most states should not yet legalize pot

Pro begins by linking to two papers. However, these papers cannot make the arguments for her; she cannot say "Pot leads to mental health effects" and expect the papers to do the talking for her. She must herself elucidate the findings of these studies. If she were simply able to throw links around, it would be a battle of my links versus her links instead of a debate. At this point, we should discard this point until she properly evidences this point. The key point I want to stress, though, is that even IF marijuana can have such effects -- and surely too much of anything can have some negative effects -- this is utterly irrelevant, because (1) people have a right to make decisions for themselves and (2) putting people away for victimless crimes is unjust and economically inefficient and (3) people are going to be able to access these substances regardless of legality. Pro states, "when people are mentally ill, they can start drawing on social security. this is welfare, causing the government dole to be spent." There are several problems with this argument. First, Pro's connection between Pot (A), Mental Illness (B), and Social Security (C) is a casual relationship at best. She hasn't demonstrated that Pot necessarily leads to mental illnesses, and the papers she cites only suggest that it COULD lead to such an effect. She wants to assert that A causes C, when in reality the relationship is much more complex: A could cause B, and B would entail C. Second, Pro has absolutely no conception of what Social Security is. It is NOT a welfare program. People pay a percentage of their paycheck toward Social Security for the entirety of their working lives. She is painting a highly deceptive, counter-factual image that people are leeching off the government dole, when in fact that is far from the case -- they are merely taking the benefits they are entitled to, and have earned after years of hard work. Moreover, the Social Security trust fund has a $2.7 trillion surplus [1]. Social Security expenditures are completely separate from the general budget, and SS doesn't add a dime to the deficit. In fact, there's currently a surplus in payroll tax revenue, so that money is transferred into Treasury bonds and garnering interest, so SS is actually a boon for the US government: one of the most successful programs ever implemented which kept seniors off the street, and even has a substantial fiscal multiplier and supports a vast amount of jobs."A new report from AARP, in fact, shows that every $1 paid out to Social Security generates, in turn, about $2 of total output for the U.S. economy -- or nearly $1.4 trillion in 2012. Economists call this the "multiplier effect." Simply put, that's when one person's spending (in this case, spending generated by Social Security benefits) becomes a second person's income, then the second person's income is spent and becomes a third person's income, and so on. The report also shows that the $762 billion in Social Security benefits paid out in 2012 supported more than 9 million jobs -- full -- and part-time. It's important to remember, too, that Social Security kept more than 22 million Americans out of poverty last year, including 15 million adults 65 and older." [2]Moreover, Pro is villifying with her remarks people with mental illnesses. Whether or not those illnesses were in any way caused or influenced by Pot use is utterly irrelevant at this point, as she is painting an image of mentally ill people as moochers when I've demonstrated that this far from the case. They are victims of circumstance and they need help. The issue of how to best assist mentally ill patients, of course, is far beyond the parameters of this debate, but we are not going to be doing anyone any favors by simply illegalizing Pot, especially in light of all the benefits of Pot I've provided in my last round, most of which Pro has dropped. Pro states, "if con wants to insist bodily autonomy he must state what he thinks of government welfare going to people because of pot. is it just part of life, a good thing a bad thing etc." First of all, Pro hasn't at all demonstrated that government welfare arises as a result of Pot. She brought up Social Security, but this is far from a welfare program. Second, this is not at all a refutation to bodily autonomy. We could even examine this question philosophically in an anarchist framework without a government and pose the question of whether you have a right to bodily autonomy. The answer of course is independent of and far supersedes government welfare programs, even if Pro could demonstrate any sort of causal connections. Therefore, I simply reject Pro's premise that people would receive welfare "because of Pot," because she hasn't at all demonstrated that this is the case. If it were the case that people with mental illnesses were receiving "welfare" -- and I'd love for Pro to define this welfare -- then I don't see that at all as a bad thing: it's simply government acting not only to care for the neediest and most vulnerable amongst us, but also more broadly helping the general populace via the muliplier effect, as I demonstrated earlier. Any form of government expenditures of this kind has an exceptionally high multiplier, and just by virtue of that everyone benefits. Pro states, "con probably just views autonomy so high that it doesn't matter. in which case we could be having this debate about cigarettes and alcohol and other drugs too.... there's nothing special about pot." This isn't really an argument, but instead a de-facto concession that Pot isn't much different than alcohol or other drugs. We've already had Prohibiton of alcohol in the past, and it was a complete and utter disaster -- organized crime shot through the roof. Would Pro like to return to that? If there isn't much of a difference between Pot and alcohol, surely Pro must be able to provide a case for us in favor of alcohol prohibition, and explain away the ramifications of that failed experiment. How "highly I value bodily autonomy," at this point, is really utterly irrelevant because this is a point that Pro hasn't at all even attempted to refute. As I stated in my last round, I don't see this through an absolutist lens: I want people to be able to do as they wish so long as they don't harm another, meaning that I want to follow Murray Rothbard's self-ownership principle. The existence of a government, in some sense, violates bodily autonomy, at least indirectly by way of taxation. My point, though, is that a further, egregious and completely unwarranted action of government -- in this case, illegalizing Pot -- is completely ludicrous and should be brutally condemned. Dropped Arguments-Pro completely drops that states could monitor Colorado and Washington to develop proper regulation to curbe any potential negative impact of Pot legalization. -Pro fails to refute the bodily autonomy point, and only responds to it tangentially -Pro drops my points on the black market -Pro drops my argument on Pot use being a victimless crime-Pro drops the evidence I provided showing the medicinal value of Pot-Pro drops my arguments on the economy value of legalizationSince convention states that no new arguments are allowed in the last round, it would be unfair for Pro to attempt to respond to these dropped points. ConclusionI have refuted every single one of Pro's arguments, and she has failed to make a proper argument or address adequately any of my points. [1] http://blogs.reuters.com... [2] http://blog.aarp.org...