Legalization of marijuana

1. Marijuana is a Gateway (Still Speculative)I'll make this very clear and concise for the readers of this argument. Correlation does not make causation. The correlation made with con's Yale study is casual at best. What this means is that while marijuana was a common factor found in a portion of individuals who later abused prescription drugs, it can not be attributed as the major factor to harder drug use without further consideration. For this point to be definitively correct, con must have substantial evidence that other factors such as environment, lifestyle, health, or psychological discrepancies did not interfere with the studies results. The Yale study has these factors unaccounted for, so it does not establish causation. Take this information with a grain of salt.I'd like to apologize for claiming that the drug free pamphlet did not have any sources, but I'd like to exchange that statement with another. The Pamphlet intentionally misconstrues information and uses studies with small sample sizes to support it's claims. It assumes too much from correlation to be reliable. On the subject of tolerance; marijuana does build tolerance based on amount of use and concentration of THC, but it also tends to break down with time. In a study of tolerance, a head researcher stated:"The effect is selective to D9-THC (ruling out changes in second messengers), is time- and dose-dependent, and is reversible, and thus appears to be cannabinoid-receptor mediated." (1)There is little strength to con's claim of tolerance and should be deemed speculation until further considered with studies. I'd also like to remind con that the argument he is pursuing does not need to be definitively disproven. My only objective in countering this argument is to prove that it is little more than speculation, which I can confidently say I have. Con has failed to develop anything above correlation and cannot find a direct relationship between marijuana and harder drug use. Before I move on, I'd like to quickly point out that con's graph does not support his argument. On the same webpage with this graph, a note is made below stating:"The lack of an increase in teen marijuana use in states that legalized medical marijuana appears to disprove the argument that legalizing medical marijuana would lead to an increased teen use of marijuana for recreational purposes."(2)Con's point remains speculative.2. Marijuana has bad health effectsOh boy, where to begin. How about that driving statistic. Con quotes a article on fatal car crashes stating: "researchers estimated that at least 2.5 percent of the 10,748 fatal crashes studied were directly caused by the use of marijuana."Unsubstantial. We can be in agreement that those who use the drug and understand the effects of the drug should not use it while behind the wheel of a motor vehicle or while using heavy equipment. This example however, is the result of reckless behavior on part of the driver and is not the fault of the drug by itself. To conclude that marijuana must be kept illegal because of this minimal increase in accidents is ridiculous. If several unsupervised children severely damage their hands while using fireworks, you don't determine that large fireworks are too dangerous for all kids; You find out why those kids did what they did and inform others to what may lead to the inappropriate use of fireworks among children. Unless con has some sort of study that proves marijuana use causes excessively irrational behaviors among a large portion of users, he fails to make any ground with this point.Next up, this little quote that con states saying:"The government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning it no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."While federally it is deemed schedule I, they're several peer reviewed studies confirming that marijuana has medicinal purposes. Several studies have shown that those who suffer migraines can find relief in marijuana for it's potent pain-reducing and anti-inflammatory actions within the body. (3) Another study found that the THC inside marijuana served to slow the progression of Alzheimer's by inhibiting the enzyme AChE from developing. (4) There isn't many clear reasons why the federal government would deny peer reviewed research, but it is very misleading to continue calling it a schedule I drug when there is strong evidence against the claim.Here's one that's spouted often. Con states is his argument:"Because marijuana smoke contains three times the amount of tar found in tobacco smoke and 50 percent more carcinogens, it would seem logical to deduce that there is an increased risk of lung cancer for marijuana smokers."Con elaborates more on the topic, but the general idea that he is trying to establish is that marijuana causes lung cancer. Not only is con making another assumption based on correlation, but he's absolutely incorrect in his accusations. Marijuana has never been found to definitively cause lung cancer by any study even with more carcinogens and tar than tobacco. In a study of 1,212 incident cancer cases and 1,040 cancer-free controls(total of 2,252 participants), those who were surveyed to have smoked the equivalent of one joint a day for sixty years had been found to have no consistent increase in chances of developing lung cancer or any respiratory cancer for that matter. (5) Unless con has a peer reviewed study that finds consistent increases in respiratory cancers among marijuana users, he'll be lacking any real data to back this claim.And there's more! Con goes on to state:"Research indicates that THC impairs the body's immune system from fighting disease, which can cause a wide variety of health problems."This is another claim without proper testing that should be reserved until further testing is done. This claim originates from a rather unorthodox study on the effects of THC's immunosuppression on rats. With it, the test effectively stimulated the rodents cannabinoid receptors with large quantities of THC and it soon caused a deficiency of B cell-mediated function. This however differs heavily in humans because of how humans are far less susceptible to immunomodulation by cannabinoids. (6) This in itself means we would theoretically need more concentrated stimulation by the THC drug to be effected to the same extent. This still needs far more data to be considered a consistently appearing effect of smoking marijuana. Last one, I promise. Con states last in his argument saying:"Several studies have found that children born to mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy exhibit some problems with neurological development."I can once again agree. Smoking in it's entirety should be avoided while a women is pregnant. Does that mean we should keep marijuana illegal just because a small integer of irresponsible woman might smoke marijuana while pregnant? Absolutely not.This argument is inadequate and fails to conclusively prove that most claims against marijuana are made on scientific grounds.3. Use of Marijuana is ImmoralCon inadequately describes the utilitarian approach of smoking marijuana in a black and white manner. It is not just the act of smoking that is bad; it's the result of smoking based on a certain situation. They're different results of smoking based on the setting and the purpose. In a setting derived from the one I described, results are positive if the user is a responsible individual. Any effects caused by second hand smoke can be avoided and accidents are not a large enough issue to be worried about while resting in ones home under the drug's influence. Also, con assumes to much by expecting all those who smoke to relieve stress do it in a consistent enough manner to grow a tolerance.4. Legalization would increase the number of children having access to it I apologize for my mistake. I meant to reference this site. (7) Con also references a study for the increased use among teens in high schools. Whether or not this is true, con must be able to definitively prove that the increase comes from legalization and not other factors.Con lacks the data to prove this argument.7. Regulated marijuana would greatly improve federal and state funded programsI'll make this quick. Prohibition has failed to deliver on what it set out to do. Since the start of the war on drugs during the Nixon administration, it has failed to stop the illicit drug market from producing almost every illegal drug at every measurable margin. The price of heroin, cocaine, and cannabis has decreased 80%, purity increased in all three, and tens of millions worth of people are imprisoned for non violent drug charges. For those arrests, a large investment is made with tax payer dollars. each year, the U.S spent over $51,000,000,000 to fail miserably at stopping the illicit drug trade. (8) The state of prohibition is in shambles, leading us to have a vastly larger supply of illicit drugs on the market and a giant waste of a money. Regulation is proven to be more capable in both controlling a substance and helping those who use the product. By controlling it's production and taxing it appropriately, it is possible to keep the product from being sold to children and even help to create programs in communities that work to prevent addiction or support those addicted through the withdrawal process. Sources(1) http://www.drugscience.org...(2) http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...(3) http://www.psychologytoday.com...(4) http://pubs.acs.org...(5) http://cebp.aacrjournals.org...(6) http://www.drugscience.org...(7) http://norml.org...(8) https://www.commondreams.org...