Autistic children should not be allowed to smoke marijuana.

Unfirtunately, PRo Has yet to incorporate any marijuana reeferences into her arguments. Boo hoo, it's water under the bridge, and I'm still having A-bomb debating this. ========= My Contention ========= --"I'd like to point out that this doesn't refute any of my arguments (which I will relay once more later on in my rebuttal)." It wasn't a reefutation. It was a contention fir my case. I made reefutations below that. --"Further, marijuana is already legal for this purpose in the form of medical marijuana." Correct me if I'm just blowing hot air here, but medical marijuana is currently legal only for reducing harsh suffering or other medical uses, [1] and only in a fu states at that [2]. It is not currently legal for experimentation on autistic children. If it is, that's fine stuff. Let's kee-p it that way. --"And, there are special licenses that doctors can obtain to do medical experiments, so this is irrelevant." I'm not trying to bash PRo's trustworthiness, but hopefully she will be able to post a source of this in the next round to show the exact nature of these 'special licenses.' A Google search sparked up very few results. Of the sources I zoomed through, all seemed to talk only of medical marijuana, and only for those 18 or older and only for relief of harsh suffering. [3] [4] [5] It wouldn't really blow my roof to find that there were 'special licenses,' but it is a moot point. This is nothing more than a joint conflation of what is with what ought to be, and in the most loco way. Hopefully PRo will elaborate on why the fact that marijuana is currently legal means that for some reason we should ban it. In the words of theLwerd, "basically, extend all of my arguments until I get a sufficient rebuttal" ======= Her Points ======= 1. --"Extend my arguments until Pro refutes them." To be estra clear, this is the entire text of her original argument 1: --"For legal purposes, I am in favor of marijuana legalization (buying) for those over the age of 18. Autistic "children" do not fit within these parameters." She's telling you to extend her opinion that people over 18 should be allowed to do drugs. By all means do; it isn't relevant at all to this debate because, as she points out, "Autistic 'children' do not fit within these parameters." === === 2. "Con says that he's not trying to get autistic children to break their parents rules; however, he states this after a round in which he wrote, 'We need to do the next best thing and provide autistic children with an alternate source of marijuana which they can consume, sell, cut for profit.'" A) I also stated that in the same round in which I said, "Despite the incredible logic behind my original argument, I won't be pursuing it further." My opponent is attacking an argument that I'm not even arguing and ignoring my current position. Though I don't have my logical fallacies down pat, I believe this would be a strawman argument. B) There is nothing about that quote that sticks out in the way PRo sess it does. It does not say 'autistic children Can consume drugs without their parents' permission.' It in no way impllies that these kids are disobeying parents' orders. C) Extend the uncontested argument I made last speech: "Given the probable physical and mental condition of those children eligible for this study, I highly doubt any would be able to lay hands on a stash of pot, let alone hide their habit from their parents." === === 3. PRo again said there are primo alternatives. A) She hasn't verified this claim with any proof yeht. B) I'm fairly certin this is incorrect. There are no cures of autism that I know of. Anyway, that wasn't even the key point of my argument. We shouldn't be feeling confident of our current scientific knowledge, since we are still wet behind the ears when it comes to the study of marijuana. Again, I do not advocate this for the proven health benefits, but to prove health benefits. === === 4. I specifically am arguing that we kick the old laws regarding marijuana use for autistic cheeodren. Suppose the resolution were: Gay marriage should be allowed. Would you ever argue that it shouldn't be allowed because gay people would be breaking the law? Same kind of thing here. The reason MJ is not allowed is that illygal. Thus making it allowed (even if I hadn't explicitly stated it) would most probably come in the form of making it legal. === === 5. I think an all-autistic gang would be a stellar idea. However, I already admitted: "Despite the incredible logic behind my original argument, I won't be pursuing it further." PRo is beating a dead horse here. [1] http://medicalmarijuanaguide.com... [2] http://www.drugpolicy.org... [3] http://fortcollins.craigslist.org... [4] http://www.marijuanamedicine.com... [5] http://www.mahalo.com... 46 hidden reeferences to marijuana. You could find many searching through the spelling errprs in my case.