Medical Marijuana is, on balance, an effective medicine

My opponent believes that I am not addressing his argument that marijuana is an effective medicine. I believe marijuana is an addictive drug and the claims that sometimes it is effective in reducing pain, nausea and vomiting are overstated and outweighed by its negative side effects (e.g., addictive property, cannabis-associated respiratory diseases, reduced cognitive processes, synaptic plasticity that weakens neuronal connections, increased use by teens who will believe it is OK to use even if not sick, etc.); whereas other drugs approved by the DEA and the FDA are much more effective and non-addictive, which is why there are approved as an effective medicine and pot is not. I also believe that a majority of the people who claim they need pot for medical reasons just want to get stoned legally! "Crunching the numbers; why I say almost all medical marijuana patients are faking it."Posted on November 15, 2012 http://edgogek.com...http://www.guardian.co.uk...http://www.cracked.com...My opponent also believes that legislative results are not relevant, a Red Herring, an Argumentum ad populum. But, he is overlooking the fact that legislators make their decisions based on their review of all the available medical evidence supporting the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. They decide whether that positive medical evidence is sufficient to outweigh all the negative aspects of marijuana, e.g., a six-fold increase in the incidence of schizophrenia, leukemia in children born from marijuana smoking mothers and damage to the growing fetus; addictive property, cannabis-associated respiratory disease, reduced cognitive processes, etc.My opponent"s claim that drug legalization results are irrelevant is a deductive fallacy. The only way medical marijuana can be used in any state or country legally is when the legislators agree with the alleged medical curative powers of that drug. Since most states (59%) and countries (74%) do not agree that marijuana has sufficient medicinal positive effects that outweigh the negative effects, they make it illegal, a pure and simple fact. Therefore, to say legalization is irrelevant is Reductio ad absurdum.He calls my use of drug legalization a "Red Herring." He obviously has no clue as to how to use that term correctly. The expression is mainly used to assert that the argument provided by an individual is not relevant to the issue being discussed. Again, the legislators review all available evidence as to the curative powers of a drug and its side-effects and decide whether that drug should be made legal, if they do not agree that drug is made illegal or not approved. So, it is totally relevant and is not a red herring.My opponent then calls my proof an Argumentum ad populum, which it is not. Now, if I had said that pot is bad because my 10 doctor friends said so or "that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions do it, or that Angelina Jolie is the best-looking woman in the world because she is regularly voted as such", then I would be making an argumentum ad populum. http://en.wikipedia.org...However, the popular vote in the polls he cites is definitely Argumentum ad populum. Depending on how the polling question is phrased and the segments (e.g. young, old, pot users versus non-pot users) of the population polled, the results can vary. For example, if you phrase the question "Medical marijuana is very affective at stopping people going through chemotherapy from feeling nauseous and vomiting; do you think doctors should be allowed to prescribe it to help these poor sick suffering folks?" Many will say yes. But if you phrase the question, "Marijuana is a very addictive drug that is mind altering and has negative side-effects, but, it does help some cancer victims, as do many other safer drugs with minimal negative side-effects, do you think marijuana should be prescribe or the safer non-addictive drugs?" You will get very different results. Then my opponent states that regardless of any bias, I deserve to lose this debate because I have not posted one relevant argument except "marijuana is bad." What! Is my opponent not reading the con medical marijuana studies done by doctors and scientists that I have presented? Or, does he just not fully understand all the authoritative medical support I have presented because he is a teenager - 16 years-old, or does he just reject those con studies because they do not agree with his preconceived biased notions? Or, is my opponent just one of many teenagers that are not mature enough to understand and is already convinced because of all the argumenta ad populum that are tossed out by pathetic groups like Norml. Then my opponent brings up Marinol and claims it is less effective. Really, there are hundreds of studies and comments on this by hundreds of doctors. As usually, some are pro and some are con; but, most are pro other drugs and con medical marijuana. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...But, the most conclusive proof and the only one that counts in America is the research done by the US DEA - Drug Enforcement Administration and the FDA - Food and Drug Administration."Unlike smoked marijuana -- which contains more than 400 different chemicals, including most of the hazardous chemicals found in tobacco smoke -- Marinol has been studied and approved by the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation's watchdog over unsafe and harmful food and drug products." Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. There are four-times the levels of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette."Conclusion: I have presented a plethora of facts and references to studies done by doctors and scientists to nullify my opponent's weak argument that marijuana has a positive medical use. Marijuana is a very dangerous addictive drug that needs to be banned in America. There are no positive medical uses of marijuana that outweigh all its negative aspects, especially when there are much more effective and safer drugs that have been approved by the DEA and FDA, e.g., Marinol. And, the only red herrings and argumenta ad populum being thrown around are the unsupported statements and articles cited as proof by my pot smoking teenage opponent who hasn't attained the maturity necessary to even debate this subject. Stating that my opponent is too immature to debate this subject is not an ad holmium attack, just a fact; he is too young and immature being 16 years-of-age. The founding fathers of America were smart enough when drafting the US Constitution to include the minimum ages to hold offices in the House of Representatives (25), Senate (30) and President (35). They knew that only mature adults could be trusted to run the county, not teenagers or kids. They knew that important legislative decisions should not be left to teenagers. Because of our founding fathers' insightfulness, important decisions about our laws are made by mature adults, not teenagers. Maturity is critical to ensuring that correct decisions are made for America, especially when it concerns deciding if very addictive drugs with many adverse side-effects, like marijuana should be made legal for medicinal purposes. Unfortunately, too many states are caving into the popular sentiments of mainly pot-heads and pot-head organizations that are spreading lies about marijuana being a safe drug, instead of listening