legalization of cannabis and hemp

It also states in the paragraph following yours that: "In any case, the Hearst papers never needed hidden self-interest to trumpet fiendish menaces" I never claimed that his stories were based on reality. I simply stated that his motives were not of greed or maliciousness. He faked news stories because he believed it would benefit the country, and probably because he in one way in another believed that those stories could have or were happening even if he had no proof. Inaccurate Journalism, while ethically wrong, is a far, far cry from lieing to the country for direct monetary gain. "How does the idea that even if a majority of people believe that cannabis was made illegal for the wrong reasons make my position on cannabis prohibition wrong?" Never have I said this. I simple stated that the fact that the initial premise for criminalization being false does not make your proposal valid. It neither validates or invalidates your proposal. It just is. Many of the public tobacco smoking bans were based on faulty information. We now know without a doubt that second hand smoke is dangerous. The idea that since the facts that the initial premise was based in were flawed, the initial premise must be false is not a logically sound argument. A better example would be the War in Iraq. It's generally accepted that the facts used to justify the war were false. Despite this, many people still support the war for entirely different reasons than they initially did. This does not validate or disprove the argument of people who are against the war. "All you are saying in your logic is that cannabis should be regulated by the government instead of prohibited, because the government can control it better than the people who need protection from themselves." Prohibition is a form of regulation, but I can't even fathom how one could use my logic to propose legalization. "Because, being prohibited, people will still choose to use this substance and should be properly informed and regulated instea" Yes, but fewer people will choose to use it when it is illegal. The less drug use there is, the more healthy and productive society is. That is my entire argument condensed into two sentences. You argue that cannabis is less damaging than tobacco or Alcohol. Regardless of whether or not this is a true statement, it does not refute my argument. Since my argument is that all dangerous substances should be outlawed, you haven't even cast doubt as to the validity of my argument. Let's say that a new type of designer drug is developed. It is more addictive than Heroin, and more dangerous than Crystal Meth. Since it is an entirely new drug, it does not fall under any law regarding narcotics. By your logic, since there exists a legal drug that is less dangerous and addictive than any drug known to the earth, all drugs should be legal. It's a complete non sequiter that appeals to an inherent flaw in our legal system. My opponent lists scientific studies in order to highlight uncertainty in regards to specific negative effects of cannabis. He then attempts to formulate, from this contrast, the idea that cannabis should be legalized due to the uncertainty. My argument aside, this is a very reckless and dangerous way of dealing with any type of problem. Certainty is paramount to consumer rights and safety. However, all of this is besides the point. Many of the harms of cannabis are well documented and undisputed. It can cause lung infections, bronchitis, and other respiratory problems. These few, well known, and virtually undisputed effects of cannabis are enough to warrant it's criminalization. These effects cause a negative net loss to society in both public health costs and workplace productivity. Therefore, cannabis should be kept illegal. The ONLY justification for legalization rests in an abstract and illogical concept total freedom. My opponent has repeatedly failed to refute my assertions that using freedom as an argument is a false premise. Rather, he has been forced to make appeals to authority and make red herrings in order to draw attention away from this fact. It does not surprise me that my opponent has resorting to once again discussing the health effects of cannabis, as he likely knows that he has no way to justify his foundational assertion of freedom as a value. There is nothing wrong with believing in freedom. But that is all freedom really is. A belief. A belief based on faith, which has no place in a logical debate. My opponent would argue that, despite the costs to society, despite the costs to the individual, and despite the fact that the there would be an overall net negative effect, cannabis should still be made legal. This is not because of any logical assertion. It is because he believes that the concept of freedom outweighs the cost to society. I've pointed out that he has no logical rational for believing this, and he has been unable to defend himself. I'm aware that the audience is likely to inherently favor pro. I'd like to encourage the audience to vote based purely on the logical content and substance of each argument rather than based on preconceived beliefs. One can still believe in freedom and recognize the inherent lack of logic in its belief.