Question: Should recreational marijuana be legal?

Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: Accepted.

Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: Arguments extended.

Title: Recreational Marijuana Should Be Legal Content: Recreational use of Marijuana is an ever-present issue in our time. With the recent voting in this election for the use of it in various states, this has resurfaced as an important issue. This debate is short, and will center on facts rather than fluff.

Title: Marijuana should be legalized Content: no

Title: AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally. Content: IntroductionMy opponent believes I have misunderstand his first argument. This is not the case. The idea of making sure a drug is "safe and effective" in order to legalize it clearly pertains to medical marijuana. The FDA has allowed both alcohol and cigarettes which are less safe in comparison to marijuana (and certainly not effective in anyway). Even if this idea of safety and effectiveness does include recreational marijuana, my opponent's argument basically states that we can't make cannabis legal because under the status quo of the FDA, meaning it should stay illegal. This argument is flawed because my opponent has assumed the status quo of the FDA is legitimate. Moreover, throughout my constructive, I have shown that marijuana is a less harmful drug when compared to currently legal drugs.I will now look at each of my opponent's attacks on my constructive case...C1) Marijuana's impact on users and those around them:Psychotic Symptoms: My opponent begins by attacking my argument in which people diagnosed with schizophrenia were positively impacted by medical marijuana by saying that this debate (as I confirmed) is over recreational marijuana. This is true; however, cannabis used for recreational purpose can still have medical benefits. The two are not exclusive. I was mainly using that point to debunk the common misconception that marijuana worsens mental conditions.Mental Degradation: For this point, I had made a claim that explained the use of cannabis does not result in the loss of brain cells. My opponent attacks my source by explaining that it is outdated and the studies are not linked. The truth is, that it is difficult to find studies on marijuana / brain cell count because many regular users are unwilling to participate for fear of being caught. This point doesn't carry much weight in this debate, but I'll go ahead and address my opponents claims that state rats have lost brain cells from marijuana. The Union: The Business Behind Getting High (a documentary) explains that in such tests, animals are given an abnormal amount of marijuana; more than any human could possibly consume in such a short period of time. As with such a dose of most things, a test subject would be expected to lose brain cells (1).Marijuana as a Tobacco Substitute: For starters, I will note that the sample size for the study that proved marijuana as an effective substitute for tobacco was small. However, this does not prove the experiment to be invalid. As I have said earlier (on both sides of the argument) there is going to be an inevitable lack of evidence simply because marijuana is studied significantly less than one would expect. My opponent essentially explains that unless I can show that marijuana is less harmful than tobacco smoke, switching has no positive impact. The thing is, I have shown this through my constructive. As my fourth source has shown, smoking marijuana can increase lung capacity. Lets take another quick look at how marijuana compares to tobacco: USCF notes, "Air flow rate increased rather than decreased with increased exposure to marijuana up to a certain level (2)." As I've said before, smoking weed is not exactly *good* for one's lungs. However, it is preferable to smoking tobacco. Take a look at source two for more. Effect on Bystanders: This point was basically dropped. All my opponent did here is call out a quote from my source: "However I would like to quote the source “Research on stoned driving is inconsistent, with some studies finding impairment and others not." Now, obviously there is some degree of impairment when individuals drive while high. The argument is that the degree of impairment is significantly less to that of a drunk driver. Remember, with legalization lives are saved through this odd benefit. In Colorado alone, we see that there are 3,000 less car crash fatalities each year.C2) Unnecessary ArrestMy opponent explains that from *his* stand point, this position is irrelevant. This actually isn't quite the case. My opponent has provided no actual evidence that proved that keeping marijuana illegal is beneficial. All he has done is argue that by the standards of the FDA, it should be kept illegal. Since my opponent has provided zero evidence as to why keeping marijuana illegal is beneficial to society, there is no reason that this shouldn't be considered. I am not arguing that the state doesn't have a legal right to make such arrests; obviously, they do. This argument is more of a moral one. It is against the common good to ruin someone's life through an arrest for a victimless "crime." Also, (I'll get more into this on the money point) taxpayers pay a huge amount of money to keep these prisoners in jail.C3) Money and the EconomyMy first point went dropped by my opponent. This is definitely my most important point in this category. American taxpayers are paying around 1 billion every year to keep cannabis prisoners in jail. As I explained, the prohibition of pot has now become unfair to not only the consumer, but to the taxpayer as well. In reality, the only person that benefits when it comes to money is the drug dealers. In the words of my adversary, "Legalizing actions so they can be taxed is morally wrong." That is, of course, not the main motivation behind legalizing marijuana. There are many practical reasons to legalize cannabis and that is just one of them. He continues, "the legalized actions are not for the benefit of the people." The problem with that statement is, my opponent has done nothing to prove that legalizing cannabis hurts the common good. All he has argued is that it is within the status quo of the FDA to keep marijuana illegal. This point ultimately stands because through legalization, taxpayers won't pay for unnecessary arrests, tax revenue will benefit the states, and the economy will boom due to the new jobs.C4) Safer CannabisMy opponent has basically conceded to this point. Through legalization of marijuana, we will ultimately obtain safer cannabis. The thing we disagree on, is (a) whether or not marijuana is safe and (b) FDA's process of approving drugs. Note that alcohol and tobacco are regulated (and also more harmful than cannabis).ConclusionI have proved throughout the debate that marijuana should be legalized for a variety of reasons. As I said earlier on, even if it were harmful, that does not change the fact that though the legalization of marijuana:1. Taxpayers will stop having to pay for unnecessary arrests for victimless "crimes."2. Tax revenue will work toward the benefit of society.3. The economy will thrive.4. Cannabis will be safer.The thing is, marijuana isn't a very harmful drug. In fact (health wise) it works toward the common good.1. People use it as an alternative to tobacco (which helps the lungs).2. People use it as an alternative to alcohol (which prevents car accidents).Therefore, I firmly believe we should legalize cannabis. Thanks to con for such an interesting debate.Vote Pro!!(1) The Union: The Business Behind Getting High (Movie Website: http://www.theunionmovie.com...)(2) http://www.ucsf.edu...

Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: It is clear that Con has abandoned this debate.

Title: Marijuana should be legal Content: Marijuana is one of the more tame drugs yes but it usually leads into other drug abuse. I'm not saying that people that use marijuana for medical reasons are more likely to do crack or other hard drugs, but people who do it for recreational purposes might. Marijuana also kills braincells and makes people do things they may not do unless under the influence Source: My uncles doctor who has been treating him for drug abuse

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Content: I accept your challenge.

Title: Recreational cannabis should be illegal. Content: I accept the challenge.

Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: Contention 1: Marijuana should not be legal for recreational use because the side effects that are brought by it can be life endangering. One statistic suggests that smoking marijuana can increase one's heart rate by as much as two times for up to three hours.[1] The recreational use of marijuana could endanger the lives of those who may have heart conditions. Another side effect found in marijuana would be from the aspect of smoking the drug. The smoke will cause the lungs to be irritated and may lead to respiratory issues in the future.[2] It can be claimed that marijuana may lower pain of certain cancers and diseases, or even to be used as a medical substance, however I ask that this claim is not brought in as a contention due to the fact that this debate's main focus is regarding the recreation use rather than the medical use. If a doctor feels marijuana can be a healthy medicinal supplement, then that would be a different story. The claim that marijuana can be taxed and help our country make some much needed capital is also invalid given the fact that the health risks behind marijuana are by far much more important to worry about rather than allowing the focus to be upon tax revenue.

Title: Marijuana Should Be Legalized Content: -

Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: As I'm sure we've all heard from our health teachers, marijuana is indeed a gateway drug. Marijuana can lead to the trial of other drugs which may be even more harmful that marijuana itself. I see what you mean by saying that there have been zero deaths in history from marijuana, however that statistic is simply regarding the short term effects while being under the influence. Your contentions have completely ignored the long term effects. For example, smoke inhalation (even from cannabis,) Can cause long term effects such as cancer. This debate is about the legalization of marijuana, and not about whether cigarettes and alcohol should be legal or not. Therefore, when I describe the health risks involved in marijuana (which are proved by what I have stated in round 1,) I am speaking about marijuana, not anything else. Another reason that marijuana should not be legalized for recreational use, is because marijuana is terrible for mental health. Marijuana creates a feeling of anxiety to some user which have been linked to depression. This, I suppose would essentially be considered another health risk. With that being said, there are too many long term health risks behind marijuana, so therefore it should remain out of the hands of recreational users.

Title: Debate Topic - Recreational Marijuana ought to be legalized nationwide Content: Marijuana/Cannabis - A drug that is made from the dried leaves and flowers of the hemp plant. Recreational Marijuana - A method of usage in which the psychoactive effects of the drug are used to induce an altered state of conciousness for pleasure by modifying the perceptions; feelings; and emotions of the user. My position on this topic will be that I will be advocating for the recreational use of cannabis to be legalized nationwide. Whoever feels that they want to take me up on this debate can leave a comment below. The first round will be acceptance. The rest of the rounds will be structured as to the wishes of each debater. There is only one rule that will be set in stone for this debate - No language that is foul/slanderous should be hurled at the opponent on a personal level. Keep it professional.

Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: I believe that marijuana should be legalized for recreational use and by legalizying it, our society will benefit in certain aspects.

