should marijuana be legalized.

As the contender of this specific debate, I will appeal by focusing the main thrust of my overall framework based on not only meta-ethical standpoints for which justifications and premises can be based, but also for a point on which arguments may be based. Preface: As PRO fails to address and provide for any definitions for the purpose of this debate, I will take it that we will all agree to the definitions: 1> Legalized as: To give legal validity or sanction to Now, as we look towards my opponent's case, we indeed find a myriad of issues that are presented immediately without the usual careful inspection. In no manner is PRO appealing to the fundamental issues of ethical concerns that is the basis for meta-ethical views or even the premises for this resolution itself. ____ 'Liberty'? As PRO bases this point off of one basic sentence for which we can surely ascertain the premises and framework of his contention: "The first and most basic reason that marijuana should be legal is that there is no good reason for it not to be legal. " Yet we find a myriad of problems concerning this sentence as well as the rest of his case. The justification for any claim rests upon the ability to provide sufficient and adequate reason for which belief and jurisdiction may be based. To assert such a claim is truly absurd as well as fundamentally insufficient to provide the basis for his contention. Now, PRO continues to write that the choice of consumption rests on the 'free will' of an individual; yet even so, he concedes the fundamental basis which also makes his contention unsound both logically and ethically: that it is permissible for a government to impose certain regulations if it would pose a significant threat. Now, by conceding just such a point, PRO not only fails to justify his claim, but on the other hand goes to implement his views to my case; liberty is only valid in the context for which we do not provide infringement upon other individuals' personal interests or rights. Yet marijuana provides us with such a objective fact: "It is responsible for the great majority of crime, including 85% for shoplifting, 70-80% of burglaries and 54% of robberies in the United States alone. " [1] In the United Kingdom alone, 30,000 people die every year of smoking cannabis [2]. In the United States there are no similar statistics, but it is a factor in at least 64,000 deaths annually [3]. Indeed, I fail to find any form of tangible justification for the claim that marijuana is intrinsically less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, in the form of a warrant by evidence, or any other form sufficient or adequate to provide for the validity of this statement. Thus we can disregard this as well as any other vague statements based off of this very premise. As PRO fails to provide adequate justification for this point, as well as making claims that I have specifically shown to cater to my values, this should be discarded for the rest of this debate. 'Cost' When we look to this argument, we immediately find it to be a non-sequitur. Not only is this not logically sound, but is inherently fallacious in nature as according to a social context. When we do, as PRO advocates, compromise the funds necessary to incarcerate such criminals participating in drug trafficking, consumation, violence, etc, the fundamental pivotal point will yet also be neglected: safety and a socially sound life. Once again, PRO fails to provide any form of justification for which his argument is able to be provided for, and thus we question the validity as well as intrinsic plausibility of this contention. Indeed, even if you are willing to disregard my arguments, here would be another point of consideration: the values and principles advocated by my opponent would be easily met with by less bureaucratic procedures. Thus not only can his argument not provide sufficiently for his case, but also goes on to supplement my principles in its unsound nature. 'Prohibition'? Yet PRO makes another bold claim that we find immediately to be logically fallacious once again. He states that prohibition may even INCREASE drug use; now, by taking this into careful consideration, we find that legalization in of itself provides for the premises on which accessibility itself may be found in easier and hugely greater quantities than as it is at the present. Thus said, I find no logical premise for which prohibition may increase; rather by supplementing such a position, my opponent is explicitly asserting that marijuana use itself is harmful, and thus should be limited in accessibility. The fallacious of this argument should once again be used to provide for grounds on which jurisdiction may be based. 'Hemp' I find no justification on PRO's part to respond adequately or even provide a full argument for this point. The basis of this argument does not exist, thus it may be discarded. 'Religious Use'? Utilization of marijuana in religion is not asserted by PRO in any form in this point that provides ANY form of justification, other than his personal subjective beliefs. Now, looking to his point of 'prohibition the free exercise of religion', the fundamental principle which my opponent so flagrantly misconstrues is that the free exercise of a religion, or any right for that matter entailed as part of our Constitution is met with by support to the extent such that it may not cause harm to individuals. Indeed, as I have provided sufficient justification for why this is false in our social context, this argument is invalid. 'Success' PRO makes a rather bold yet fallacious claim that as certain individuals have made it their subjective decisions to use marijuana and have succeeded in certain ventures, there is a direct correlation. Now, not only is this logically unsound and fallacious, but also provides no proper justification for such a correlation. PRO seems to be asserting the following difference principle: DP: If an individual has used a certain substance and has provided 'success' in certain ventures, it is wholly due to such. Not only do we find this absurd in a logical context, but fallacious in of itself. As I have sufficiently provided for the grounds on which my opponent's points are an abject failure in correlation with the resolution, I will now extend my arguments as such. __ Deterrance: The fundamental principle for which marijuana should be banned rests on the premise of both an meta-ethical as well as a logical standpoint that criminalizing such a substance provides the basic grounds on which it deters usage and consumption. After it was legalized for a short period of time, the US states suffered a catastrophic fate, with 51% of 12th graders admitting to using the substance. It was recriminalized here as well, after which usage rates dropped an astonishing 57%. [4] Deterrance provides an ethical block and obstacle for which individuals are discouraged in the context of our society to use such a substance. Not only is it plausible in nature, but the tangible effects provide sufficient grounds for which it is valid. Financial Impact: The social context can be viewed from the impact that it presents on its full spectrum: 75% of drug users are employed (which also means 25% are unemployed, 16% above the national average). But because users suffer from lack of interest, their productivity suffers. For example, in 2000, approximately 110 billion dollars were lost from drug affected productivity. On a social scale, we see tangible effects of marijuana on an individual as well as a national context. The premises for which my framework is based focuses its thrust on a tangible social context; as PRO fails to provide sufficient logical or even valid justification for arguments, I await any further responses on his part.