legalize cannabis

I'd like to start off by stating that I have never seen this many misrepresentations made in a debate during my time here on DDO. 'This is people's personal experience of the drug these people are treated in clinics every day for the affects of cannabis addiction. My opponent argues this is unfounded and is not physical addiction. 'I'd like to highlight a false premise that was constructed by my opponent. His premise follows as so:1) Many people go to addiction clinics for cannabis addiction2) These peope are all seeking genuine treatment for their problem3) Thus, Cannabis must be addictiveMy opponent's premise is faulty due to that the vast majority of people at addiction clinics for cannabis are there UNWILLINGLY. "Marijuana addiction numbers are hard to come by, and often inflated, since many small-time pot offenders end up in mandatory treatment programs, where they tend to be classified as marijuana addicts, whether or not that is objectively the case. ". http://addiction-dirkh.blogspot.com...'These people don't care whether it's through physical addiction or not, all they care about is the fact it ruined there lives. 'My opponent here contradicts his previous position that it is physically addictive by endorsing the position of people who are open to the statement that cannabis "may or may not" be addictive. 'Just because some person paid thousands of pounds and is probably pro cannabis anyway hasn't mentioned it in a study doesn't make it unfounded. 'What a disgusting claim. I highly regard the judges to discount this for its bigoted connotation. I am within the power to list a gamut of intellectual studies regarding cannabis, most of which are conducted by Universities which are required to, by Federal law, be free of political perversion. This is a worthless attempt by my opponent to disregard all of the scientific studies I have provided. My opponent, however, has done nothing but to list sources (in regards to clinical addiction) citing nothing more than the potentially exaggerated claims by lofty, concerned family members who probably know cannabis as nothing more than the "Devil's Weed. " My opponent is merely doing nothing other than appealing to those without inductive reasoning. 'My opponent is arguing a point that isn't even valid he's arguing that the only negative affect is physical addiction that's not even the issue in the first place. 'My opponent has once again taken my position out of context. I have never made the claim that cannabis is physically addicting due to that there exists no evidence showing that cannabis can cause what we know as clinical addiction. It is habit-forming at most, and habitual use only makes for 9% of its users. 'this is absolute pure common sense that if you're selling something in shops that it get's more exposure than being sold illegally on street corners or out of someone's house. 'My opponent, once again, exults in common sense yet his position is not common nor sensible. I live in Virginia (a state in the USA) and cannabis is illegal here. Everyone here will generally say that people (especially CHILDRENMy opponent is indirectly supporting drug cartels due to there have been wired recordings of Mexican drug lords stating that they wish to keep cannabis illegal due to it allows them dominate the market. Thus, they will slowly increase the range of their operations andMy opponent also blatantly ignores the fact that when ALCOHOL was ILLEGAL, usage rates were HIGHER than it is now. He contradicts himself in his own position when he forgets the fact that the legalization and regulated of ALCOHOL has lowered usage rates when compared to usage rates during prohibition. 'I countered with well firstly how can we trust the governments to spend that wisely , precedent tells us different. 'My opponent's obvious conservative-driven rhetoric contradicts himself with its own distrust of central government. How does Her Majesty's government to 'wisely' carry out a drug war against cannabis if it cannot spend funds 'wisely'? 'However my opponent want's to argue that every single government on the planet can be trusted to spend tax money wisely'The above position was never made by me. My opponent is oblivious to the virtue of the fact that a government without funding is a government without means. How will the government provide for the common defense (military) without tax revenue? How about general welfare? How about diplomatic duties? Social programs? Infastructure? How are they to defend peace and prosperity? Our civil liberties, what of those? My opponent has some sort of delusional mentality that the government can perform all of these tasks without proper funding. The falsity of his positions are manifest. 'Secondly according to my opponent he wanted that money spent on reducing income tax'More misrepresentation, take attention! I never said I wanted income tax marginal brackets to be lowered, but rather the influx of sales tax leaves the option of that happening. My opponent is arguing on the premise that the government would only take in a fixed rate rather than a surplus, which does not logically follow in fiscal policy. 'by legalizing cannabis we're adding to the need for addiction centre's in the first place'The above claim made by my opponent is false due to that I have thoroughly proven that cannabis is not physically addictive and the vast majority of people in treatment for cannabis addiction are not addicts but rather are required to go through rehab because they were forced to by the judicial system. 'So my opponent is now arguing we should waste the taxpayers money. 'My opponent's only tool of rhetoric in his arsenal is 'waste of taxpayer money' yet he has not provided a criteria in which the judges could weigh against as to what is a proper use of taxpayer money' He seems to believe that just because he hasn't seen bootleg beer or cigarrettes that the industry doesn't exist. ' My opponent is still forgeting that the modern bootlegging of alcohol and tobacco is completely TRIVIAL when compared to the amount of bootlegging that happened during the Prohibition of Alcohol in the United States. This trend of social behavior is applicable to almost every developed nation. ' it's the same as saying if we just legalized beer it would mean no one would want spirits. 'This IS a strawman due to that it is misrepresenting 'A person addicted to coke isn't going to stop being addicted to coke just because cannabis is legal. 'My opponent seems to forget the trends of social behavior in that coke addicts originally start with cannabis, and if cannabis was not illegal, then the coke addict would have never been exposed to illegal dealers WHOM OF WHICH also sell cocaine. 'Common sense and precedent say's the more tax goes up the more demand for illegal goods' This is irrelevant due to my position does not ensue heavy taxes on cannnabis, and cannabis would remain at street price or cheaper. 'I also make the point that so would legalizing so called harder drugs so this argument fails. 'Apples to oranges. You can't compare to two due to that harder drugs KILL the user; right then and there. There are 0 recorded deaths directly related to cannabis consumption. My opponent obviously has no knowledge of the history of cannabis. It was not made illegal because of its ostensible 'harmful effects'. It was made illegal through smear campaigns in the USA by the timber industry, the tobacco industry, the alcohol industry, the pharmaceutical industry. The prohibiton of cannabis is filled with racism, greed, special interests, yellow journalism and propaganda. . http://www.drugwarrant.com...Despite my opponent's nonsensical attempts, I have proven that cannabis legalization is the PRACTICAL side of this debate by means of peer-reviewed studies and social behavior trends. I ask the judges only to vote honestly. Thanks to my opponent for the debate.