Title: Legal Recreational Marijuana Revisited Content: NOTE: Because it has already been established in many other debates, we know that marijuana is harmful to one's health. Unfortunately, so is alcohol, tobacco and...gasp...even the hamburgers we get from our favorite fast food chains so please don't waste your time proving that aspect. Recreational marijuana use should be legalized. Just like any other legal drug, it comes with it's own set of responsibilities and restrictions. Sure, it is unhealthy, but no worse than many other legal drugs. I feel like every other legal prescription commercial I see, has warnings about possible side effects, even "death." I am not a professional debater, and certainly not an experienced one on any level, so I know this may be unorthodox, but PLEASE list your problems with my statement with your arguments and it'd make me happy to answer/refute each one of them. :)

Title: Resolved: The possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U.S. Content: I will spend this time refuting them and then highlighting the impacts of the arguments I provided. My opponent starts out by claiming that cannabis is dangerous. Just because a chemical is dangerous does NOT mean that it should be illegal. Legality and morality do not inform one another. One could argue that prostitution, excessive alcohol, and fatty food are all "dangerous" in some sense, but no American citizen has ever argued to make all of these activities illegal. Being an American means having the discretion and liberty to take risks and to choose activities that the moral actor is comfortable with and agreeable to. This is going to be an issue with my opponent's case for the rest of this debate. Then, even if the voter still believes that morality (whether it's dangerous/harmful) should dictate legality (whether it becomes legalized), my opponent does not successfully show the dangers of cannabis. There are none. He/she states that cannabis can make you panic or give you anxiety. This is a negative side effect called paranoia, but not all strains (varieties) of marijuana result in this effect. Furthermore, the smoker has to use a large amount of marijuana in order to experience these effects. Much more frequently, people claim using marijuana because it REDUCES their anxiety and provides medical BENEFITS. My opponent says that cannabis can kill you. However, to the contrary, there have been no deaths due to marijuana use. His/her argument is not only speculative but also a slippery-slope, as he/she first needs to prove that marijuana substantially increases the rate of heartbeat and THEN that an increase in the rate of heartbeat leads to death. Neither of these have been proven. Please do not believe this ridiculous statement. My opponent brings up some more speculative arguments about what cannabis COULD do to a moral actor (i. e. someone who chooses to use it), but the problem is again that just because something is harmful does not mean that it should be illegal. He/she keeps using words like "can" and "could" and then "can" again. These arguments are speculative and are not substantiated with the evidence that my opponent tried to provide. Marijuana does not create these harmful consequences, and even if it did, these effects would not develop until decades of heavy marijuana use had occurred. My opponent also attempts to compare marijuana to tobacco and says that marijuana is five times as unhealthy, however this is nonsense. Marijuana does not have the carcinogens and nasty chemicals that comprise a regular cigarette, and while 400,000 people die from tobacco each year, zero die from marijuana use. My opponent continues with speculative arguments that might have been proposed by some biased, anti-drug group, but they are not rooted in true empirical statistics. The only other argument that my opponent tries to form is that marijuana increases crime rates. Evidence to the contrary shows the opposite. In fact, when Washington D. C. legalized cannabis in 2015, the crime rate decreased by 99% (so was just about eliminated). Why? First of all, when marijuana is legalized, police officers spend their time fighting serious crimes like murder and rape, rather than nonviolent crimes like marijuana use. This allows more violent crimes to be deterred, and therefore their rates are reduced. Perhaps a more convincing refutation is that, under my opponent's world, marijuana is ITSELF a crime. So, if marijuana were legalized, then no one who smoked pot ever again wouold be committing a crime. Quite obviously, this would reduce the crime rate, since the action in question is no longer a crime. So, in summary, here is what is wrong with my opponent's contentions:1. Just because something is harmful does not mean that it should be illegal.2. Marijuana is not harmful, and consumers use it for medicinal or at least stress-relieving reasons. My opponent's speculative claims should not be considered substantial evidence.3. Legalizing marijuana reduces or eliminates the crmie rate rather than increases it. The evidence can be substantial but is also simply intuitive: if marijuana is no longer a crime, then the "crime" goes down. I will now highlight my arguments and explain how they tie back to the framework of this debate, which is net benefits to society. Recall that the side that better demonstrates whether legalizing/criminalizing marijuana is better to society should win this debate. Contention 1: Economic benefits. Legalizing pot would create money and jobs, because we would be able to collect valuable tax revenue on something that people will use regardless of whether or not the laws allow for it. This revenue is used for health care and education. Furthermore, legalizing pot saves money, because there will be fewer prisoners that drain tax dollars due to long years of imprisonment. Contention 2: Social benefits. Legalizing pot means that police officers channel their time and attention on violent crimes, such as rape and murder, rather than silly nonviolent crimes like smoking weed. This clearly reduces the crime rate and allows for a safer society in which citizens can enjoy freedoms rather than be locked up in jail for much of their lives. Contention 3: Racial benefits. The enforcement of marijuana laws has been extremely racist and discriminatory. Author Michelle Alexander calls it "a new Jim Crow", meaning that blacks continue to have it much harder than whites when it comes to the criminal justice system, even though they are no more likely to use pot than their white counterparts. Legalizing pot prevents police officers from being able to continue with and conduct these racist enforcement procedures. Contention 4: Safer marijuana. Kepeing cannabis illegal DOES NOT DETER citizens from using it. This will be the most challenging argument for my opponent to respond to. He/she says that cannabis is harmful; even if it were, keeping it illegal does not stop people from its use. At least, with legalizing pot, we can verify that the cannabis is as safe as possible and that no sketchy drug dealers or cartels are entering the country with weed that could be laced with PCP or some truly dangerous chemical. Contention 5: Freedom of choice. Americans should be able to do whatever they want so long as their actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. This is the nation that the Founding Fathers intended, and to the most extent we let people make their own decisions. Since we let people smoke cigarettes and eat unhealthy food, they should also be able to smoke cannabis. Nothing about cannabis is harmful to the user, let alone to those who do not use it. My opponent will be expected to refute all five of these contentions with substantial evidence and reasons to believe otherwise. It is hard to argue against a legalization procedure that would create money, save money, reduce violent crimes, incerase health and safety, reduce racism, and promote the freedom of choice that responsible Americans deserve. My opponent also needs to return to his/her contentions and show why my refutations of them do not hold. Finally, he/she must tie his/her arugments back to the framework of net benefits to society. Unless my opponent is successfully able to show that the disadvantages to society of legalization overwhelmingly outweigh the advantages, the voter should vote Pro. My opponent has 48 hours to accomplish these tasks. Evidence:. http://www.drugpolicy.org...http://people.wku.edu... . http://www.drugpolicy.org...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...https://www.mpp.org...;

Title: Should recreational use of marijuana be legal in the US Content: The use of marijuana should be legal in the United States because there are little to no arguments based on scientific fact to say why it shouldn't be. Many people in the United States use marijuana whether it be legal via prescription or illegal, there are no statistics to show a death toll from marijuana use. If marijuana were legal in the same way that alcohol is it may take it out of the category of "illegal drugs" therefore somewhat nullifying the "gateway drug" argument.

Title: AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally. Content: For this round, I'll go ahead and rebut each of my opponent's claims.The Commerce Clause:Here my opponent basically explains that marijuana can be illegal, and that states have a right to prohibit the use of cannabis (and other drugs). It is important to remember that just because a state can do something, doesn't mean they should. Throughout my constructive, I have shown that keeping marijuana illegal works against the common good and takes away from freedom of the people. Though my opponent's point may be correct, this is not what we are debating today. I aim to prove that prohibition of cannabis is wrong on both a pragmatic and moral level and whether or not marijuana can be illegal has no effect on that.The FDA:I think what my opponent is trying to say with this point is that marijuana is not going to be legalized under the status quo because marijuana will not ever be found as "safe and effective." The first thing to realize is that this point is clearly talking about medical marijuana. That is not what this debate is over. Never once in my constructive did I list marijuana as a "cure" to some diseases. Rather, I explained that marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol, therefore it can be seen as a less harmful alternative to currently legal (and more dangerous) drugs. Now, if the FDA has approved tobacco and alcohol for recreational use, why should they not approve marijuana? Even if the FDA would keep marijuana illegal, within this argument, my opponent assumes that the legitimacy of the status quo to attempt to keep cannabis away from the public. If this indeed is the status quo, it works against the common good (as I have shown in my case).Laetrile:For this point, my opponent talks about a drug known as "Laetrile," explaining that Laetrile was advertised as a potential cure for cancer, but ended up being completely ineffective. My opponent then goes on to explain that the Laetrile situation is similar to Marijuana situation. This simply is not true. NPR notes, "nnobody argues that marijuana is the new laetrile. For one thing, nobody's claiming it cures any fatal diseases. But it is a departure from the usual rules of evidence for drugs (1)." If marijuana indeed is the new Laetrile as my opponent claims, evidence must be provided that shows similar properties between the two drugs. Moreover, this debate is not over medical marijuana, rather it is over recreational marijuana; I'm not trying to argue that marijuana should be legalized for medical use in this given debate so so my opponent's point ultimately proves nothing.Tobacco:My opponent proceeds to explain how the FDA used to exclude tobacco from the law, and later on began to regulate it. This point has absolutely nothing to do with the given debate. One cannot compare two drugs with almost no similar properties. I'll get more into the tobacco point in my next rebuttal.Marijuana and Making it legal:My opponent's last two points are definitely the main argument he is making in this case. He explains that, "Bbefore marijuana can be legal for consumers it must be shown to be a “safe and effective” drug because marijuana use is often confounded by other drugs or studies." Looking at the sources supporting this contention, it is quite obvious that this argument pertains to medical marijuana; obviously recreational drugs are not meant to be "effective" in any way. Even if this argument did pertain to recreational marijuana, I have proven in my constructive that marijuana is not a harmful drug, especially in comparison to alcohol and tobacco. If the FDA approves both alcohol and tobacco, why not marijuana (as I noted above)? Even if my opponent is correct and it is within the status quo to keep marijuana illegal, my opponent has provided no evidence that suggest marijuana should be kept illegal.ConclusionMy opponent's arguments pertaining to the actual negative health impacts of marijuana are very weak. I have shown in my constructive that marijuana does not harm mental health, physical health, or the well being of non smokers, and in some cases actually positively impacts it. Marijuana positively impacts the economy, and the drug will ultimately become less dangerous when bought from a reliable source. The problem with my opponent's case is that he includes no facts that actually prove society would be better of by keeping cannabis illegal.On the other hand I have shown how car accidents go down by nine percent through the legalization of marijuana, how the tax revenue will benifit the people in any area that legalizes marijuana, how cannabis legalization positively impacts the economy, and how in the end over 750,000 unneccessary arrests can be prevented.Therefore, I am pro. On to con...(1) http://www.npr.org...

Title: Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use Content: I firmly believe that marijuana should not be legalized for recreational use. It is not good for the body or for society. Legalizing it for recreational use would greatly endanger communities, and I feel that the idea of legalizing it is foolish.

Title: Resolved: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational purposes. Content: To allow for an equal debate, I forfeit this round.

