Marijuana Legislation

Con doesn't understand my argument and as a result has made claims with no fact or evidence in his rebuttal whatsoever. Therefore everything he has said can be invalid. Con obviously realises that I have very good points and knows they are true so he/she starts twisting my words to make them appear wrong to the audience (a pathetic attempt by Con to try and win). I will go from the start and explain why Con is completely and utterly wrong in his rebuttal. Con has also failed to make some points of his own and clearly has done no research to back his false claims. Sorry, Con I didn't realise you were an expert in Marijuana that you don't need to be arrogant enough to make statements without backing them up. Con will HAVE to do this the next round otherwise will have lost the debate unfortunately. Con stated 'I want to see his facts about Marijuana legalisation' Ok, Con I will dig into that first. 'Marijuana is a drug' - Con, you have not met your burden of proof and need to prove this to be the case before bullsh*tting. Marijauna in its pure form is NOT a drug, it is a natural herb/plant. Hemp is NOT Marijauna and you can't get high from it. 'Kids could go buy a notebook, and roll some papers together and get high. Also, small children would be in danger. Young kids bit and chew things, i don't know why they just do. What is your child got ahold of your Hemp notebook? Would he be in danger? Yes, he would be consuming a drug! ' is entirely false! HEMP IS THE TOUGH, COARSE FIBER OF THE CANNABIS PLANT, USED TO MAKE CORDAGE. IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THC. SO YOU CANNOT GET HIGH FROM SMOKING A HEMP NOTEBOOK! !! !! !! !! Just forfeit the debate Con as you simply are ignorant on the entire topic and are wrong with every issue you have addressed:1. 'The paper industry is very large in the United States, and if we legalized the growing of Hemp it would hurt the wood industry and give already illegal pot growing people a job. That is not fair to hard working Americans. This could create new jobs but it will also have a damaging effect on a large sector of the American economy. 'This is simply not the case. The paper industry is cutting down trees which is affecting the enviroment and is not renewably effective. It takes years t grow new trees and not only that but it is destroying habitats and forests. This will only get worse in time. Hemp grows much quicker and more effective than trees. The paper industry is currently destroying the forests, cutting down trees and causing pollution. 2. 'pro says it could be used as bio fuel if developed. If developed! That is not promising anything at all! ' Con suggests that it would take perhaps time and money and isn't 'promising'. However, this does not address all the other advantages of hemp and as a result has lost debating points as he hasn't targeted the main issue or provided evidence to support his absurd assumptions.3. 'Pro states that hemp is harder to get high off of than marijuana. I will agree with that' Thank you Con for agreeing with me. Con has forfeited some of the debate by admittting that I'm right. 4. 'Since when has enforcing a drug law been a petty waste of time and money. 'Since did you even watch the second video. The majority by far admitt that we've lost the drug war it has been a waste of time and money!5. 'He never backs his belief on why marijuana should be legalized. ' Well I have Con. Did you even read my argument or do I need to waste my time explaining again. Also you obviously didn't watch the first video as that contributes heavily to my argument. So Con has made fallacy once again.6. 'we have lost the war on drugs but we haven't stopped fighting, if we did this we would be surrendering. We would make it more easy for drug dealers to grow marijuana, and sell it! 'Never had I said that drug dealers could grow marijuana and sell it. This would remain illegal and would put an end to it because they can now go out and buy weed legally which was the reson they grow it- For the community and to make money. Now they will have lost their business completely and wouldn't want to continue risking arrestment as they could just obtain it legally.7. 'Marijuana is a drug, We have no reason to consume it, smoke it, or take it in any way. It is not healthy for the body. ' Burden of Proof? You must prove this to us as you're making the positive claim anyway. You must prove that it is not healthy for the body and that 'we' (who's we by the way) 'have no reason' to take it. Well people do first of all there are many reason why people take pot:there are plenty of medical benefits of marijuana such as helping to stimulate appetite and relieve nausea in AID’s and Cancer patients. Some believe it helps in the treatment of depression. Some states like California have brought initiatives to legalize the drug for medicinal purposes, which have proved to work exceptionally well. Marijuana is also known to relieve the symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis, Glaucoma and Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome, which is a common problem our troops are facing after coming back from Iraq. Even well respected celebrities are known to use marijuana for it’s medicinal use; American celebrity and television talk show host Montel Williams is known to use Marijuana to relieve his multiple sclerosis symptoms. Also for people that don't use it for medicinal purposes, it generally makes the users senses more intense, which is often great while eating or doing something you enjoy, basically increasing happiness while smoking. Simple is that, plus it's a plant which makes it seem more safe than many other mind altering substances.8. 'Vote Con, no reason for this to be more accessible to children, or anybody in that case. ' As I have shown through my sources, this would make it less accessible to chilren. And yes there is reason to make it accessible to anybody as for its benefits (read my response to point 7 fully). Con has still made this opposite claim however has no evidence to meet his burden of proof as the content of his argument is from his own opinion and not at all fact. He also has not responded to the two videos posted in my argument and therefore has not met his criteria.