Marijuana ought to be legalized

Statements in quotes which begin a paragraph are taken from Pro’s rebuttals in round 2. “The U. S. Food and Drug Administration, otherwise known as the FDA, could easily control the usage of marijuana if it was legalized. ” Any control exerted could be circumvented. The sheer number of prescription drugs on the street testifies to the willingness of desperate people to get their fix by whatever means necessary. As the only established reasons for legalization so far have been medicinal purposes, any of those people who do not have a corresponding medical problem would be acquiring their weed by illegal means. Again, legalization has solved nothing. “Well, you could extend this access to certain justice and crime associations, such as the CIA or the FBI, which could be used to allow the pain reliving effects of those groups. ” My statements applying to the military apply just as easily to these groups you now present. Extend my arguments to cover these as well. “Marijuana has a greater effectiveness as a pain killer than most other pain killers. Wars may produce a near death injury, while allowing the use of marijuana as a pain killer, can allow the pain to be eliminated near instantly. ” The only thing in your sources which implies superiority to other painkillers is cases of nerve damage, for which morphine cannot perform its function properly. This is a specific medical case, and, again, I would suggest that hospitals and military sick bays could use marijuana derivatives to relieve pain in these situations. This does not, however, provide a legitimate reason for legalization. “According to NORML, ‘In fact, the most recent studies have tended to confirm marijuana's safety, refuting claims that it causes birth defects, brain damage, reduced testosterone, or increased drug abuse problems. ’” Rebuttal 1: This says nothing defending against the risks regarding cancer, injury due to negligence under influence, or the host of respiratory problems attributed to marijuana. In fact, from your same source, “Although there has not been enough epidemiological work to settle the matter definitively, it is widely suspected that marijuana smoking causes cancer. Studies have found apparently pre-cancerous cell changes in pot smokers.3 Some cancer specialists have reported a higher-than-expected incidence of throat, neck and tongue cancer in younger, marijuana-only smokers.4 A couple of cases have been fatal. While it has not been conclusively proven that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer, the evidence is highly suggestive. ” Rebuttal 2: You have not provided sources confirming your claims. While secondary sources can be used effectively, the sheer bias of NORML is enough to make any reasonable person skeptical of its claims in support of its cause. “In refute of the THC spray, I doubt the majority of users of marijuana have discovered said THC spray. Users may also prefer actual marijuana experience over the THC spray. ” Rebuttal 1: As the only legitimate reason for use established so far are for medicinal purposes, it wouldn’t be the users of marijuana who would need to discover the THC spray, but their doctors who are prescribing the herb. The doctors prescribing drugs with such obvious side effects ought to know that there is a perfect substitute with the same pain relieving effects without the penalities! Surely any reasonable doctor would prescribe the THC spray over marijuana if he wanted his patient to be well-cared for. Rebuttal 2: Whether or not the patient prefers smoking the marijuana to the THC spray is completely irrelevant. Some patients might prefer morphine of vicodin. However, that does not mean that morphine should be prescribed. All of my objections to Pro's third contention save that marijuana is, in fact, more harmful than tobacco have remained uncontested. Note that he also did not object to marijuana being more harmful than alcohol. Extend all other objections.