Title: Marijuana should be legal Content: Whilst many use marijuana as a recreational drug or as a pain killer it depends on how you use it and why especially if its a young adult such as a 18 year old who's front cortex hasn't even developed yet

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Content: Thanks, you bring up some very good points - however, I would like to remind you that this debate discusses the recreational use of marijuana, not medical. In your first rebuttal, you describe the medicinal benefits that marijuana can possess. As of the present date, twenty-three states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows for the legal use of medical cannabis in conservative amounts. In response to your description of benefits, a carefully measured, legally dispensed amount of medical marijuana can be effective in treating or bringing relief from said medical issues. However, I would like to again highlight that this debate is centered on legalization of recreational use of the drug. As with the majority of prescription drugs, these medicines are more difficult to access than over-the-counter drugs because potential misuse could have disastrous effects. This is why a doctor's prescription is required to obtain these prescription drugs. Should marijuana be legalized for recreational use, thus giving it the same accessibility as over-the-counter drugs, it is far more likely to be misused for purposes beyond medical reasons. By keeping it as a carefully monitored, limited, and measured and prescription drug, we as people are allowed to take advantage of such benefits you have described while avoiding the disastrous effects of potential abuse. In response to your second rebuttal, it is true that a tax on marijuana could contribute to government profit. However, as I mentioned in my introductory argument, its legalization could lead to even greater hikes in national spending by needing to provide for greater health care and educational needs that would need to be met as a long-term result of the drug's harmful effects. The government also realizes and embraces the fact that there are many other forms of taxation that they currently impose to gain revenue (whether we agree on them or not), and that the consequences of recreational marijuana legalization could far outweigh the benefits. It is true, in the meantime, that America is a country founded on principles of human rights and freedom. However, our forefathers established a government for many reasons - among these is to "promote the general Welfare" of our people, as quoted from the Constitution. This concept of general welfare can be defined as "the concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...). In carrying out this mission identified in the Preamble, the government works to protect its citizens by keeping from them the dangers and threats that this drug poses to the health and welfare of society. It is much the same reason as to why the government prohibits the public from accessing nuclear weapons - but it's a free country, right? Well, yes, but the government has good reason to be keeping such potentially lethal things from public use, even if the majority of users are responsible individuals who "promise it doesn't affect them." Despite the fact that marijuana addiction itself is rare, the influence the drug (in non-medical use) can and does have upon users and those around them as described in my introductory argument is too significant to put aside. The government, though recognizing our freedoms, is remaining faithful to the law of the land by watching out for its citizens - providing safer ways of having a good time and relieving one from the pains of life. This, in my opinion, is something to be thankful for. :) Citations: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... http://www.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.archives.gov... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: Personal Choice Marijuana is a personal choice and the government has no business in regulating that of which is a personal choice among humans. The government has an interest in protecting others from external sources, but when a human makes a personal choice that will only affect their own body of their own consent; the government has no business in regulating or even denying someone the decision of acting upon these choices. Now, you may argue that the government should make marijuana illegal because when humans are high they may be under the influence. Marijuana is much like alcohol. When used correctly and appropriately everything will go fine and as intended. They are only dangerous when abused. Alcohol can be completely safe, but someone over drinking and getting drunk is the only time when alcohol ever becomes a danger. Since marijuana is not inherently dangerous when used correctly, the government should not have an interest in making it illegal. To argue against this would follow under the logic of “well some people are terrible drivers, so we should punish those who do drive correctly and just ban all cars all together since they can be dangerous.” Obviously this logic is completely flawed. Humans should have the freedom to make a decision that will only affect them, whether it is bad for themselves or not. Marijuana Prohibition Is Not Worth It Instead of illegalizing marijuana and actually making its existence disappear all together, all that really happens is that marijuana goes to the black market, where it is sold to citizens illegally. This means that despite marijuana actually being illegal, people are still going to be able to get their hands on it, and quite easily at that. Just look around you, I guarantee that you know at least a few people (if not indirectly) that do weed and are pretty open about it. Fact is, people don’t think it’s wrong, and they recognize it as a personal choice with little to no harmful effects. Seeing this as true, the government spends 7,000,000,000 dollars funding marijuana prohibition in the United States (1.) That is ridiculous, especially for something that shouldn’t be illegal at all. In addition, 60-70% of all jail inmates are in there for drug possession(1); Seeing that Marijuana is the most popular and easiest to get drug this would mean a large amount of those inmates cold be free right now. This helps solve the problem on the prison space issue that has arisen in the United States. Conclusion All humans, through their basic dignity that they are born with, should have the right to make a decision that will inherently affect their own body, whether that choice is dangerous or not. Marijuana directly falls under this category and unlike hardcore drugs, has far less harmful effects on the user, and far less chances of it being dangerous to other people around them. By keeping marijuana illegal, you degrade our free will to make decisions that will only affect us, while spending a lot of money on marijuana prohibition that could be well spent elsewhere; In addition by legalizing marijuana you free up a lot of jail space which helps solve that problem. Legalizing marijuana has many benefits for the United States and should therefore be legal. (1) http://www.changetheclimate.org... (2) http://legalizationofmarijuana.com...

Title: Recreational Marijuana should be Legalized in all 50 States. Content: Legalizing marijuana will make crime rates much much worse kids will be growing it asking friends or strangers for it more then they do now yes Marijuana may make good money but look at the risks that follows more crime rates kids getting a hold of this drug. Marijuana should only be allowed medically not recreationally if you don't have a condition that you need Marijuana then you don't need it plain and simple.

Title: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana Content: Recreational Marijuana should not be legalized. It is harmful and dangerous, and legalizing it would be no better than legalizing heroin. Addictive substances such as this should not be allowed to harm our citizens. While there is danger in legalizing it, there is no danger in keeping it illegal. Therefore, the logical solution is that recreational marijuana be kept illegal. Also, while people say that it only harms the people who use it, what about those people's friends and families? It is important to protect everyone possible from the effects of recreational marijuana.

Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: I'd like to apologize to my opponent, but I am unable to submit my arguments at this time.

Title: Marijuana should be legal Content: Although you have a valid point, people who advocate for the legal use of marijuana do not consider the whole picture. Legalization of marijuana will cause an immediate turf war among drug dealers and the cartels. In order to maintain their profits, with less drugs to sell, they will have to increase their violence. This will lead to more violent crimes. Also, marijuana should not be legal for recreational use in the United States, because there are still more marijuana addicts in the United States than any other type of addict. The marijuana addiction is still treated more than alcohol or any other addiction in treatment centers in the United States. Marijuana should not be legalized, because people become addicted to it, and it is needless.

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Content: I just want to say that marijuana, while proven to have some negative side effects, are nothing compared to another recreational drug, alcohol. The side effects of marijuana are often temporary, and can be reduced to none when the drug is no longer in the users system. Marijuana as a medicine is often much safer than the legal counterparts, prescription drugs. Side effects from prescription drugs often include death, organ failure, etc.

Title: Should Marijuana be legalized Content: I accept

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Content: Hello, my name is dtien and I accept your challenge.

Title: Medical as well as recreational marijuana should be legal in all US states Content: The matter of legalizing medical marijuana is an important issue for several reasons. From the data observed in the link below [1] there are currently 23 states with laws legalizing marijuana, some still more restrictive than others. This of course is a significant step in the right direction. However, I believe that all states should follow the examples of Alaska, Colorado, Washington and Oregon to legalize not only cannabis for medicinal usage but also for recreational consumption. I will list my reasons further below. Before doing so I would like to specifically define the meanings of marijuana itself and respectively medical and recreational cannabis to avoid any confusions or misunderstandings. Marijuana is defined as "a commonly used illegal drug made from dried leaves of the hemp plant" and "a strong-smelling plant from whose dried leaves a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs are prepared." Marijuana goes by many other names such as cannabis, hemp, weed etc. [2] Medical marijuana is defined as the usage of marijuana for medical or medicinal purposes. [3] [4] Recreational marijuana is defined as any other recreational drug which is described as "a drug (as cocaine, marijuana, or methamphetamine) used without medical justification for its psychoactive effects often in the belief that occasional use of such a substance is not habit-forming or addictive." [6] I acknowledge the many different types of marijuana that exists for different purposes, most, I understand, are hybrids made for different specific medical needs. However I do not know enough on the subject of them, their effects and upsides as well as downsides. I would therefore appreciate if this debate could be exclusively on the matters of the aforementioned descriptions of cannabis, medical and recreational. Now I will present my arguments as to why I believe medical and recreational marijuana should be legalized in all US states.R32;R32;First of all I would like to point out that there is no scientific background with evidence as to exactly why marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug in the first place. The definition of a Schedule 1 drug from the Drug Enforcement Administration itself clearly states, that "Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."[6] This definition leaves no room for doubt that no Schedule 1 drug has any medical use. However it has been a known fact for centuries that cannabis has been used for medical purposes with positive effects. This can easily be found true when looking at many different sources. Here I have merely linked one. [7]R32;The National Institute on Drug Abuse also states that there are medical benefits from marijuana. [8] R32;There can be many reasons as to why marijuana was classified the way it was and still has not been re-classified but that is a completely different debate. Here are links with possible explanations that no matter what do not justify why it was classified so harshly. [9] [10] R32;All in all, there can be no doubts that this classification of marijuana is deeply illogical and misleading. Second, I would like to stress that America would merit tremendously from the economic profits caused by legalizing marijuana. It can be no surprise to any logical thinking creature that America spends enormous sums of money on dealing with and prohibiting crime related to illegal marijuana sales and consumptions. All of this money would of course not be spent if marijuana was legalized. In stead I propose that all states start off like Oregon, Alaska, Washington and Colorado by legalizing recreational marijuana as well. These states all have different laws that specifically suits them and I believe this is a good way to start. R32;R32;The legalization of medical as well as recreational marijuana would be the only solution to properly profit economically from the marijuana businesses that are currently not legal. This is because these businesses will probably still exist if only medicinal marijuana was legalized. [11] [12] Third and last I believe, as mentioned, that marijuana should be legalised for recreational use. This is because I believe in every individual"s right to care for him or herself"s own health and decide what is best. Especially when it comes to smoking tobacco or marijuana for pleasure. I am aware of the fact that marijuana has other effects than regular tobacco smoking. However tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable death here in America and I do not see how it in any aspect is justifiable, that tobacco smoking has no legal restrictions when a harmless plant such as cannabis is classified as a schedule 1 drug and illegal in most states. [13] I believe that cannabis should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Of course all sale should be done by an approved salesperson to ensure and uphold a certain safety. This will still leave room for illegal sales but not in the same measure as it is now. I am not trying to say that tobacco smoking should be classified as a schedule 1 drug as well. I am saying that the laws making marijuana illegal are so illogical that I am astonished this can happen in a well educated country in the 21st century. http://www.governing.com... https://www.vocabulary.com... http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com... https://www.leafly.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.dea.gov... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... https://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.ibtimes.com... http://www.drugwarrant.com... http://www.dailydot.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.cdc.gov...

