only does this claim disregard the entire female population but when it gets right down to it, there is no definite link. Again Con commits the fallacy of causation and correlation. The number of cases has increased simply because the population increased, not because more people began smoking marijuana. There is no definite evidence in this claim. Perhaps if one smokes marijuana to a certain extent this is slightly possible but there is no definite harm and no definite way in which we can derive that this problem is potent and will occur in the medical field. R5: Withdrawal The first flaw in the contention is that all of his evidence only refers to marijuana smokers living at home, not in the hospital or supervised by a doctor. Also the evidence collected was done by observers, not the person who is actually experiencing the results. Yet again, Con fails to prove how this is a definite harm but is rather a mere side effect, one that many far more harmful drugs have. R6: AIDS Yet again my opponent fails to read through his entire source, a common mistake by debaters. The source as a cumulative review states, “The profile of cannabinoid drug effects suggest that they are promising for treating wasting syndrome in AIDS patients. Nausea, appetite loss, pain, and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana. Although some medications are more effective than marijuana for these problems, they are not equally effective in all patients. ” [4] It establishes that AIDS/HIV as a matter of fact is benefited by medical marijuana, an indisputable fact accepted by any medicine program who reads the evidence and weighs the impacts. Thus my opponent has no direct refutation and rather promotes my case. R7: Alzheimer's Disease There is no direct refutation. Con's evidence this time completely supports my case. It is apparent that he obviously has not even read his statement. Let's comparse the contention. “"If it is possible to make drugs that act only on CR2 [one of two main types of cannabinoid receptor in the brain]. .. they might mimic the positive effects of cannabinoids without the damaging ones of marijuana. ” So the contention is stating that there may be something that can replace marijuana and it actually accepts that there are numerous positive benefits of marijuana, but let's move on to see how whimsical this argument is. He quotes “However, this is a fairly new field of research and producing such selective drugs is not an easy task. There is also no evidence yet that cannabinoid-based drugs can slow the decline in human Alzheimer's patients. ” Thus his evidence says that replacing it is not easy and is not reliable. Obviously his proposal is completely contradictory. Finally it says there is no evidence that these drugs he is advocating for can slow the decline. Yet again his source proves his new proposal unreliable and is not valid. There yet again is no direct refutation so the judge must assume that marijuana can benefit Alzheimer's as his case even indicated. R8: Marijuana being addictive? ? My opponent yet again goes on to discuss marijuana for recreational use, not medical use. These are two completely different things. It is an ancient belief that marijuana is addictive. Not only does his evidence provide no definite link, I'll provide multiple sources proving that it is not addictive but rather compulsory however almost anything can become compulsory. I suppose food, water, love and debating are bad as well. With that in mind, let's look at some evidence. According to Psychology Today (where some of Con's evidence derives from) marijuana is not an addictive drug for most people. [5] According to a longitudinal study of young adults who had first been surveyed in high school also found a high "discontinuation rate" for marijuana. While 77% had used the drug, 74% of those had not used in the past year and 84% had not used in the past month. Of course, even people who continue using marijuana for several years or more are not necessarily "addicted" to it. Many regular users - including many daily users - consume marijuana in a way that does not interfere with other life activities, and may in some cases enhance them. [6,7] There has been no scientific evidence that marijuana is an addictive for it is a presumptuous myth and should be disregarded. R9: Alternatives First off Con provides 0 evidence going through every benefit of marijuana and replacing it with another drug. Even if perhaps he were to go through virtually everything, that still wouldn't discard the legal validity of medical marijuana. As long as it has benefits (which my opponent fails to address) then it should not be illegal and it should not be a crime to use it for medical purposes. My opponent thinks that he can justify how medical marijuana is invalid. While I think it is perfectly fine for him to get inspiration from his dad this does not stand in a debate and voters should already by now have determined that Con's claims are not supported and are rather lavish. Conclusion: My opponent fails to read his evidence and has no direct refutation towards any of my arguments but rather states that the FDA does not approve (no source). So because my opponent can not support almost any of his claims, is arguing against recreational purposes rather than medical, commits logical fallacies time and time again, fails to read his sources that work towards my case, and disregards a majority of my case I strongly urge a PRO vote. For sources see the sources debate. The link is dead so just check either my profile or 16kadam's profile.