Mary Jane should be Legal

There's a lot of points my opponent misses on my last case, and his arguments are still flawed and misconstruing, and these flaws will be inevitably damming to his case. I'll go through his responses first while re-extending my arguments along the way. Hitler didn't have the BOP! So why do I?Why is the stand-by ridiculous argument always something to do with Hitler? That isn't what this debate is about (not even counting the fact that no one debated him on his policies, otherwise he WOULD'VE had the BOP). As you are advocating for a change in the status quo, it is your job to prove why your shift is for the betterment of us all. If I can disprove it, then why ought we change? If it's not going to make things better, there's no reason to change at all. Thus, it would fall upon you to prove why we ought to legalize "Mary Jane". If you can't do that, then you lose. He doesn't explain how it affects the blood, so it must be good!Oh boy, someone obviously didn't read the article. The article is (specifically the part I mentioned) is talking about how marijuana negatively affects the blood. To quote specifically from the article, "Increases of up to 50% in heart rate and increases of up to 16 points in diastolic blood pressure have been reported. These effects could be quite serious in individuals with diabetes or heart disease." Because we all know that increasing possibility of getting a heart attack is such a swell thing. Easily extend this point as an uncontested point, proving why marijuana ought not be legalized. Smoking cigarettes and drinking have bad withdrawl stuff, so we should keep marijuana around too! Right?Wrong. Alcohol and cigarettes are an entirely seperate debate. Nothing to do with the harms of marijuana, which this point clearly illustrates. Easy extension of this point showing why marijuana ought not be legalized.There are people who smoke pot who are successful. So he has to be wrong!On average, as the two articles clearly talk about, people who smoke marijuana are a) more likely to be unsuccessful in life compared to those who do not, and b) have lower levels of income than those who do not smoke marijuana. Of course there will be exceptions, just as there are exceptions to every rule, but on average, my evidence is still true. Easy extension of this point, which proves why we ought not legalize marijuana. Marijuana helps our brain out!Awkward, considering I have two sources specifically saying the opposite of this. To quote specifically from the article, "Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory." If that helps the brain out, then sure marijuana is good for our brains. This is only true if my opponent chooses to accept the above complications as helpful rather than hurtful. Easy extensino of this point for the same reason as the above three points.Marijuana doesn't cause cancer! It just has carcinogens that aren't really carcinogens!Awkward, this just isn't true. To quote straight from my source, "Marijuana smoke contains nearly four times as much tar and 50 percent more carcinogens than tobacco" So unless my opponent wishes to debate why carcinogens don't cause cancer, he seems to be losing this point. Easy extension for the same reason as the above four points.Marijuana isn't that addictive, so people are less likely to abuse it!1. I have ample amounts of sources that prove this wrong, sources that you didn't even breathe on in your last round.2. Even if marijuana isn't that addicting, it would only then lead to more abuse, as then people could use more and more of it while still being relatively safe from getting addicted, while compared to more potent drugs that users must be careful when using to avoid addiction. So if marijuana isn't addictive, it would only then lead back to higher levels of abuse, which links harder into the problems caused by smoking marijuana. Marijuana helps ADD, ADHD, and Multiple Sclerosis!Pretty sure cancer outweighs here. Just saying... Hey! I found a source that says marijuana isn't addictive! Take that!Nice, except for the fact that you conceded my four or five sources that say the exact opposite. So I'm pretty sure I outweigh here, and am thusly winning the point. Hey! He conceded hemp has good qualities! I have to win now, right?Wrong again, good sir. I'm still winning on numerous bad health attributes of smoking marijuana, so I still outweigh.But even if, we can simply grow hemp and not smoke it. Hemp is a common material used in making rope, so we can use it for that. So I can use the same benefits he's boasting about hemp while still saying we ought not smoke marijuana. He conceded the Prohibition of Alcohol analysis! I have to be winning! Right?Again, wrong my good sir. All your sources about the Prohibition (note the capital letter, indicating event, not action) relate to alcohol harms, not harms of prohibiting (note the lack of capitalization, indicating action, not event) marijuana. So that really doesn't have any place to apply. Marijuana is a good medicine! Cross apply my other points!If all we're going to do is cross-apply arguments, cross apply my rebuttals to his points. Plus, now let's go through all the points he DIDN'T talk about how marijuana really, truly sucks.1. He conceded that marijuana causes a decrease in coordination.2. He conceded that the second-hand smoke from marijuana has negative effects on people.3. He conceded that marijuana causes negative personality afflictions in users.4. He conceded that marijuana is shown to be bad for the body.5. He conceded that marijuana causes a decrease in male's serum testosterone levels, sperm count, and sperm motility.6. He concedes that marijuana causes harmful psychological side-effects to users, such as paranoia, emotional disorders, increased risk of schizophrenia and other neuropsychiatric disorders. So these are six FULLY CONCEDED reasons as to why we ought not legalize marijuana because of the negative affects of it on our body.So at this point, the round breaks down really easily. 1. He's not fulfilling his BOP as to why legalizing marijuana is something we ought to do. Since the BOP rests solely on him, his failure to do this means that he loses.2. Even if the BOP is on both of us, I'm better fulfilling my BOP than he is, meaning that I win.3. I'm winning on five out of five of the contested reasons why marijuana shouldn't be legalized due to negative affects.4. He then conceded six other reasons why marijuana ought not be legalized for the same reason. This makes a total of 11 reasons why we ought not legalize marijuana, which also means a total of 11 reasons to vote con.Thus, I urge a con vote.