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use Content: Reading over it, we see eye to eye on many things. I would like to stress that most of his points he is trying to make however are based solely on opinion with no legitimate sources to back up his arguments. That being said his opinions are relate very closely to mine but as stated in my previous argument they're again some fundamental differences that separates us. 1. No, would legalizing marijuana for recreational use have any impact on lowering the instances of driving while high? No, obviously, however having it illegal will not lower the instances of driving while intoxicated on Marijuana either. The point that I was making is its been proven in fact that driving while intoxicated on Marijuana is substantially safer than driving while intoxicated on Alcohol or other legal prescription drugs such as: Xanax, and Hydrocodone. I do not condone driving under the influence or implying that it is safe, however I am saying that it is significantly safer than other legal narcotics available, I am implying that the punishment for doing so should be no where near classified of that on the same level as Driving under the influence of Alcohol and I see no need for their to be implemented devices to check if someone is intoxicated on Marijuana while driving. 2. Con makes a very valid argument here where he states about his concern with the quality and safeness of Marijuana if it is mass produced by large corporations. I will begin my argument here by pointing out a section in your post in which you state: "it is legal to grow fruit, and yet local products are still more expensive. " This is a valid point and by theory is correct, fruit and vegetables are legal to grow and yet big corporations still rule the market, by theory this is correct however I feel you are comparing Marijuana too much to Fruit and other foods. The reasons why more people do not grow their own fruits and vegetables is because of time and land. To grow a full sized Apple tree it takes approximately 2-3 years to grow and mature and require a significant amount of land to grow many trees. This plays a big part as Marijuana cultivation takes approximately 6-10 weeks from from seed to harvest and require little amount of land for a large amount of crop which also yields a significant amount of Marijuana. I am not denying the fact that pesticides will not be used in the production of legal Cannabis because they probably will and they are used today, the fact of the matter is they're not necessary to use as pesticides can actually harm the plant as any good grower would no. Cheaper alternatives such as bat guano (. http://www.marijuanafertilizers.com...) are great natural non-toxic fertilizers. Con is also neglecting the fact of other alternative growing of Marijuana such as Hydroponics which involves growing the Marijuana in water. As I stated before I cannot refute the fact of Pesticides as a potential hazard in the legalization of Cannabis but I do not think it should have any matter in the fact of Legalization of Cannabis. 3. This is the biggest disagreement that I have had so far with Con's proposal. Where he has made several hypocritical remarks in which he states "War on Drugs has been ineffective" and then states "eliminating the source of these drugs rather than discouraging its use with insane punishments for users. " Most of the illegal plants grown such as Marijuana, Papi (Which produces Opium), and Coca; are significantly grown in 3rd world countries in which we have no control over the production for political reasons, the domestic grow and the war on drugs has also been severely ineffective. The war on Marijuana alone has cost the United States an estimated $42 Billion and 738,916 arrests for simple possession of Marijuana (. http://www.alternet.org...), Think of all the things that the United States government could accomplish with an extra $42 billion. turning non-violent offenders into harden criminals and filling up prison cells where violent inmates need to be housed. It takes approximately ï¿½31,106 ($42,000) to house these non-violent inmates on top of that $42 billion. On top of that law enforcement has confiscated and destroyed millions upon millions of plants throughout the year and have not made a dent. The fact of the matter is Marijuana will be cultivated, produced, and sold no matter what the government does, the War on Cannabis is a failure so might as well tap into the money that we would save to pay for more important things like Health care and teachers which we so desperately need. Legalization of marijuana would take billions of dollars away from these drug cartels in fact hurting them more than spending billions of dollars fighting this endless war on drugs which we will never win. We have already been working with every organization possible and it still has had little impact on anything. 4. Con makes a valid point here but is digging way to deep into this when he states that "Why get an endorphin release from exercise when you can smoke a joint and feel twice as good? " A recent Government study indicates that over 83 Million people over the age of 12 years old will try Marijuana before they graduate school, and an estimated 200 Million Americans smoke it; on top of another 200 million will try it for the first time, Con is trying to imply that legalization of Marijuana will lead to a nation of "lazy stoners" which is simply not the case. The legalization of Marijuana I believe will have little effect on the amount of people who smoke it (But will obviously increase slightly. ) Legalization will simply take away the harsh punishments of smoking this benign plant freeing up billions upon billions of dollars, clearing up prison cells in our crowded prisons. I believe if we should endorse anything endorse something that has many benefits, that actually relaxes you, and something that will generate billions of dollars to the economy and have numerous positive effects on the nation as a whole, Prohibition doesn't work, it has never worked, thus why not take advantage of it. Thank you to my readers and to Con, I have had a wonderful time debating with you so far and look forward to your future response. I urge my readers to look over my argument and see the facts that are clearly laid out and see that I am the correct side to vote for! Thank you, I am looking forward to your rebuttal!

Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: I have decided not to reveal my opinion, so the fact I'm supporting legalization in this debate does not necessarily reflect my personal stance on the matter.

Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: I would like to begin this round addressing my opponent's concern over my not directly refuting his arguments. I am not obligated to refute his argument. As long as I can present a coherent case in favor of marijuana legalization, any other case can be superseded by the validity of the ones I develop. My case my or may not directly conflict or address my opponent's case. As it stands, my contentions actually do refute those set by my opponent despite my not addressing my opponent's contentions directly. I will now bring up several points which my opponent has conceded: 1. Marijuana is harmful and addictive. It destroys worker productivity and potential. My opponent than defaults into the individual choice contention which I will show is irrelevant in a moment. 2. The number of marijuana smokers will increase manifold. I propose the estimate of 100million based on numbers presented in the previous round. This is easily 2/5 of our nation's population 3. Uninformed perspective: let me provide an analogy. A vendor offers a product that is pleasurable to use. This product works thus: users who gain first exposure of this product are implanted with an artificial urge (addiction) to reuse the product over and over again. The product also functions as a severely damaging agent to the user's ability to move or think clearly. The buying masses are completely unaware of the product's negative effects. The product's vendors allow the misconception that its product is harmless to spread. Many customers, some even directly opposed to addictive and harmful products, are tricked into first trying and then becoming addicted to the product. Addiction then factors in to the customer's choice to commit repeated patronization. This is choice? Really? As I have established, drugs like marijuana and opium are lethal to society. In terms of health-related mortality directly attributable to smoking it, marijuana is less harmful than tobacco, a legal substance. Marijuana's lethality is in its ability to severely and permanently detriment a user's motor and cognitive capabilities (conceded by my opponent), incapacitating the abuser's power to work (conceded by my opponent). Since the fact that a massive increase in the number marijuana abusers and the decrease in the abusers' abilities to work are conceded, my conclusion is uncontested: marijuana will severely detriment 2/5 of our economic productivity, effectively destroying our economy. (answer to my opponent's question on China's economic status prior to opium: China was the most powerful nation in the world. Its economic prowess was the largest in the world from the 14th to late 17th century[1].. how is this even relevant?) Opponent: "Then obviously, the biggest one of all: In the story it says the entire working class...." I never said this. 'Entire working class'? Quote me. Don't put words in my mouth. The China example was to show that the destruction of a nation's economy due to a single drug has happened before and is not unrealistic at all. -Marijuana impairs individuals' ability to function in society -Marijuana is addictive; many will smoke marijuana -Marijuana will impair many individuals' ability to function in society. -Marijuana will destroy our economy Uncontested: marijuana will destroy 2/5 our economy if legalized. Therefore, marijuana, contrary to my opponent's assertions, does in fact affect more than just the individuals who smoke it. The downfall of an economic output means an aggregate loss in productivity, purchase ability, and sales. Basic economics: decreased sales in one sector means decreased sales in another sector. I will present in detail EXACTLY the way marijuana will destroy our economy: Example 1: car companies losing millions of buyers will stop producing millions of cars and buy less material, affecting a large number of other companies: steel companies, rubber companies, etc. Now making less money, these companies will fire many workers. These workers are now unable to purchase, meaning less car sales, meaning less steel, rubber, gas, etc. needed. Less materials needed, more are fired, etc. etc. Example 2: car companies lose ability to produce millions of cars, will stop buying materials from other companies, same cyclical effect of example 1. Materials company lose ability to produce a massive quantity of materials (cotton company for example). To not lose money, these companies need to raise prices (and fire people).. raised prices and decreased production means companies whose products rely on the material will only be able to produce as much as they are able to buy. Increased prices means more money is needed. However, with decreased aggregate sales (marijuana causation) and productivity, the company needs to cut back, fire people, produce less. Many will lose jobs, lose the ability to get jobs, money will be in harsh demand; people will starve. On what basis does my opponent declare this unrealistic? My opponent refutes my contentions by assertively calling them 'illogical'. Opponent: "marijuana is not inherently dangerous" My opponent has been vaguely strewing the adverb 'inherently' everywhere and fails to establish what exactly he means when he does so. Opponent: "My opponent"s key arguments seem to be that since marijuana has the potential to negatively affect the society, it should therefore be illegal." Me: This refutation is completely ludicrous. Not only does marijuana have this potential, the probability of this potential being realized is, as according to facts (and my opponent's concessions to my several contentions), proven to be almost completely assured with legalization. How is this not sound? Conclusion: I've undermined my opponent's entire argument by solidifying the fact that marijuana WILL almost assuredly affect more than just those who smoke it; meeting my burden of proof against legalization On to the voters! [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally. Content: This debate is for the Adopt a Noob Tournament. My opponent is Rings48. My opponent and I would like to clarify before this debate begins: there will be no semantics. Good luck, Rings 48. I am looking forward to a great debate. Also, thanks in advance to the voters.

