cannabis should be legalized.

I feel I have personally learned numerous facts about cannabis and its effects throughout this debate. Before the final round, I asked my opponent to cite the sources of his information because the information from our sources seemed to be conflicting. My opponent was rebutting all my arguments with information from his sources. He made me believe that he must have some extraordinary collection of sources that relates to marijuana. As the rules of this particular debate states, I asked my opponent to cite the sources in the comments section. As a result, he cited three sources. The first source is an online news article that explains the complex link between marijuana and schizophrenia. The second and third sources are wikipedia articles. I do not think I have to explain the unreliability of information attained from wikipedia. The information from his sources have no advantage over the information from my sources. Rebuttals"I guess we will just agree to disagree on the fact that majority should always rule. " If my opponent disagrees with this, then he is disagreeing about the type of government that we are currently addressing. In a representative democracy, such as the United States, the majority DOES always rule, whether they should or not. It is irrelevent what my opponent believes should rule. The fact is that in the United States, the majority rules. I explained how this is so in the previous round. My opponent seemed to have difficulty finding evidence that supports my claims. However, just because he did not find evidence does not make them false. Oddly enough, I did cite the sources behind my information. Anyhow, I will do my opponent a favor and find other evidence for him. "I could not find an reports, or websites saying that cannabis cause actual hallucinations. " Here you go: "Stronger doses prompt more intense and often disturbing reactions including paranoia and hallucinations. " [1]"Couldn't find anything on delusions on either side. " Not a problem: "It has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness" [2]"Again couldn't find anything on disorientation on either side. " Sure: " High doses of marijuana, when consumed through food, can cause hallucinations, delusions, impaired memory and disorientation. "[3]Also:" It depresses brain activity, making thoughts seem disconnected and uncontrolled. Colors, time, and spatial relations may be distorted during the dreamy state that ensues. Users can feel high or a sense of excitement, often depending on expectations and where and with whom the drug is used. Severe anxiety, panic attacks, disorientation, depression, and auditory hallucinations can occur" [4]I find it odd that my opponent was unable to find such conspicuous information. "I will now deny a definite link between schizophrenia and cannabis"Yes, no definite link, but a very strong one:"Repeatedly, studies have found that people with schizophrenia are about twice as likely to smoke pot as those who are unaffected. Conversely, data suggest that those who smoke cannabis are twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as nonsmokers" (Taken from opponent's source [1]) "Depression is false. "moderately effective in the treatment of depression" "Other studies state that cannabis or cannabinoids are useful in treating. .. depression"Really? "smoking cannabis leads to an increased risk of developing depressive symptoms" [5]" most would agree that cannabis does not cause most of these. " (These meaning hallucinations, delusions, impaired memory, disorientation, mental addiction, increased rates of anxiety, increased rates of depression, and increased rates of schizophrenia) My opponent makes an unsubstantiated claim. From the evidence given, most would agree that cannabis DOES cause most of these. "I believe that cannabis should stay illegal for minors until further studies are preformed to see if cannabis has effects on development. " I agree. But since the person who believes this is a minor and is a user of marijuana, would this be a sign of an addiction? Just a thought. "My position on the matter is that if you are trying to keep something illegal that is doing no harm to anyone else other than the person (possibly) then you might want to at least try to make it legal. "I have sufficiently proved using various sources that the "possibly" is a "certainly. " So if something that causes harm only to the user is already illegal, the U. S. government should put in the effort to legalize it? Why would the government legalize anything that causes harm to anybody? To make certain people happy? Again, what is beneficial will not always make a person happy. An obese man will benefit from a diet but might not be happy. Regarding my analogies, my opponent calls them flawed but does not explain how or why they are so. At this point, I believe that there is enough evidence to conclude that marijuana is harmful. Now, lets address the benefits that my opponent believes will come from legalizing marijuana. If it turns out that keeping marijuana illegal would do more good than harm to the majority of the people of the U. S. , marijuana should stay illegal. In the previous round, I rebutted four out of six benefits that my opponent believed would come from legalizing marijuana. For some reason, my opponent has not denied nor argued against these rebuttals. Because my opponent has not done otherwise when he was in the position and power to do so, I will assume that he agrees with my rebuttals. Now then, there are two arguments left. 1. "legalization would take power away from criminal organizations. " Yes, if marijuana was legalized, illegal organizations would lose profit that they would have acquired from selling illegal marijuana. However, do criminals stop being criminals just because they lose one source of their profit? It is probable, that criminal organizations would continue to sell other illegal products. 2. "cannabis does not make people want to commit violent crimes"I agree with this, however, this is irrelevent. Just because something does not make people want to commit violent crimes, it does not mean that it is beneficial. A lack of harm is not benefit. ConclusionNow what are the results? I have rebutted all six of my opponent's initial arguments and he has not denied my rebuttals. I have provided extra evidence to override my opponent's rebuttals of my initial arguments. The six benefits that my opponent believed would come from legalizing marijuana turned out not to be benefits. And my numerous sources confirmed the harms that I believed were caused by marijuana. And as my opponent and I have agreed, we are debating the legalization of marijuana in a representative democracy. And I have proved that in this type of government, laws are passed to benefit the majority of the people while keeping harm away from majority of the people. We have not discovered any true benefits to legalizing marijuana while we found numerous harms of using marjiuana. I think now, it is safe to say that in a representative democracy, such as the United States, marijuana should be illegal. Again, I thank my opponent for a wonderful debate. I especially appreciated the hasteness of his replies. Sources [1] . http://www.acde.org...;[2] . http://cyber.law.harvard.edu...[3]http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com...;[4]http://www.pdrhealth.com...;[5]http://www.sciencedaily.com...;