Regulation of Marijuana like alcohol

I agree that marijuana has medical benefits, as i simply is true. however, I would say our agreement may end there. 1) Marijuana use has negative side effects. Your argument made it seem as though marijuana was safe and harmless. Whether or not this was your intention, i ought to address the medical problems that arise from marijuan use. Marijuana users, in a University of Sydney study, were shown to have higher instances of psychological problems, including depression, anxiety, and psychosis. It is also as addictive as tobacco, also being as likely to induce cancer. With potential drivers, marijuana can be just as life threatening as alcohol. Marijuana causes imapired reaction time and abilities, a vital driving tool. another, possibly more sinister side of marijuana is its gateway potential. Have you ever seen the show "Intervention"? Many times, the first drug that these addicts try is marijuana, eventually leading to more serious and dnagerous substances. While the "Gateway Hypothesis" is not an innate quality of cannibis, it is still a prevelant factor amongst users. 2) An age limit would have no effect on marijuana's availablility to minors. Making marijuana legal would simply make it easier for the suppliers to these kids to have easier access to the drug. There is no evidence to support that an age limit of any kind would decrease weed usage amongst minors. It would more likely increase it, as stated in my reason above. Simply because it is easily available to minors now is not justification that it should be legalized. This would only aggravte the problem. 3) Marijuana being used for tax leverage is a dangerous road. Simply stating that marijuana should be legal for tax reasons is absurd. Marijuana, as I have established, has many downsides to it. Legalizing it in an excuse to gain revenue sets a dangerous precedent. What may be marijuana today could become methamphetamine tomorrow. Selling out the american people like this would be furhter proof that the government doesnt care about its people. Would you be ok with the government allowing the sale of heroin so it could be taxed? Hopefully not. Doing so shows that money is more important than the welfare of the people. The same principle applies to marijuana. 4) The answer to cartels is not through legalization Cartels do not care about the law. Legalizing it would not stop their activity, in fact it would just make it easier for them to do it. The real problem with cartels is that they can hop the border at any moment whenever they want. A better idea would be a stronger border patrol, rather than laxing drug laws. 5) Marijuana is under the same scrutiny as any drug Marijuana is (as stated) a potentially harmful drug. Like Cocaine. Or Heroin. Or LSD, shrooms, pcp, etc. If we legalize marijuana, a potentially dangerous substance, then we must legalize other drugs as well, since the same arguments for weed could be made for any of these drugs. Here's an example. Opium, when used in small and controlled doese, is simply a pain reliever. It is used by people anyway, and thus it ought to be legalized so that we could gain tax revenue for it. Legalizing opium would thus put the chinese mob out of business, by allowing the government to sell it and compete. Police need to not arrest people just looking for pain relief. Now obviously opium is a dangerous drug, but it too easy to apply the same argument. Legalizing marijuana sets a bad precedent. I also had issues with you saying marijuana is more dangerous than a doctor's pills. I'd like some verification of this, before I am accept it. Also saying they are making "criminals out of inncocent people" is fallacious, considering that they have broken a law and thus are no longer inncocent. k, your turn. you did actually a pretty good job in that round.