Marijuana should have similar legal restrictions to alcohol (or less legal restrictions).

First off, I would like to make some clarifications about the resolution: (1) "Marijuana should have similar legal restrictions to alcohol" This implies that we would be changing the status of Marijuana, not changing the status of alcohol. (2) "(or less legal restrictions)" Despite my opponent's definition of this phrase, my interpretation is as follows: marijuana should have fewer legal restrictions than it does as present. This has nothing to do with alcohol. Therefore, my opponents 'ways this could be achieved' #2 is flawed. This debate is, according to the resolution, about the legal status of marijuana, not about comparing it to alcohol. I am not defending the present restrictions pertaining to alcohol, only attacking the option of legalizing marijuana. Now, to my arguments: --- [1]: I apologize for posting a contention centering around the economy/political success. I would like to rescind this parameter and open the debate to all arguments in favor of or against legalization. I simply overlooked this mistake. My opponent brings up "many artist, entertainers, and even entrepreneurs and billionaires" who use marijuana. However, this does not refute my contention. His artists and entertainers, of course, will never help us compete with rising powers across the world, and businessmen won't be much better. As stated in my first contention, what the US needs is a culture of academic success and accomplishment. By legalizing marijuana, we would destroy this golden opportunity for success. David Sims does not make his money "demonizing Marijuana." He is a Maryland state government employee on a drug abuse council. By your logic, the attorney general would be biased because he has an interest in enforcing the law. --- [2]: As for the physically dangerous aspects of marijuana use: my opponent seems very hung up on comparisons between alcohol and marijuana. This debate, however, focuses on legalizing marijuana and subjecting it to the same restrictions as alcohol. We are debating the ethics of legal marijuana use, not whether marijuana is worse than alcohol. Therefore, my opponents logic here is simply not topical. This contention does not rely as heavily on evidence about crime, as it does on evidence regarding accidents caused by marijuana. My point was that, while under the influence of marijuana, a person is unable to operate machinery (such as an automobile or a train), and is therefore likely to cause harm to others. --- [3]: Your definitions of freedom "on the web" (source?) actually support my analysis. "The condition of being free" is the best example of this. According to the ideas of John Stuart Mill, an individual cannot be free to discard their freedom. If the United States allowed its citizens to choose to become slaves, would we really be a free nation? (this is an exaggeration). The same is true with regard to drug use. Because marijuana is addictive,{1} allowing its use would be allowing Americans to reject freedom in favor of drug addiction. It is not freedom to have the option not to be free. Our government should therefore keep marijuana illegal in order to protect its citizens. --- [4]: My opponent does not truly refute my fourth contention about constitutionality. I would be interested to hear his response. --- [Marijuana vs. Alcohol]: Again, this resolution should be centered around comparing marijuana current status to its status if it were subject to the same restrictions as alcohol currently is. I agree that alcohol is not a good thing for our country, but I would appreciate it if my opponent would carefully review the resolution: the phrase pertaining to alcohol should only be read as a standard level of restriction to which marijuana would be subject if affirmed. --- [Increase in Use]: Contrary to my opponent's beliefs, drug use would increase if legalized. My opponents logic for this point does not make sense at all. If there's no punishment for an action, why would people stop performing this action? Doctor Mark Gold reports, "Surveys … find repeatedly that the greatest deterrent to drug use is fear-fear of getting caught, fear of punishment, fear of harm. Without legal sanctions against drugs, we lose a key defensive weapon." {2} By legalizing marijuana, we would only be opening up the road towards increased use. What we need to look at in this debate is, which is better for America: to impose fewer legal restrictions on marijuana, or to keep the status quo. And the obvious answer is, we must negate and preserve the status quo, because legalizing marijuana will impede our nation's progress in the global community, will cause physical harm to American citizens, and will undermine the government's reputation as a moral and ethical authority by allowing our citizens to reject freedom. My opponent continually insists on comparing marijuana to alcohol, but this has nothing to do with the resolution. Because the US has a responsibility and an incentive to keep marijuana illegal, I see no other option but to negate. {1} http://www.guardian.co.uk... {2} http://www.thefreelibrary.com...