Cannabis Legalization

The videos to my right are my sources (8) and (10) respectively. 1. a) Con now acknowledges that weed has not been linked as a causative factor for the adversities he associated with it. I will address his claim on schizophrenia/psychosis in point 1e. In response to your tobacco point, this debate in its entirety will decide whether or not marijuana is potentially harmful to society and if its potential benefits are worth legalization regardless of tobacco's legal status. There are two things wrong your first candy response. The first is that you assume that cannabis is a "potentially harmful substance" and that that's why it should be illegal, yet you fail to demonstrate how this is as I have addressed all your points on the matter. Second, is that you ignore the question. I asked what the difference was between someone damaging their health from a candy addiction and someone damaging their health (although unlikely) from a weed addiction. Yet, you begin to carry on about how it should be illegal because it's "potentially harmful." For your crime rate statistic, I will address it in point 2e. Your second candy response is also invalid. You acknowledge that there is no evidence of a causal link between weed and the adversities many associate with it, yet you still attempt to criminalize it as such. Weed can easily be placed as the causative factor of say relaxation, so why can't it be placed the same for crime or laziness? Because it is not a causative factor for these adversities. The problem with your statistical world claim is that it ignores the fact that other factors play apart in the adversities cannabis users may experience. In all your studies and claims weed is merely associated with adversities. Why criminalize something that is merely associated when focus should be on what causes the problems? It is ignorant and wasteful to focus on something associated with a problem rather than that which causes it. e) Weed ONLY affects those with a strong predisposition towards psychosis/schizophrenia. Since the majority of cannabis users do not experience psychosis, those who do were already predisposed. How then is the occurrence of psychosis difference than the occurrence of allergic reactions? Both require predispositions, yet no substance is banned for its potential for causing allergic reactions. The reason for this is the second most active compound in cannabis, cannabidiol (CBD), and it is proven to have antipsychotic properties. This counteracts the potential psychosis/schizophrenia inducing properties of THC. Furthermore, "as marijuana use has increased dramatically in the population, schizophrenia rates have stayed the same." Clearly, there is no adverse effect on society, so why ban the drug? All preceding claims are supported by my source (1). This source further refutes con's claims of psychosis/schizophrenia (2). When I said responsible user, I meant the majority, rather, society as a whole. In the previous round I explained why all the "negative effects" you mentioned would ultimately be negligible to society with regards to legalization. f) Rational calculations? All of your claims in that paragraph are subjective, abstract, statements. None of which are supported by fact. It is not possible to provide evidence for my previous claims so I will stick to the facts. How is it logical to believe your conjecture over the facts that my source provides (6)? What about a law (especially one as erroneous as drug prohibition) is so serious that it cannot be found humurous? And when I said perfectly legal, I was referring to alcohol's legal status in the U.S. How, does the fact that 70% of youth have had at least one drink prove futility of cannabis regulation? My source (6) shows that use will go down following regulation. It should be obvious that there will be those who find a way around regulation and that is what matters; to assume that any policy will completely eradicate use youth of anything is foolish. 2. a) The topic was that "The revenue saved and made from marijuana's legalization will be substantial and much needed to the country." It was supported by source (7) (read the executive summary page), how is this source not credible? Surprisingly, you ignore the fact that your attacks on my sources are fallacies (as stated in the previous round) and continue to try and pass your attacks as legitimate. I ask that you read the source I gave so that you can understand why attacking things like past affiliations is fallacious. Furthermore, what reason do we have to doubt the facts provided by my sources besides your fallacious arguments? c) I know it is long but watch this video to understand why marijuana is so amazing (8). Also refer to round 2's source (9). How is it not amazing? The government and other ignorant anti-weed groups have prevented the truth about marijuana from being known by spreading ignorance. In addition, the government classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. Because of this, obtaining marijuana to grow and study is extremely difficult. In addition, my source explains why your conjecture regarding pharmaceutical companies is erroneous (9). d) I was merely giving an example and asking why Con favors that such a person is prosecuted and put in jail. I could also ask what about somebody smoking after a long day's work to relax deserves prosecution? The original point after all, was that it is detrimental to society to imprison non-violent citizens. I propose that legislation be identical to that of alcohol, obvious differences accounted for. This debate in its entirety addresses what is inherently wrong with prohibition. I address your crime claim in the following point. e) With regards to marijuana, testing for use is FAR from conclusive. Testing positive for cannabis only proves that the user had used it within a certain amount of time, varying time frames existing for the different methods. Only blood testing has the potential to detect active THC metabolites, the time frame of which is about 5 hours (3). However, at the time of the study (1997) blood testing was not efficient enough to determine intoxication, "it was concluded that presence of cannabinoids in urine or blood is not unequivocal proof of active cannabis smoking" (4). Since it cannot be determined that all of the subjects in the "studies" were intoxicated at the time of the crime (due to the inefficient and non-conclusive testing methods), it follows that it cannot be determined that the provided statistics are reliable or accurate. This is because many such studies erroneously consider the presence of THC metabolites alone (those not active) evidence of intoxication (similarly to the unjust drug testing that plague our nation). Even still, given that there is no conclusive evidence that marijuana is a causative factor in criminal activity, assuming that it does is logic parallel with the logical fallacy "confusing association with causation" (5). Finally, Those statistics were from ALL drugs and cannot portray an accurate picture of the effect of marijuana legalization in the U.S. Con, fails to connect marijuana to crime and show how marijuana is so dangerous. Again, your gambling claim is invalid. It is much more logical to look at legalization of alcohol and tobacco as examples. What evidence do you have that taxes would be raised so high that the black market would remain in power? And again, I point you to my source for support of the opposite of your claim (10). Sources: (1) http://healthland.time.com... (2) http://blog.norml.org... (3) http://www.labmed.yale.edu... (4) http://www.idmu.co.uk... (5) http://www.theskepticsguide.org... (6) http://www.erowid.org... (7) http://www.cato.org... (8) http://www.youtube.com... (9) http://cyber.law.harvard.edu... (10) http://www.youtube.com...