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use Content: I believe that Marijuana should be legalized for Recreational use. I will let my opponent go first.

Title: Recreational Marijuana should be Legalized in all 50 States. Content: There was pretty much no argument there... I think it was supposed to be about medicinal purposes, but Cannabis has over 80 cannabinoids that help people. That's all besides the fact though because this debate is specifically about recreational marijuana (it's in the issue statement). Can I just point out the fact that prohibition *never* works. The United States prohibited alcohol for 13 years (1920-1933), and people drank through the entire thing. This is something I hold near and dear to my heart, being a Wisconsinite where they teach us specifically how stupid it was during social studies classes. So now, we've been in the War on Drugs for almost 40 years. Seems a little silly, doesn't it?

Title: AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally. Content: Pro has dropped my argument:I am going to start this final round by a quote from my initial argument. The premises still stand."P1: Drugs must be "safe and effective" to be sold.P2: Marijuana is a drug.P3: Marijuana has not been proven effective for its possible risks.P4: Marijuana research has not proven it to be safe.C1: Marijuana has not been proven "safe and effective" and should not be legalized for sale."Pro says "This argument is flawed because my opponent has assumed the status quo of the FDA is legitimate" and I am just going to point to my R2 argument that was never rebuttaled.Rebuttals to Con's Argument:Marijuana compared to Tobacco and Alcohol - I am just going to rebuttal any reference to them here. I started my argument the way I did for a reason and information on this can be found at my sources in the first argument. Tobacco and alcohol due to their history before the FDA have largely been exempted from laws about drugs. Tobacco has only just recently come under scrutiny of the FDA in the last few years. *Jumps up and down pointing at R2* If you would like to associate marijuana to substances that are not controlled, it allows me to associate substances that definitely should be controlled like heroin and 'shrooms. Tobacco and alcohol are not a justification for marijuana because its premise would allow me to justify it being illegal by other drugs. C1) Marijuana's impact on users and those around them:Pro's contention is primarily based on arguments that are generally used by those against drug legalization. To this point, Pro has still not shown definitive research on marijuana being safe for the AVERAGE (not schizophrenic) consumer. By law, a drug must be proved safe and not the other way around.Effects on Bystanders - Kind of weird that Pro says I dropped a point but quoted me on it... "However I would like to quote the source "Research on stoned driving is inconsistent, with some studies finding impairment and others not." Now, obviously there is some degree of impairment when individuals drive while high." I rest my case."This is true; however, cannabis used for recreational purpose can still have medical benefits. The two are not exclusive." - Pro just affirmed my argument by pointing to the fact that though marijuana has recreational uses, it is still a drug. And well drugs need to be".. *feeling like a broken record* "safe and effective". Marijuana vs Tobacco - "the typical exposure to marijuana is much lower than for tobacco" [1] Again quoting from Pro's source for the reason marijuana and tobacco affects the lunges differently. C2 and C3) Is Marijuana Beneficial for Society:These points have basically become compressed to whether marijuana is beneficial for the society so to make this final round a little shorter.I have already rebuttaled whether marijuana benefits the economy [R3] and my opponent failed to arguing against my rebuttal."This point ultimately stands because through legalization, taxpayers won't pay for unnecessary arrests, tax revenue will benefit the states, and the economy will boom due to the new jobs."The reason to regulate drugs is to protect ourselves (society) from disinformation on drugs and to limit the possible negative effects a drug might have on our bodies. We have agreed as a country by making laws to allow the FDA to regulate the drugs and to make them illegal unless the drug is safe for our bodies and to be effective in its labeled benefits. We created laws that put people in jail for the sale of illegal drugs and agreed to foot the bill to put people in jail. The arrests are not "unnecessary" and "unfair to the taxpayer".C4) Safer Cannabis - "The thing we disagree on, is (a) whether or not marijuana is safe and (b) FDA's process of approving drugs." No contention.Conclusion:"1. Taxpayers will stop having to pay for unnecessary arrests for victimless "crimes."*Rebuttaled* 2. Tax revenue will work toward the benefit of society.*Rebuttaled * 3. The economy will thrive.*Rebuttaled * 4. Cannabis will be safer.*Agreed as irrelevant* The thing is, marijuana isn't a very harmful drug. In fact (health wise) it works toward the common good. 1. People use it as an alternative to tobacco (which helps the lungs).*Rebuttaled * 2. People use it as an alternative to alcohol (which prevents car accidents)."*Rebuttaled, from the same source"*I shall continue to stand on:P1: Drugs must be "safe and effective" to be sold.P2: Marijuana is a drug.P3: Marijuana has not been proven effective for its possible risks.P4: Marijuana research has not proven it to be safe.C1: Marijuana has not been proven "safe and effective" and should not be legalized for sale.*the bell rings, and I start screaming "Adrian" and walking around aimlessly in the middle of the ring* Thanks for the great debate-bility![1] http://www.ucsf.edu...

Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: *I'm glad you brought that up, and I will address this concern in this round immediately in a sequential manner before proceeding to my points._________________________________________________________________________________________Concerning Accessibility of Cannabis-If cannabis was legal, like alcohol, it would obviously have an age requirement. Also, it would be handled by less shady and more responsible people, in pharmacies, and not by the current drug dealers, who'd sell them to anyone. Instead, these people who sell marijuana would ask for ID before selling marijuana to a customer, just like with alcohol. Hypothetically, they will never sell cannabis to "kids". -The only way people nowadays can obtain cannabis in the US, is through illegal drug dealers. If Marijuana was completely legal in the US, THERE WOULD BE NO DRUG DEALERS, because everyone can get it at a pharmacy or a shop. They wouldn't have to rely on drug dealers. Without drug dealers, no one will sell cannabis to kids until they reach the required age. -However, it is not to say that kids cannot get their hands on marijuana. It is plausible for them to obtain marijuana from someone like their older siblings or parents. -Therefore, if marijuana was legalized, the accessibility of cannabis for kids will actually DECREASE, if not remain constant._______________________________________________________________________________________Now I shall proceed to my points.Healthwise:-Marijuana isn't as bad for your health as most people think. Studies have shown that casual marijuana smoking is not harmful to your lungs, and that it possibly can even increase lung capacity (which is good). -While it does have potential negative effects on your health, they are much less severe than alcohol and tobacco, which ARE legal. According to statistical analysis done by researchers, cannabis does a LOT more harm than alcohol and tobacco, which are legal drugs. -So my question to Con is: If alcohol and tobacco are legal but harms people more than cannabis, which hardly harms anyone at all, why can't cannabis be legal? http://www.livescience.com...http://edition.cnn.com...Crime Reduction due to Legalization-Marijuana use is not a serious crime. It has been established earlier that that marijuana use has less negative effects than alcohol and tobacco, which are legal drugs. -If Marijuana is legalized, it allows police to focus on actual crimes; crimes that are actually serious/dangerous/harmful to people, rather than people smoking marijuana and hasn't hurt anyone.-A huge problem in the United States today is that there have been too many arrests and too many people in jail. Of the people in jail, 3/4 of a million people were arrested for marijuana. These people have done nothing wrong, yet they're in jail. Furthermore, a lot of these people were framed. There have been cases where good samaritans find cannabis on the ground and give it to the police, who arrest these good people because they held cannabis. This is unfair and a waste of money for the government to fund their time in jail. -Therefore, by legalizing cannabis, less people are in jail, which solves the problem I mentioned earlier about too many people in jail/http://www.rawstory.com...;http://www.cnbc.com...;http://www.huffingtonpost.com..._______________________________________________________________I will leave with this for now. Thank you Con for accepting my challenge. I plan to make more points in future rounds.

