legalize cannabis

In summation for the Judges. As demonstrated cannabis brings with it lot's of negative effects this is just one link I produced . http://www.cannabisaddiction.co.uk.........' This is people's personal experience of the drug these people are treated in clinics every day for the affects of cannabis addiction. My opponent argues this is unfounded and is not physical addiction. My opponent speaks pure nonsense this is peoples experience of the drug thousands of people have had cannabis ruin there lives, of course it's founded! ! Just because some person paid thousands of pounds and is probably pro cannabis anyway hasn't mentioned it in a study doesn't make it unfounded. These people don't care whether it's through physical addiction or not, all they care about is the fact it ruined there lives. My opponent is arguing a point that isn't even valid he's arguing that the only negative affect is physical addiction that's not even the issue in the first place. I also claim that by legalizing it more people would be able to get hold of it , it would be further exposed to people who are not exposed to it now, this is absolute pure common sense that if you're selling something in shops that it get's more exposure than being sold illegally on street corners or out of someone's house. Let's use Britain as a casing point in Britain 9% of people smoke cannabis . http://www.nationmaster.com... Does my opponent seriously expect people to believe that it will stay at 9% when being sold in shops? ? When we look at cigarette smokers it's around 20% . http://ash.org.uk... These are the alcohol figures that stand significantly higher . http://www.avon.nhs.uk... So the issue is , is there a REAL reason to expose more people to the negative affects of Cannabis. My opponent has failed to show that there is. Instead he's just argued against precedent, fact's,personal experience and complete common sense and instead tried to issue an argument based on some studies and ended up contradicting himself anyway. When I started the debate the issue was always Cannabis carries with it negative effects is there enough pros to counter the negative and the answer(at least with regard to what my opponent has presented in this debate) has to be NO. All my opponent has done throughout the whole thing is try to argue that there are no negative affects whatsoever. No more people will be exposed to cannabis and Instead of countering the negatives with the positives, which was the whole point in the first place. He prefers to just say it's all positive and sweep the negatives under the carpet. In the process insulting everybody who has had there life ruined by cannabis. So let's review some of the positives my opponent presented. He argued Cannabis sales will increase tax, revenue. I countered with well firstly how can we trust the governments to spend that wisely , precedent tells us different. . http://www.taxpayersalliance.com... . http://moneymorning.com... www. xymalf. co. uk/govspending. htm However my opponent want's to argue that every single government on the planet can be trusted to spend tax money wisely, with no reason to say this whatsoever and defies precedent and common sense. Secondly according to my opponent he wanted that money spent on reducing income tax,which immediately makes that extra tax revenue lower anyway, which would then be hardly worth it. Even If this was the only problem again it's still not enough to counter the cons Third He want's to use it for paying off government debt, and building things like addiction centres , which is the most ridiculous one of all , because by legalizing cannabis we're adding to the need for addiction centre's in the first place, So my opponent is now arguing we should waste the taxpayers money. Fourth. It could even end up costing us money in the long run. With regard the tax argument It would certainly be wise to go with precedent and err on the side of caution and not legalize cannabis. Rather than going with my opponent's view that we should take the massive gamble that the governments will spend that money wisely, it won't cost us in the long run , it's gonna be enough money to counter the negative aspects of cannabis and we're not just gonna throw it down the drain. His next argument was that it would stop drugs coming in illegally again this is a totally naive viewpoint and goes against precedent despite his baseless claims to the contrary. He seems to believe that just because he hasn't seen bootleg beer or cigarrettes that the industry doesn't exist. When the facts are clear. . http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk... . http://www.publications.parliament.uk... Again this is just Britain. Common sense and precedent say's the more tax goes up the more demand for illegal goods . http://www.nice.org.uk... He had another argument that it would stop the hard drug trade , this is naivety of the highest order as i mentioned before it's the same as saying if we just legalized beer it would mean no one would want spirits. He said that argument is a straw man but I noticed he never told anyone why. Let me tell you how it's not. A person addicted to coke isn't going to stop being addicted to coke just because cannabis is legal. The same as lager is not enough for an alcoholic an alcoholic craves stronger drink, such as vodka and whisky, lager is not enough in any quantity for a genuine alcoholic the principle is the same. He said it would create jobs I agree however I also make the point that so would legalizing so called harder drugs so this argument fails. He also argued "basically" that it would make some people happy, this is a poor argument as it would also ruin some people's lives. This is really all the argument he brought to the table. If you actually look through my opponent's argument you will notice it's largely contradictory based a lot on sweeping statements and studies that hold no real relevance, not least because we don't actually know the bias of these studies. On the contrary I have preferred to base my argument on official figures,precedent, facts and people's experience which I truly believe is an important factor. I would just like to present two more links before closing. This one backs up most of my argument and I do urge you all to read this it also shows how my opponents addiction figures are way off beam . http://articles.latimes.com... This final one shows the big problems that occurred in Britain when we downgraded Cannabis to a class C a few years ago. . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... So in conclusion. There are lot's of negative effects involved with cannabis, there is no real reason to legalize the drug . To legalize cannabis would be taking a very large gamble and it's best to err on the side of caution. What I ask of the judges is that you vote this debate on it's merits even if you want cannabis legalized don't just vote pro, as the issue is not what is wanted by us as individuals but rather is there any real reason to legalize . The other thing I ask Is if you do believe there is a real reason to legalize and it hasn't been brought up in this debate , don't just vote pro for that reason, rather vote on the argument presented in the debate. Thank you everyone for reading and voting. I've really enjoyed my first debate and to Aaronroy I thank you also it's been fun. After all this I still hold my original thought that it is best to Err on the side of caution.