Marijuana should be legalized

Thank you for your timely opening round. In this round, I will refute my opponents arguments. Legalization of a substance My opponent states that legalizing something will result in higher usage; we agree on this point. Society will deem it more appropriate to follow the law, as is apparent. However, when Con states that Great Britain had a 15% increase in deaths from all drug once marijuana penalties were downgraded, we must look at the facts. The numbers used in this source are miniscule, nothing that can actually be substantial enough to show a link between marijuana and harder drugs (gateway effect). Deaths from Ecstasy increased from 33 in 2003 and 48 in 2004; cocaine increased from 113 to 147 in this time span; heroin 591 to 744. There are a multitude of variables that most likely change the number of deaths per year from these drugs. Citing the fact that they lessened marijuana penalties as reason why more are dead isn't logical. On top of this, these numbers are far too small to look into. Medicine My opponent states that he can point to another drug that accomplishes the same effects as marijuana with less harm. If we take a look at the statistics, which I will greatly expand on later, marijuana has caused zero deaths [1]. Over-the-counter-medicines and prescription medicines have killed thousands [2]. "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics, unintentional overdose deaths involving prescription opioids increased 114 percent from 2001 (3,994) to 2005 (8,541), the most recent nationwide data available..." [2] I would love for my opponent to point to something that can alleviate anxiety, anorexia, pain, vomiting, and many others, while having MINIMUM side effects. I will happily go find statistic on how many have overdosed on that drug, because they most definitely exist. In accordance to my opponent's statement's about carcinogens in marijuana being more abundant then in tobacco, I can agree. Marijuana does indeed contain a high amount of carcinogens. However, marijuana also contains THC, which actually helps deter cancer. "...marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which [Tashkin] said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous." [3] He states that marijuana contains 20 times the risk of lung cancer, but again, there is not a single case of lung cancer from marijuana alone [1]. On top of this, the study actually doesn't include hard evidence that links marijuana to lung cancer, but has "hypothetical" and "could" used in it, words that are not definite. The lowering of the immune system is not validly represented by my opponent. According to my opponent's source, marijuana weakens the immune system in those who already have immune system deficiencies, which is solely due to the smoke. "Smoking marijuana regularly (a joint a day) can damage the cells in the bronchial passages which protect the body against inhaled microorganisms and decrease the ability of the immune cells in the lungs to fight off fungi, bacteria, and tumor cells." [4] Again, it states this in accordance to those with immune deficiencies. To administer this medicine to these patients with deficiencies in their immune systems, marijuana should be ingested. This eliminates the smoke factor and eliminates all chance of infection in these people, while leaving the medicinal calming effect. What my opponent advocates is more pills and more artificial drugs, which end up killing a fair amount of people yearly. For example, take Vioxx. It was created to alleviate pain for arthritis, yet also created more than double the chance of heart attacks and strokes in users [5]. Marijuana, however, would not increase either of these risks, yet will alleviate that pain. Individual harms It must be made clear that 30,000 people do not die every year in Britain smoking cannabis. This is a misrepresentation of evidence by my opponent. Every reader here can look over the source. It does not state that 30K a year die, but that 30K a year could die. Here is the exact quote: "Cannabis may be responsible for the deaths of 30,000 people a year if the ill-effects of smoking the drug are comparable to those of smoking tobacco, researchers say." This is not the same as my opponent's statement. The article goes on to make hypothetical comparisons, all of which are unsubstantiated. Con's 64,000 deaths stat was not found on the link he provided, nor could I find it on some other anti-cannabis sites. Con then states that you can become mentally retarded by smoking weed and says your lungs will be annihilated. While the latter of these two has already been refuted (no lung cancer, no deaths, and actual prevention of cancer in the lungs), the former has not. Again, however, the evidence was construed from the original source. The source actually targets those under the age of 15 who have smoke cannabis. 10% of them developed schizophrenia by age 26. Obviously, just as with tobacco and alcohol, there would be age limits along with legalization. Nowhere did I advocate for no age limits. 15 is a young age where the brain is still developing. Still, the number is again a very small one (1 out of 10). Addictive- My opponent's source for this dates back to 1984, something I would consider a little too old to be using in a debate on current data and trends. Also, my sources point to the other direction. A chart was put together, comprised of a variety of drugs, in an attempt to rate them addiction wise, 1-6, 6 being highest/ very dependent. Categories were established to evaluate all facets of the drug. In dependence, marijuana got a 1, lower than coffee. It also got a one in withdrawal and tolerance [6]. This shows marijuana not to be addictive. Even if marijuana was addictive, it's irrelevant, for a user has the right to get addicted if they so wish. Why is tobacco legal? Nicotine achieved a 6 on the chart, yet it's sold in every gas station in America. "Fail at education" Again, marijuana won't be administered to kids, though the source yet again is taken out of context. 15% of car accidents in teens involve marijuana- "...often in combination with alcohol or other drugs." [7] is the other part of that article. Even so, studies suggest that those who drive after smoking are capable [1]. Family Con states marijuana users are sick more often than not. His source doesn't state this. Marijuana users don't steal money. Property damage wasn't linked in the source, which was from 1999. For characters sake, I must not elaborate too much on the remainder of the points. I will state that if marijuana were to be legalized, legitimate traders would benefit more then illegitimate. Growing on your own would obviously be prohibited, and the quality of the marijuana shops would be supreme to the shady drug dealer who lives in the dark alley who has brick weed and coke he likes to mix in....Come on, which would you pick? Political lobbying and lawsuits comes with every company. That's not sufficient reason to not legalize something. |Conclusion| I've refuted Con's points. We can all see marijuana to be harmless, beneficial to the economy, and beneficial to the patient. Thank You. Sources 1. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... 2. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... 3. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 4. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu... 5. Owen, David G., "Dangers in Prescription Drugs: Filling a Private Law Gap in the Healthcare Debate," Connecticut Law Review (Hartford, CT: University of Connecticut School of Law, February 2010) Volume 42, Number 3, p. 737 6. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... 7. http://www.drugabuse.gov...