Title: Marijuana Should Be Legalized Content: I accept the challenge and hope for at good and fair debate. In the next round Pro should clarify precisely what regulations he means, otherwise it makes no sense to debate this. It should also be clear in which country or state this should happen if it has relevance to the regulations. This is an important point, and I shouldn't have accepted the debate before he made this clear. That being said, here are my arguments:Marijuana as a recreational drugThe active substance in marijuana is called THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol). It affects receptors in the brain called cannabinoid receptors. We have naturally occurring neurotransmitters similar to THC called endocannabinoids that play an important role in the brain development and function, and the highest amount of cannabinoid receptors is found in parts of the brain that influences pleasure, memory, thinking, concentration, sensory, time perception and coordinated movement. Marijuana affect us by overactivating the endocannabinoid system. ”Research has shown that, in chronic users, marijuana's adverse impact on learning and memory persists after the acute effects of the drug wear off; when marijuana use begins in adolescence, the effects may persist for many years. Research from different areas is converging on the fact that regular marijuana use by young people can have long-lasting negative impact on the structure and function of their brains.” [1] Overall it isn't easy to find unbiased sources when it comes to the effects of marijuana, but most studies show that the effects are overall negative when used for recreational purposes – not as a medical substance. Also, I think it's common sense to most people that smoking or eating marijuana is not exactly healthy. Arguing that it has positive health effects in some areas (see below) is not relevant in this case, since the negative effects are far greater.Marijuana as a medical substanceThe Food and Drug Administration has made a sorted list of drugs in relation to how dangerous or addictive they are. According to the FDA there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision.[2] Interestingly enough they approve THC as a medicine because it has certain beneficial effects such as relieving nausea associated with chemotherapy and also to help appetite in patients that won't eat. However, marijuana as a whole are not approved for a number of reasons: First of all there haven't been sufficient studies to show that the benefits outweighs the risks in patients it is meant to treat.[3] Secondly, legitimate medicine must have well-defined and measurable ingredients that are consistent from one unit (e.g. pills) to the next, and marijuana does not live up to this criteria. It contains over 400 chemical compounds besides THC and research from 2009 shows that about 80 of these are biologically active cannabinoids, only found in marijuana.[4]Thirdly, marijuana has negative effects on especially the brain, as I stated earlier. Remember that marijuana and THC are not the same, and here we are debating marijuana.ConclusionI have shown that marijuana, whether used recreationally or as a medicine, cannot be considered safe and for those reasons alone would be unwise to legalize. There are other reasons why one might not legalize marijuana, but since this is the first round I'll wait and see what Pro has to say about it. [1] http://www.drugabuse.gov... [2] http://www.fda.gov... [3] http://www.drugabuse.gov... [4] http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreation use Content: (It is okay, you need to learn sometime. Welcome to the site by the way! You are sure to enjoy it).1. Logic: We already have far more dangerous drugs such as Tobacco and Alcohol legalized. Did you know that it is NOT POSSIBLE to consume a marijuana overdose? It, however, IS POSSIBLE to consume a dangerous alcohol or tobacco overdose. And if those two drugs are legalized and are more dangerous, and marijuana is banned, what kind of logic is that? If marijuana is not legal then neither should be many other drugs that are far more dangerous than marijuana and are legal anyway. 2. Profit: When you buy a product, there will be a tax - we all know that. So if people are allowed to buy this substance, of course there will be a tax on it. The government will gain profit and BENEFIT from this legalization - it is a win-win for everyone!3. Choice: We all have the freedom of choice, weither it is to take a shot, smoke a cigarette, or make a huge decision. We all know that Marijuana is dangerous - we all get it, drugs are bad (and so are tobacco and alcohol); but we should let people have the CHOICE if they want to consume such substances or not. After all, we are in the United States of America; and isint FREEDOM what being an American citizen is all about?4. Prisons: Check out this data table: US Arrests As Reported By FBI UCR Program Year Total Arrests Total Drug Arrests Total Marijuana Arrests Marijuana Trafficking/Sale Arrests Marijuana Possession Arrests Total Violent Crime Arrests Total Property Crime Arrests 2012 12,196,959 1,552,432 749,825 91,593 658,231 521,196 1,646,212 2011 12,408,899 1,531,251 757,969 94,937 663,032 534,704 1,639,883 2010 13,120,947 1,638,846 853,839 103,247 750,591 552,077 1,643,962 2009 13,687,241 1,663,582 858,408 99,815 758,593 581,765 1,728,285 2008 14,005,615 1,702,537 847,863 93,640 754,224 594,911 1,687,345 2007 14,209,365 1,841,182 872,720 97,583 775,137 597,447 1,610,088 2006 14,380,370 1,889,810 829,627 90,711 738,916 611,523 1,540,297 2005 14,094,186 1,846,351 786,545 90,471 696,074 603,503 1,609,327 2004 13,938,071 1,746,570 773,731 87,329 686,402 586,558 1,644,197 2003 13,639,479 1,678,192 755,186 92,300 662,886 597,026 1,605,127 2002 13,741,438 1,538,813 697,082 83,096 613,986 620,510 1,613,954 2001 13,699,254 1,586,902 723,628 82,519 641,109 627,132 1,618,465 2000 13,980,297 1,579,566 734,497 88,455 646,042 625,132 1,620,928 1999 14,355,600 1,557,100 716,266 85,641 630,626 644,770 1,676,100 1998 14,528,300 1,559,100 682,885 84,191 598,694 675,900 1,805,600 1997 15,284,300 1,583,600 695,201 88,682 606,519 717,750 2,015,600 1996 15,168,100 1,506,200 641,642 94,891 546,751 729,900 2,045,600 1995 15,119,800 1,476,100 588,964 85,614 503,350 796,250 2,128,600 1990 14,195,100 1,089,500 326,850 66,460 260,390 705,500 2,217,800 1980 10,441,000 580,900 401,982 63,318 338,664 475,160 1,863,300 Total 1996-2012 236,438,421 28,002,034 12,318,682 1,549,101 11,427,813 10,421,804 28,750,970 - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org... As you can see, many people are being arrested for possesion of marijuana which is a NONVIOLENT crime. Isint prison a place for people who commited violent crimes? Why are we putting people in jail for doing something that is only going to be harmful for themselves in the long run - and not for innocent bystanders?I rest my case for now and I am looking forward to your follow-up arguments ~ Sara :) Evidence citations:http://www.drugwarfacts.org...http://www.antiwar.com...http://whylegalizemarijuana.com...http://theweek.com...https://www.change.org...

Title: Marijuana should be legal Content: I have accepted this debate and shall be arguing the con side, saying that recreational marijuana, as I assume we are talking about recreational and not medical, should not be legal. My opponent will be arguing that recreational marijuana should indeed be legal.Because my opponent has neglected to lay out some rules, I feel obligated to do so. Proper grammar and spelling should be used at all time. All sources, if any, must be cited. All arguments must be sophisticated. Because that is all I wish to say, I await Pro's arguments for the legalization of recreational marijuana.

Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: This is a debate about whether or not marijuana should be legal for recreational use. My stance is against the use of recreational use. This first round is for acceptance so please post something like "I accept your debate" for round 1. The remaining three rounds are for contention and debate. Legitimate debaters only.

Title: The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use Content: Thanks for the debate.

Title: should marijuana be legalized for recreational use Content: The war on drugs is a big failure. Marijuana has been in use for hundreds of years and has not been contributed to a single death. Marijuana is not a gateway drug, it's not physically addicting, it doesn't kill brain cells... The propaganda surrounding marijuana is deceitful and just plain stupid. This plant will only benefit us instead of being detrimental as many may think. Stereotypes placed on marijuana ussers are stupid and lame. Almost every celebrity smokes weed or hides joints in their coats and they've all become millionaires.Another reason marijuana should be legal is for hemp. Hemp is marijuana not used for smoking but to create products. It can make paper, clothing, fiberboard twice as strong as wood and much much more. It is illegal to grow because it is conjuncted in with marijuana.

Title: Marijuana should be legalized Content: Full resolution: "Marijuana should be legalized for recreational and medical purposes in the United States. I thank SocialPinko for hosting this tournament. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legalized. Definitions: Should- indicating a desirable or expected state [1] Recreational- any substance with pharmacologic effects that is taken voluntarily for personal pleasure or satisfaction rather than for medicinal purposes. [2] Medical- curative; medicinal; therapeutic [3] This will be 4 rounds, the first being acceptance and clarifications if my opponent wishes to state any. The last round will NOT include new sources. Use of unorthodox semantics (discretion of voters) should be seen as a loss. Good luck! 1. http://oxforddictionaries.com... 2. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Title: should marijuana be legalized for recreational use Content: Yes, you are correct but WRONG prohibition of alcohol did not work but that was a legal substance that was made illegal and alcohol was socially accepted before the prohibition but marijuana was always illegal an not socially accepted in many parts of the world . So you cannot compare the two prohibitions because you will have different outcomes your, bases is flawed. your argument is wrong. YES your right but WRONG because alcohol is regulated. Therefore drug dealers cannot make illegal underground profits. So they make more money selling marijuana and not giving any money to the government. More money then selling to underage kids a product that their older siblings can get without extra cost. It is not that marijuana is easy to get but it just that you can get more money selling marijuana then alcohol. However criminals like drug dealers sell underage girls (human trafficking) does this mean you are advocating the legalization of selling girls or heroin? Also just because something cannot be eliminated for example people committing crimes it does not mean we should not continue to keep this harmful product from being easily obtainable for the greater good of society.

Title: Resolved: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational purposes. Content: Resolved: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational purposes.I will be affirming this topic today, because my view (at least for the purposes of this debate) is that the decriminalization of marijuana has no place in society.Here are my conditions for a successful debate:Round 1 - agreement to debate, introductionRound 2 - definitions, burdens, values, and contention-level argumentsRound 3 - refutations to the arguments and conditions created in Round 2Round 4 - summary and crystallization of the key arguments and voting issueHere are a couple of observations hat I have with respect to the previous structure. NEITHER PRO NOR CON MAY DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS. These should be automatic grounds for disqualification:1. beginning contention-level arguments, definitions, values, burdens, or observations in Round 12. doing any refutations of the opponent's arguments in Round 2 (ex: Con cannot spend his/her Round 2 speech refuting my arguments from Round 2)3. trolling, loitering, or being disrespectful to the opponentAnd finally, a couple of expectations for the round (so long as my opponent agrees to them):1. use evidence, statistics, and examples to illustrate arguments2. follow through with impacts to arguments, clearly defining how each links back to the values and burdens stated at the beginning of the Round 2 speeches3. sign-post arguments (ex: using contentions or benefits)I will NOT make any definitions or specific arguments until the Con accepts this debate.I look forward to this debate!

Title: Legalize Marijuana for ALL uses. Content: Marijuana should be completely legalized for medical and recreational use. Marijuana is completely safe. Marijuana is very healthy. The illegality of Marijuana and criminalization of Marijuana users is an unnecessary and harmful restriction on American culture and its citizens. I await someone to challenge these three points.

Title: The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use Content: My opinion has chaned.

