the legalization of marijuana

Here's a deconstruction of Pro's final arguments: 1. Law enforcement would still have jobs after decriminalization. Yes, but since a significant potion of law enforcement (including local cops, the Feds and the DEA) goes into policing marijuana, so a lot of people would lose their jobs. Additionally, even if cops existed punish those younger than 18 who were smoking/growing, there are several problems with this. First, minors are punished as minors so this is no real big win for society, and in fact may hinder the personal growth and experience of that minor, not to mention ruin their reputation and credibility. Second, what is the point of the 18+ age limit anyway? It's imposed because we (society) feel that it protects the minor from making a decision we don't feel they have the maturity to make. Well, if pot were legal, it would so drastically increase the chances and likelihood of minors breaking that law that it's almost useless if not detrimental. 2. Parents would be happy to know their kids are happy too puff. This is a statement with no factual basis or evidence to support it. 3. My opponent makes some incomprehensible argument about the government and economics... I've already negated all of the economic arguments in previous rounds, and Pro has offered no new points in this regard. 4. People will learn to repress the effects of marijuana. First of all, even the BIGGEST pot heads still sometimes become lazy, lethargic or apathetic after smoking, regardless of how much or how often they smoke. Believe me - I would know. It happens to the best of us from time to time. Plus, you cannot repress the physical harms of marijuana which I have cited, so Pro fails to provide a substantial argument. 5. My opponent makes some incomprehensible argument about world peace... I've already negated all of the world peace arguments in previous rounds. Plus, what I think he was trying to say was that since there will be new jobs, there will be a stabilized economy and thus achieve world peace...? I know, it's completely non-sensical. But let's dismantle this point anyway. First, I've already said how there wouldn't be this sudden increase in new jobs. Second, nations with stabilized economies can still engage in war. 6. People will buy hemp because it takes time to grow. That doesn't combat the idea that people can buy a plant that's already grown, and then never have to buy additional plants or worry about taking the time to grow them - especially hydroponic ones. 7. Pot is medicinally useful. I never argued that; what I did was combat this point with the harms of marijuana. And, as I said - which Pro did not refute - people who benefit from medical marijuana already do legally, despite the drug being overall criminalized. In conclusion, I am a huge marijuana enthusiast who is most definitely disappointed in the Pro for putting forth such shallow and easily refutable arguments. I have clearly diminished all of my opponent's points, and presented many arguments of my own which my opponent left unreconciled. For that reason, you should clearly be voting for CON despite mine and your own personal opinion on the matter. Debate isn't about what's right or wrong: it's about what you can prove. Pro failed so epically in his attempt to defend the legalization of marijuana that a vote for the affirmative would be a huge disservice and injustice to the field of debate.