Marijuana should become legalised

I shall address the points back into clash points in order to keep the argument clear. The dangers of MarijuanaI would like to state that the studies my opponent gives are most likely false. I do not blame my opponent: there is a lot of false information out there. He has, unfortunately, fallen victim to them. Not only is this myth totally false[1], but the reverse may be true: Marijuana may stop brain injuries[2][3]. Also, regarding the PI, I refer my opponent to the quotation " blood flow was significantly higher in marijuana users than in nonusers", meaning that blood flow had a net gain increase. There was slightly more resistance, but a lot more increase. Also, "Researchers say the level of resistance to blood flow among light and moderate marijuana users improved over the course of the abstinence month". Now, as "Light marijuana users smoked two to 15 joints per week, moderate users smoked 17 to 70 joints per week"[4], there are 1g of marijuana to a joint[5], and the average person takes between 1-2g a day, that makes roughly 8 joints a week, putting it easily in the lighter unit, with liberal figures. Regarding the other effects, I would like to point out that some of them (depression for example) are minor, and other factors cause equal or more threats, such as drink, or pressure. With the major threats (immune system, sperm count, brain cell count), they are myths[7]. I do not wish to make a habit of simply reading from sources, but it basically explains why each of these 'facts' are wrong. Regarding the mixing with other drugs, I'd like to point out that mixing tequila with arsenic is also very dangerous. So is mixing water with a savage bear. I do not see the value of point D, when he calls it bad for you, when you mix it with things that are a) bad for you and b) illegal. My propositionOf course, saying Marijuana should be legalised and nothing else is useless, and does not help society at all. I like to think that my debates have meaning and unfolds a proposition that can be enacted. So, I would suggest the following:Legalisation of MarijuanaStrict Regulation, if not nationalisation, of MarijuanaThe latter is something I have to reiterate in response to some of my opponent's criticisms. Lead Poisoning, for example, is because of lead. We know lead is dangerous. Lead in some substances is something the backstreet market has adopted, due to the costs. Now, if we could sue over health problems, and regulate to force pure marijuana, then we have solved this problem. The dangers my opponent has used in this debate has, many times, been due to additions made to the drug, which would be removed if the drug became legal. Also, if I refer to my previous round, in portugal, the legalisation has drastically increased quality. Also, regarding testicular cancer, what is it with the anti-marijuana lobbyists and my c**k? First making things up about sperm count, then they make things up about testicular cancer. .. Admittedly, the study holds a weak link between the two. However, the linking percentages are the same as the risks of potatoes. Sorry, but the link is so weak that it is unreasonable to express any interest in it. In fact, the link with potatoes causing cancer is as reasonable[9]. Socio-economic factorsFirstly, my opponent mentions Panama, but the country was Portugal, I'd just want to remind everyone of that. More importantly, I'd like to point out that the Netherlands has had less drug use in the past 10 years, and still a lot less drug use than countries where it is illegal, such as France and USA[10]. Also, I had cited my explanation of the business costs, but I will post it here as well to make it clear:"We. .. know, that according to recent figures, U. S. consumers number anywhere from 25 million to 60 million (depending on how likely survey respondents are to tell the whole truth), and at an average cost of $5 per cigarette (and factoring in one per day for each user), total spending on marijuana may add up to $45 billion to $110 billion a year. What about possible tax revenue? From Canada we’ve learned that the production cost of (government-sponsored) marijuana is roughly 33¢ a gram. Currently, U. S. marijuana consumers pay at least $10 per gram retail for illegal marijuana. If the cost of retailing and distribution is the same as for legal tobacco cigarettes, about 10¢ a gram, then selling the (legal) product at exactly the same price as on the street today ($10 per gram) could raise $40 billion to $100 billion in new revenue. Not chump change. Government would simply be transferring revenue from organized crime to the public purse. " (business weekly citation #6 from Round 2) As all can see, this is very obvious calculation independent of my opponent's reasoning. Finally, I wish to bring in a new argument: The moral police. Let's face the truth here: individuals are sovereign over themselves, not the government, and should be free to make choices which affect them when it does not affect others. People gain pleasure from drugs to the point that, even with all the propoganda against the drug, they still do them. It's not up to the legislature to make laws here. Rather than wasting resources in attempting to suppress drug use, the state should embrace it, and create campaigns warning of the dangers of poor quality marijuana, and the risks and consequences of taking different types. It is simple: don't waste money policing something that is not needed to be policed. Promote freedom and personal liberty, and legalise marijuana. I thank my opponent for responding promptly, and look forward to the next round.1 - . http://www.webmd.com...;(notice the same website as my opponent, and the study with x10 more studied)2 - . http://stash.norml.org...3 - . http://abcnews.go.com...4 - . http://www.webmd.com...5 - . http://www.marijuana.com...6 - . http://www.rollitup.org...7 - . http://canorml.org...8 - . http://www.cbc.ca...9 - . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...10 - . http://www.wodc.nl...