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Content: 1. Logic: We already have far more dangerous drugs such as Tobacco and Alcohol legalized. Did you know that it is NOT POSSIBLE to consume a marijuana overdose? It, however, IS POSSIBLE to consume a dangerous alcohol or tobacco overdose. And if those two drugs are legalized and are more dangerous, and marijuana is banned, what kind of logic is that? If marijuana is not legal then neither should be many other drugs that are far more dangerous than marijuana and are legal anyway. 2. Profit: When you buy a product, there will be a tax - we all know that. So if people are allowed to buy this substance, of course there will be a tax on it. The government will gain profit and BENEFIT from this legalization - it is a win-win for everyone!3. Choice: We all have the freedom of choice, weither it is to take a shot, smoke a cigarette, or make a huge decision. We all know that Marijuana is dangerous - we all get it, drugs are bad (and so are tobacco and alcohol); but we should let people have the CHOICE if they want to consume such substances or not. After all, we are in the United States of America; and isint FREEDOM what being an American citizen is all about?4. Prisons: Check out this data table: US Arrests As Reported By FBI UCR Program Year Total Arrests Total Drug Arrests Total Marijuana Arrests Marijuana Trafficking/Sale Arrests Marijuana Possession Arrests Total Violent Crime Arrests Total Property Crime Arrests 2012 12,196,959 1,552,432 749,825 91,593 658,231 521,196 1,646,212 2011 12,408,899 1,531,251 757,969 94,937 663,032 534,704 1,639,883 2010 13,120,947 1,638,846 853,839 103,247 750,591 552,077 1,643,962 2009 13,687,241 1,663,582 858,408 99,815 758,593 581,765 1,728,285 2008 14,005,615 1,702,537 847,863 93,640 754,224 594,911 1,687,345 2007 14,209,365 1,841,182 872,720 97,583 775,137 597,447 1,610,088 2006 14,380,370 1,889,810 829,627 90,711 738,916 611,523 1,540,297 2005 14,094,186 1,846,351 786,545 90,471 696,074 603,503 1,609,327 2004 13,938,071 1,746,570 773,731 87,329 686,402 586,558 1,644,197 2003 13,639,479 1,678,192 755,186 92,300 662,886 597,026 1,605,127 2002 13,741,438 1,538,813 697,082 83,096 613,986 620,510 1,613,954 2001 13,699,254 1,586,902 723,628 82,519 641,109 627,132 1,618,465 2000 13,980,297 1,579,566 734,497 88,455 646,042 625,132 1,620,928 1999 14,355,600 1,557,100 716,266 85,641 630,626 644,770 1,676,100 1998 14,528,300 1,559,100 682,885 84,191 598,694 675,900 1,805,600 1997 15,284,300 1,583,600 695,201 88,682 606,519 717,750 2,015,600 1996 15,168,100 1,506,200 641,642 94,891 546,751 729,900 2,045,600 1995 15,119,800 1,476,100 588,964 85,614 503,350 796,250 2,128,600 1990 14,195,100 1,089,500 326,850 66,460 260,390 705,500 2,217,800 1980 10,441,000 580,900 401,982 63,318 338,664 475,160 1,863,300 Total 1996-2012 236,438,421 28,002,034 12,318,682 1,549,101 11,427,813 10,421,804 28,750,970 - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org......As you can see, many people are being arrested for possesion of marijuana which is a NONVIOLENT crime. Isint prison a place for people who commited violent crimes? Why are we putting people in jail for doing something that is only going to be harmful for themselves in the long run - and not for innocent bystanders?I rest my case for now and I am looking forward to your follow-up arguments ~ Sara :)Evidence citations:http://www.drugwarfacts.org......http://www.antiwar.com......http://whylegalizemarijuana.com......http://theweek.com......https://www.change.org......

Title: Should recreational use of marijuana be legal in the US Content: Recreational use of marijuana should not be legalized because it leads to the use of other drugs such as cocaine, heroine, and other hard drugs. While the use of marijuana may not have adverse health effects on a person and no addictive chemicals it is as afore mentioned a gateway drug. Many people who use hard drugs started out smoking marijuana and wondered "If i have this much fun being high on pot what could cocaine do for me?" I understand this isn't the case for everyone who uses marijuana but it is a growing problem in the US.

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreation use Content: Hello, I am very sorry if I make any mistakes because this is the first time I've ever had a debate. I gladly except your challenge.

Title: Marjuana should be legal Content: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use for any person over the age of 18. Weed, as its called, has been used for many purposes all through out history, even George Washington had hemp is his personal garden. Marijuana should not have been made illegal and it should not continue being illegal. I will make my main arguements in later rounds. I look forward to a good debate.

Title: Medical as well as recreational marijuana should be legal in all US states Content: I thank 'Dpowell' to have accepted this debate. It is true that marijuana can be very addictive to some people. Many other substances both legal and illegal can be very addictive as well. My opponent bases his arguments upon the work of Dr. Drew and he himself says that "It is extremely addictive for some people. I think that's where people get confused. It's not very addictive for many people. It's a small subset of people with a genetic potential for addiction." It's like saying because some people are allergic to garlic then we should ban it everywhere. It simply does not make sense. Obviously the "small subset of people" have the right to get help but the many people that don"t get addicted should not be punished with restrictions on their personal freedom and right to make their own decisions concerning their health because of a minority"s unfortunate genetic situation. In a large-scale survey where the participants were asked about their use of drugs they found out that of those who had tried marijuana at least once about 9 percent eventually fit a diagnosis of cannabis dependence. The numbers for alcohol was 15%, cocaine 17%, heroin 23%, nicotine 32%. http://www.scientificamerican.com... The argument stating that the more marijuana an individual consumes, the greater amount this individual will need in order to achieve the "high" feeling, is also true for other substances if consumed frequently enough. Since 91 percent of people who have tried marijuana never get addicted and therefore wouldn"t consume the cannabis frequently enough I would say this fact is only true for that "small subset of people". As the aforementioned states, I am not a fan of compromising the majority"s freedom because of the minority. And nor is democracy. Referring to the sentence "According to his statistics, 4.3 million out of 7.3 million, have marijuana dependence or abuse" I must say this is directly wrong. The original source (http://edition.cnn.com...) states: "of the 7.3 million persons aged 12 or older classified with illicit drug dependence or abuse in 2012, 4.3 million persons had marijuana dependence or abuse." "Dpowell" gives the reader the impression that 4.3 million people out of 7.3 million have marijuana abuse, which gives the impression that 58.9% of the American people has a marijuana dependence. Since this is obviously not the case I would like to stress that the original numbers indicate that out of the 7.3 million persons classified with illicit drug dependence or abuse, 4.3 million had marijuana dependence or abuse. The very important word "classified" clearly states that these numbers are only valid for people who officially are abusive with drugs. I might add that luckily 58.9% of those are addicted to marijuana and not worse, hard drugs like cocaine, LSD and heroin. Dr. Drew Pinsky also points out that the more legal marijuana becomes, the more people will become addicts. In a comparison of the Netherlands, Canada and the US the numbers observed from the following link states that "the rates of cannabis use did not differ between the countries." http://www.drugwarfacts.org... I would like to point out that in the Netherlands where marijuana is legal, all production, trading and stocking of drugs, are still very much illegal. Which means that the young Dutch people get their marijuana from approved salesmen which I dare to say is way safer than the marijuana available to young Americans. I think we should see Amsterdam as an example. According to my opponent, "citizens are worried about their children" in Amsterdam. This is a very subjective statement. Some kids may have gone to school under the influence of marijuana. How many children we are talking about? I am for legalising marijuana in all states yes, but there should be restrictions in schools for kids, since it is proven that marijuana in some cases damage children"s brains. Amsterdam also banned the smoking of marijuana in schools in 2012. Let us learn from Amsterdam and legalise marijuana but ban it from kindergardens and primary schools. Just like many US states already have done with regular tobacco smoking. Looking at the statement "crime has began to center around schools, crime has increased around these shops, especially the human sex trade." I would like to point out that this information comes from a website called "rightwingnews.com". I do not believe this is a very reliable source since they do not link to the sources their statements are based on. I also believe that the crime in the US related to illicit marijuana is on a much bigger scale than that of the Netherlands. My opponent claims that marijuana is in very bad for your health and can damage your intelligence. That may be true but so can alcohol. And the important thing to remember is that it depends 100% on how much, how often and how you use marijuana. Smoking cannabis is more dangerous for your health than eating cannabis. Again considering the 91% that don"t get addicted, I believe they are out of the danger zone when it comes to permanent intelligence-damage https://www.leafly.com... Marijuana can be beneficial to people who suffer from schizophrenia. I believe that if you were to directly get this illness from cannabis consumption it would only happen for people who are abusers. It clearly doesn't happen to the majority and of course some people will experience side effects, like with any other medicin or substance. In relation to the statement about "real life pot heads" I would like to see some statistics as to how many marijuana users have "flunked out of school, lost their jobs, lost the people they love and became frustrated due to concentration difficulties". And a definiton of when exactly one can label another as a "pot head". I would like to point out that the top three causes of car accidents here in America, not Australia, is drunk driving, speeding and distracted driving. Not marijuana usage.http://www.drivers.com... As for the quality of America"s work force I don"t see any proof that the work force of a nation will decrease due to legalization. No matter what, a person has to have a job in order to make a living. I think most people are aware of that fact and if you end up not doing your work properly due to marijuana then that would be defined as an abuse, which only 9% of people who have tried marijuana end up with. Since this nation needs jobs, it is obvious that if you can"t do your job then there will be another dutiful American citizen who will be more than happy to take over. As for marijuana being damaging for the environment, I would love to see the scientific proof of animals near "pot farms" directly of cannabis farming. The agriculture uses pesticides and chemicals as well. So how come you are not dead (I assume you don"t eat 100% organic)? Since there are pesticides and chemicals in almost all the food we eat? Please back up your very radical statements like "This will cause more deaths as the chemicals will make us very sick and kill us" with scientific research and evidence. As for the conclusion: It is without sufficient scientific research that my opponent states "marijuana destroys economies" and "it has wrecked an entire country and their children". Please define how the Netherlands is a wrecked country? When the Netherlands ranks better in education than the US, when the Netherlands tops health care rankings with the US not even on the list of the top 15. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.theguardian.com... Thank you.

Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: This debate will be over the topic of Marijuana legalization. I will be taking the Pro position, meaning I am arguing in favor of the resolution. DefinitionsLegalized - To be made legal. To not be restricted by law. Recreational - relating to or denoting activity done for enjoyment when one is not working. RulesForfeit results in an automatic loss. No semantics. Standard conduct applies.

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Content: I will be arguing that marijuana, not necessarily in it's smokeable form should be legal for persons over a yet to be determined age(18-21) for medical and recreational use. Con will argue that it shouldn't be legalized for any age in any form, for any reason. Any source can be used until that source has been proven false or unreliable. Please respect your opponent. Debate can be informal. Con may begin with his or her argument in the first round or accept. Any further rules must be discussed and agreed upon in the comments section. Thank you and good luck.

Title: The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use Content: Pass.

Title: Smoking weed should be legalized in all of America. Content: "It is far harder to take something away from people, then to keep to from them in the first place. Take sweets for instance, if you never give a child sweets, they don't expect them. If you suddenly stop giving a child sweets, they will make a scene." Yes, and that's exactly why the government shouldn't ban neither tobacco nor alcohol. You have already stated the negative effects of recreational marijuana, but you have not yet acknowledged the benefits of it, such as the examples listed in my last argument. Since smoking weed has several benefits and fewer risks, the product itself is more beneficial to society and the economy than it is harmful; meaning it would actually better our country more than worsen it. If anything, weed should replace tobacco entirely for these reasons. https://www.alternet.org... https://www.huffingtonpost.com... "For the majority of people, it does no good." How do you know this for sure; where is your evidence? Ultimately, recreational marijuana is more beneficial to society and the economy than it is harmful, therefore it should be legalized and also replace tobacco. By the way, weed has also been a normal part of our culture for a long period of time too, it just hasn't been legal. https://en.wikipedia.org... I would like to see you acknowledge the benefits of recreational marijuana in your next argument, Con.

