Resolved: The Federal Government can legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp

I will begin this round by clarifying the resolution, as my opponent has attempted to restate it in his favor. The resolution clearly states that the Federal Government (US Federal Government) can (not should) legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp. The and/or part of the resolution is stated as such because the DEA has lumped both together under their prohibition of marijuana (. http://www.usdoj.gov...). The DEA does not recognize industrialized hemp, which uses a non-euphoric strain of cannabis with less than 1% THC, the psychoactive substance in marijuana (. http://naihc.org...), as a separately scheduled substance. The and/or is also presented because the two, medical marijuana and industrialized hemp, can be dealt with separately through the DEA and FDA. The PAC's that advocate legalization of industrialized hemp are concerned with the hemp industry, and the advocates of medical marijuana are concerned with it's use as a medicine. There are PAC's (political action committees) lobbying for both, but they are generally treated as separate issues with benefits for different individuals throughout society (patients vs. farmers). Therefore, my resolution stands as originally stated. To respond to my opponents first three contentions would be to deviate from my own resolution. My premise for this debate does not advocate the legalization of medical marijuana, rather my resolution is regarding the power the US Federal Government possesses to legalize either medical marijuana, industrialized hemp, or both. My opponent claims that it is the duty of the government to serve and protect it's citizens, and implies that it is the duty of the government to protect it's citizens from harming their own health. This is not a valid contention against the power of the Federal Government to legalize medical marijuana because the government has legalized harmful substances in the past (alcohol, cigarettes, the medical use of morphine, morphinol, and other opiates, the medical use of amphetamines, methamphetamines, etc. , etc. , etc. ). (. http://www.usdoj.gov...). Even cocaine and powdered opium are Schedule II drugs, which means they have an accepted medical use and can be prescribed by a doctor. My opponent claims that marijuana has a high potential for abuse. I contend that nearly any medicine has the potential for abuse, and I will define drug abuse as taking a psychoactive drug or performance enhancing drug for a non-therapeutic or non-medical effect. Indeed alcohol has a much higher potential for abuse, it is a drug, and does not have nearly the accepted medical use as marijuana. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)(I could not find a source for the medical use of alcohol)(. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Though I will not argue the issue of high potential for abuse, I will argue his contention that medical marijuana has an "enormous lack of accepted safety for use of the drug". Rescheduling requires that it be accepted for medical use, and I will list what a few medical agencies say about the issue: "The American Academy of Family Physicians [supports] the use of marijuana . .. under medical supervision and control for specific medical indications. " Reference: 1996-1997 AAFP Reference Manual - Selected Policies on Health Issues "The American Medical Student Association strongly urges the United States Government . .. to meet the treatment needs of currently ill Americans by restoring the Compassionate IND program for medical marijuana, and . .. reschedul[ing] marijuana to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, and . .. end[ing] the medical prohibition against marijuana. " Reference: AMSA House of Delegates Resolution #12 : adopted March 1993 "The American Nurses Association will: . .. Support the right of patients to have safe access to therapeutic marijuana/cannabis under appropriate prescriber supervision. Support the ability of health care providers to discuss and/or recommend the medicinal use of marijuana without the threat of intimidation or penalization. Support legislation to remove criminal penalties including arrest and imprisonment for bona fide patients and prescribers of therapeutic marijuana/cannabis. " Reference: ANA Resolution: June 2003 American Preventive Medical Association "Marijuana should be available for appropriate medicinal purposes, when such use is in accordance with state law, and that physicians who recommend and prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes in states where such use is legal, should not be censured, harassed, prosecuted or otherwise penalized by the federal government. " Reference: "Medicinal Use of Marijuana" policy statement: December 8, 1997 Belgian Ministry of Health "[R]esearch has shown that cannabis can be of medicinal use. . .. This is an area where public health must prevail. " Reference: Statement of the Health Ministry, as quoted in Expatica. com (Brussels), September 4, 2003. British Medical Association "Present evidence indicates that [cannabinoids] are remarkably safe drugs, with a side-effects profile superior to many drugs used for the same indications. . .. [The BMA] will urge the government to consider changing the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow the prescription of cannabinoids to patients with certain conditions causing distress that are not adequately controlled by existing treatments. " Reference: BMA report: "Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis:" November 1997 So not only is marijuana widely accepted in the medical community as medically beneficial, the side effects are far less harmful than those of other drugs, including many Schedule II drugs like cocaine, morphine, and methamphetamines. Multiple petitions for rescheduling marijuana have been submitted by reform advocates over the last 30 years. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule II would protect patients and physicians from current Federal Laws that undermine state medical marijuana laws. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule II would legalize marijuana because Federal prohibition of marijuana falls under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (please see R1 for argument and sources). House Resolution 5843, titled the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008, would express support for "a very small number of individuals" suffering from chronic pain or illness to smoke marijuana with impunity. If HR 5843 were passed, the House would support marijuana smokers possessing up to 100 grams -- about 3ï¿½ ounces -- of cannabis without being arrested. It would also give its blessing to the "nonprofit transfer" of up to an ounce of marijuana. The resolution would not address laws forbidding growing, importing or exporting marijuana, or selling it for profit. The resolution also would not speak to state laws regarding marijuana use. (. http://www.cnn.com...) Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal. Legalization is a process often applied to what are now regarded as victimless crimes, such as the consumption of illegal drugs. It should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Because the US Federal Government has the power- in various forms, ie. House bills, rescheduling, or a Supreme Court ruling against the constitutionality of drug prohibition- to "eliminate Federal penalties prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana" as stated in House Res. 5843, and legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal, I affirm that the US Federal Government CAN legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp. Thank you.