The legalization of Marijuana is likely to have a more favorable impact than current policy

I present the following rebuttals to my opponent's rebuttals: On Regulation- "This is bad. Unregulated is working fine. We don't need regulation. It would be frivolous." -No argument was presented as to how regulation is "bad". We obviously need some regulation of marijuana and marijuana products, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this debate. The premise of this debate provides for "better" regulation in the sense that many of the problems associated with the decision to make it illegal can be controlled better if it is regulated, rather than prohibited. Take alcohol, for example. Prohibition facilitated the rise of various criminal organizations who provided a simple yet more harmful "controlled substance" (http://www.albany.edu... , http://www.crimelibrary.com...). The illegalization of marjuana has had a similar affect bringing rise to international crime lords (along with other products) like the Tijuana and Sonora Mafias or cartels (now known as the Tijuana-Gulf Cartel). Regulation and taxation of marijuana will help keep it out of the hands of children, much like the prohibition of the sale of alcohol to minors. It will take the money out of the hands of the cartels and drug dealers, and into tax revenue for the individual states. Regulation would provide a safe environment for medical users to aquire their prescriptions, as well as allow for the control of strains for specific maladies. These are just a few examples of how regulation would be "better". There is no indication regulation would be "frivolous" as the current regulation policy is an almost complete ban on the already "controlled" substance. On Quality-"This is probably not true. When things become mass produced, they lose that special touch. Home grown gets my vote. It's your burden now to prove why mass production would yield "improved" quality." -How is it my burden to prove something I never claimed? (prove why mass production would yield "improved" quality). This is what I DID say about quality besides saying regulation would lead to improved quality-"Legalization would allow for more efficient studies which would lead to strains that can be disease specific." This has already been proven true with the examples of California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Hawai'i, Alaska, Canada, Jamaica, Mexico, and Holland (though not completely legal in any of these places). These locations currently hold a monopoly (and probably always will) on the high quality market for various reasons including decriminalization, university studies, and a tolerant society which leads to more tolerant law enforcement. Legalization and regulation also supports the "home grown gets my vote" argument because it would be legal for law abiding adults and medical marijuana patients to grow in their own homes (which would have a major impact on street crime). Reduction in Street Prices-"This is bad for dealers...people will be less willing to sell their own, home-grown weed. So all the buyers can buy after this is some lame factory made weed. Bad for buyers, bad for sellers, bad overall." -There is no such thing as "factory made corn" now is there? What makes you think farmers will be growing marijuana in "factories" when it is cheaper to grow out in the open, like any other crop? The reduction in street prices will be due in major part to legalization and the lack of needing to buy from a street dealer. Street prices are currently controlled by risk and availability. With legalization, risk will be reduced, and availability (to law abiding citizens) will increase. The quality will be dictated by the market, and the user's ability to grow their own strains will force the industry to follow the trend of maintaining quality. Note- the industry will consist of users who have dedicated themselves to the growth and sale of quality strains... due to marijuana counterculture it is a matter of pride to grow quality marijuana. "ALIENATE STREET DEALERS-Explain how this is good." -Legalization would force dealers to deal honestly and fairly, and law enforcement would not be on their backs. The street dealers (many of which sell just because they smoke) would have the same choices as anyone else- start a legal growing and distributing operation, dispensery, etc. or just stay out of the game. This will not affect your every day American as it will affect criminals. Indeed, the majority of marijuana related offenses are charges against non-violent USERS. Legalization is for the benefit of the user, not the dealer. "Minors have a good level of access as is. It is your burden to prove that minors need less access to weed. Are you a bad enough dude to support that?" -In order to justify legalization we must provide sensible legislation that will appease those who would otherwise oppose it. Though I am not against the use of marijuana by SOME minors, that is a parental choice. Children should not be able to go to the store and buy marijuana, just as they shouldn't be able to go buy a six pack. Current policy provides very little- if any- barrier between adults and children in the drug trade. Preventing children under 21 from being able to legally aquire marijuana, focusing on dealers who sell to minors, and protecting our children from access is sensible and logical. "As above, I contend that there is nothing wrong with minors using weed." -The debate is about legalization. If you are not against minors using weed, then you forfeit "con" in it's entirety. "Law enforcement currently focuses on drugs only because drugs often precede other illegal activity." -Drug related violence is drug related because drugs are where the money comes from. Illegal activity follows the drug trade because it is a criminal enterprise. Law enforcement focuses on drugs because they are run by criminal enterprises. Legalization of marijuana will take at least one more product our of their hands and into the hands of law abiding citizens. Upon further reading I realize your argument is a joke. You are not serious, and your arguments are not from a "con" point of view. You make arguments that are in favor of using while illegal... ridiculous... obviously if you are for the legalization of marijuana it is because you think using shouldn't be a crime. If you don't think "minor use" is a crime, then you can't possibly think adult use is a crime, and therefore you support my premise, though maybe not in the exact same way. You still do not hold a position contrary to my premise "The legalization of Marijuana is likely to have a more favorable impact than current policy".