Legalization of Marijuana

First off, I provided the format I did for a reason. The topic of marijuana'slegalization has many subjects, and my provided format allowed for each subjectto be discussed specifically, and ultimately provide an overall view of thetopic for the voters. It also eliminates the necessity of quoting your opponentas that wastes text space (which I often need). In addition, you do not addressmany of points, and as stated earlier, I will assume you either agree with thatpoint or cannot refute it should you fail to do so. I once again ask that youfollow my format. Finally, when citing sources, please specify the exact portionof the source you would like to use for large sources instead of simply postingan entire article. This allows for clearer communication. The video to theright is my source (3).Point 1a"Back in the 1800s when most drugs were legal, marijuana was clearlyvery addictive." Yet you fail to provide any support for this. One canalso say that in the 1800's the sky was pink. Furthermore, I already saidthat I do not wish to discuss drugs, only marijuana. Therefore any data notspecifying marijuana is not valid in this argument. "Alcohol's addictiverate is 10%, but illicit drug users can get addicted by a rate of 75%."Although this "statistic" includes all illicit drugs and has nosupport, I will respond because the same principles apply regardless of thedrug. Comparing the "addictive rate" of one drug (alcohol) with many(illicit drugs) is not proportional, besides this; there are two reasons forthe supposed results. The first is that while illegal, the general use of adrug is increased (3). Secondly, when an illicit drug user is arrested(marijuana users more so than other illegal drug users), the courts often givethem a choice between a harsh sentence or treatment and a slap on the wrist.Obviously they are going to choose treatment, and they are then labeledaddicts. After all, they are in treatment for drug use right?Point 1f"Then there was the experiment in Alaska." Actually, the lawwas not that anyone under 19 could not consume cannabis, rather, it stated thatthe possession of 1 ounce or less would not receive criminal penalties such asarrest (this is decriminalization not legalization). With regards to youthaccess, it is clearly easier for youth to get marijuana now because all theyhave to do is call a dealer (which isn't hard to find) and have the necessaryfunds. However, once legal, it would be taken out the hands of street dealersand be regulated; both similarly to alcohol (refer to point 2f to argue thisstatement). Then the only access would be in stores that enforce the age restrictionand require identification, which naturally makes it much harder to obtain. Onthe other hand, decriminalization (such as the Alaskan experiment) does notregulate cannabis, it only reduces penalties for use which obviously will notreduce and may even increase youth use. My source comments similarly on this(1). Also, we already have an example of the success of more sensible cannabispolicies with regards to use youth in the Netherlands (2). Point 2aFirstly, there is no evidence or reason to believe that legalization would givea "boom" to the black market. And, in actuality, we already havereason to believe the exact opposite of this claim (3). Also, I address the DUIclaim in a following point. The economic statistics of alcohol and tobacco areirrelevant with regards to marijuana's potential to bring in revenue,especially since we already have studies estimating the financial benefits ofcannabis (6).Point 2c"It also increases the number of DUI's by a wide margin. It rose ashigh as 40% for adults and 70% for juveniles in California and that is clearlya disaster." Yet again, I am discussing marijuana only. However itshould be noted that the statistics my opponent is referring to are resulting fromdecriminalization only and I have already addressed this. "Californiadecriminalized marijuana 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests fordriving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4percent for juveniles." This quote is from my opponent's own source[4]. Also, we have reliable reason to believe the opposite (7).Point 2e"Many studies have shown that half of all violent crime offenders wereunder the influence of drugs, most notably marijuana, when they committed theircrimes." With regards to marijuana, testing for use is FAR fromconclusive. Testing positive for cannabis only proves that the user had used itwithin a certain amount of time, varying time frames existing for the differentmethods. Only blood testing has the potential to detect active THC metabolites,the time frame of which is about 5 hours (4). Blood testing is, however, anexpensive and invasive form of testing that is rarely used. Since it cannot bedetermined that all of the subjects in the "studies" were given bloodtest within the necessary time frame to show active THC metabolites, it followsthat it cannot be determined that the provided statistics are reliable oraccurate. This is mainly because many such studies erroneously consider thepresence of THC metabolites alone (those not active) evidence of intoxication(similarly to the unjust drug testing that plague our nation). Even still,given that there is no conclusive evidence that marijuana causes criminalactivity, assuming that it does is logic parallel with a logical fallacy, (lookit up if you don't know what that is) faulty cause number one (5).Consequently, the implication that legalization of marijuana would increasecrime has no basis. Also, my source further refutes this (3).Point 3a"Murder is illegal too, but that doesn't mean people are still murder." The main difference between murder and marijuana is that murder is an act and marijuana is a good. As my source (3) supports, any illicit good with demand is increased by prohibition because of demand and despite enforcement. While an act has no demand, therefore, it necessarily goes down following prohibition, due to enforcement. Point 3c"Following the repeal of prohibition, alcohol consumption increased." Your point here is invalid since your source [1] was notfound.Point 4aUsing your quote as a point is a fallacy. Number fourteen appeal to authority (5). And, looking at the facts behind cannabis prohibition, "legislating morality" would coincide with legalizing marijuana.Conclusion ResponseMy opponent has proved nothing. He tries to "morph" my arguments tofit his argumentative goals. Furthermore he attempts to use statistics with allillegal drugs to provide unreliable and inaccurate predictions of the effectmarijuana's legalization would have on the nation. I leave it to my opponent toaddress the points he ignored should he choose to.Sources(1) http://www.opposingviews.com...(2) http://www.erowid.org...(3) http://www.youtube.com...(4)http://www.labmed.yale.edu...(5) http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu...(6) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...(7) http://healthland.time.com...