Title: Recreational drugs should be banned in all states. Content: Recreational drugs such as cannabis are harmful to everyone involved, including those who know the people taking it. They do no help to society and should be banned.

Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: Introduction Thank you for your response. My opponent broke his arguments down into different sections, all to which I will respond to individually. I would like to urgently point out that my opponent didn’t even attempt to respond to my entire argument on personal choice, which in essence is the most important argument of this debate because if my opponent cannot show that Marijuana should be legalized despite it being a personal choice that does not inherently, negatively affect society as a whole, then he loses this debate. Since this is the last round my opponent has already dropped the argument. Marijuana Is Harmful and Addictive This argument is the most logically unstable argument of them all, for my opponent attempts to argue that humans should not be allowed to do dangerous things. My opponent goes on about all the negative affects marijuana has on users, and that many users do not tend to know the full affects marijuana may have on their system. The Argument from Individual Choice All humans have a right, granted through their basic human dignity, to make any choice that inherently affects themselves, even if that decision is dangerous. To not grant humans this right is to erode the basic human dignity we are born with, and to also erode are freedoms as individual beings. Not allowing a human to make a choice that inherently affects themselves, no matter how dangerous, is to take control of their lives, and to restrain them. The government’s job is to make a society that has a balance of individual freedom, allowing our human dignity to be respected, while allowing the society as a whole to be prosperous. Since marijuana inherently only affects the individual taking it of their own free will, it should therefore not be illegal. In addition to this, the government should not punish others because some are unaware of the dangers of marijuana. It is of their own decision to not study the effects it could have on their body. Legalizing marijuana would very likely increase the number of abusers manifold My opponent argues that the legalization would increase the number of abusers of marijuana. The problem with this argument is that even though the legalization of marijuana may increase the number of abusers, it is still of the individual freedom of these citizens that they choose to make a decision that inherently affects their own bodies, whether harmful or not. Once again, it is up to humans to know and be aware of what they are doing. It is not the government’s job to erode the personal choice humans have, whether harmful or not. Argument from History My opponent gives a story on a past Chinese addiction to Opium, destroying the society. This can’t even compare to marijuana legalization. Far too many questions arise, such as but not limited to: Did the government regulate this drug at all? How easy was it to get the drug? How addictive was this drug? Did the under-development of the science behind drugs attribute to this? How was the economy already? What other variables may have attributed to this? Then obviously, the biggest one of all: In the story it says the entire working class had basically been destroyed, therefore attributing to the downfall of China. This would make the bare assertion that if marijuana were to be legalized then the entire working class of America would too, be destroyed. This assertion is unrealistic. The Argument from Choice To blame the choices that individuals who use drugs make on the drugs, would be to give a man a free pass from being responsible for his own actions, for you are ultimately blaming his actions on the drug rather this man’s own personal choice to either take the drug, or make the decision the individual made while on the drug. “If an individual choice is the act of selecting an option from two or more possibilities, then because one may choose to use drugs or not to use drugs, drug use is an individual choice. However, if the choice to use drugs or not to use drugs is subject to external coercion by the force of law, then legislation and the legislature that passed it are constraining individual choice. By constraining individual choice, human dignity is the opportunity cost of the rule of law as the individual is coercively acted upon by the law maker. - drug use is an individual choice in which the agent making the choice is the subject acted upon and the only subject acted upon, the decision to use or not to use drugs is an individual’s right to make for themselves. ” - YYW My opponent presented some other arguments such as how many people are unaware of the harmful effects of marijuana, but I have already addressed the other point my opponent made. Conclusion My opponent’s key arguments seem to be that since marijuana has the potential to negatively affect the society, it should therefore be illegal. This reasoning is not sound, for many things have the potential to be dangerous, yet are not illegal for they are not inherently dangerous. Since marijuana is not inherently dangerous, it should therefore not be illegal.

Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: Our younger society has developed a sub-culture of what "cool" is. This involves the use of drugs, sex, and other unhealthy activities that have developed a large niche in school systems, especially those attempting to show a sense of "cool." If marijuana were to be largely legalized, the accessibility of cannabis would hugely increase for these kids.

Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: The regulation and restriction of recreational marijuana is justified. Marijuana will provide more harm than benefit to our society. My contentions: -Marijuana is harmful and addictive -Legalizing marijuana would very likely increase the number of abusers manifold. -The likely effects of marijuana abuse on society can be easily gauged by measuring the harm produced by a similar but legal and widely advertised drug: tobacco -Can drugs destroy an economic powerhouse such as the U. S. ? Yes. It has done so before, and it can do so again -A large proportion of marijuana users are unconscious of marijuana's risks, therefore their decision to use or abuse it is mostly uninformed Marijuana is an addictive and, contrary to my opponent's belief, does pose a legitimate and serious threat to the smoker's health. In addition to the apparent harms effected on the respiratory system (due to it being generally smoked), marijuana "impairs short-term memory and motor coordination; slows reaction time; alters mood, judgment, and decision-making; and in some people can cause severe anxiety (paranoia) or psychosis (loss of touch with reality). " [1] Marijuana abuse severely detriments the abuser's abilities to effectively work or reason. Marijuana is also an addictive. Despite these facts, the general perceptional trend among youths is that marijuana is a 'safe drug'[2], leading to an increase in its illicit use among youth demographics. According to the Newport Academy, a reputed teen drug-abuse treatment center, the common myths held true by illicit abusers are that marijuana isn't addictive, marijuana is natural therefore harmless, marijuana doesn't cause any problems, and marijuana doesn't make you lose control[3]. These all point to one general and very wrong perception: marijuana is harmless. Does my opponent believe that, when marijuana is legalized, marijuana-selling companies will clarify marijuana's risks? Even tobacco companies don't do this in its multimillion dollar advertising campaigns. What makes you think marijuana companies will? Something often said by marijuana proponents is: Why in the world is marijuana illegal, but tobacco isn't? Tobacco products pose much greater impairments to health and are much more lethal in terms of mortality. So why is marijuana illegal? Let us go back 300 years to 18th century China, which had prospered as the wealthiest and most powerful economic unit from the 14th to early 18th century (due to the immense quantity and unique quality of silver and silk within). By the mid-late 18th century, China had deteriorated to a state rife with corruption. Its productivity had taken a massive dive from what it had been decades before, and it was losing massive quantities of silver to the English and other European nations. The cause of this economic and societal deterioration was indisputably opium. Millions either stopped working or were only able to churn out a fraction of the productivity they were capable of prior to smoking opium. The emperor eventually became aware of the nation's opium, it's detrimental effects and inescapable addiction. Opium was decreed unconditionally illegal. The ban was implemented much too late. Officials ignored the law, accepting bribes to help facilitate the black market opium trade. Most of these officials were themselves Opium addicts. The rest is history. By the late 19th century, China had become so weak that when Japan first began its invasions that the world's nations, which had assumed China to be able to easily fend off the Japanese, balked at China's unexpected crushing defeat. This is the reason marijuana is illegal and tobacco is not. Although it doesn't kill people as tobacco does, marijuana, like opium and other illegal substances, directly affect the brain, destroying most addicts' ability to work, to reason, etc. Millions of potential doctors, lawyers, workers, and entrepreneurs will be lost to marijuana abuse and addiction. Consider the following excerpt: "Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana has the potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person's existing problems worse. In fact, heavy marijuana users generally report lower life satisfaction, poorer mental and physical health, relationship problems, and less academic and career success compared to their peers who came from similar backgrounds. For example, marijuana use is associated with a higher likelihood of dropping out from school. Several studies also associate workers' marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers' compensation claims, and job turnover. "[6] The effect of marijuana on productivity and motor/brain functions is VERY real. Imagine marijuana smoking on a scale greater than that of tobacco (43.8million smokers nationwide with 78% of these who smoke everyday[5]). Despite the fact that tobacco companies spend billions on advertisements, the number of illicit marijuana smokers still far exceeds the number of tobacco smokers (Over 83 million Americans [7] over the age of 12). Imagine if we were to legalize marijuana. Marijuana will destroy our economy, affecting more than just the health of the millions of hemp-users, but also the lives of the nation's residents. In fact, due to marijuana's very low mortality rate, we can expect tobacco users to even switch to marijuana, thereby destroying their brains, their motor functions, and their productivity. [1]. http://www.drugabuse.gov... [2]. http://www.drugabuse.gov... [3]newportacademy. com/marijuana-rehab/abuse-myths/ [4]. http://www.drugabuse.gov... [5]. http://www.cdc.gov... [6]. http://www.drugabuse.gov... [7]. http://parentingteens.about.com...

Title: AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally. Content: I am not really supposed to reply to Pro’s rebuttals this round but I would like to begin by saying I don’t think Pro understood my argument. The reason I went to great depth to explain the legal history of drug control is because marijuana (recreational or medical) is a drug and as all, drugs need to be proven “safe and effective” before it can be sold in any form to the public. My rationalized argument is at the end. The whole first half are facts to establish my argument. Moving on I would like to point out the flaws in Pro’s sources and argument. C1) Marijuana's impact on users and those around them: Source 1 and 2 – Marijuana and psychotic symptoms: The trial groups were: “Men and women age 18–50 years who had a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizophreniform psychosis according to the DSM-IV criteria were eligible for the study.” [1] The second source is titled “Medical Marijuana for Psychiatric Disorders” also focuses on those with psychiatric disorders. So medical marijuana helps those with schizophrenia and other disorders…. Our conversation is on recreational marijuana, as you pointed out. Source 3 - Marijuana and mental degradation: I would like to point out that the source is over 10 years old and references 15 studies not linked to the article. Studies more recently have shown differences in brain development though it has not impact on the performance of the brain has not been proven. Referring to my source, linked as [9], the brain development changes were found in the reward system of the brain. I will also link my previous sources showed that rats have been shown to have increased cell loss due to the chemicals in marijuana. Marijuana effects on the brain are disputed and its positive effects are for a small part of the population with mental disorders. Source 4 – Never Linked Source 5 – Marijuana instead of tobacco: First, not proven is marijuana smoke is better than tobacco smoke. They contain similar tars and cancer causing chemicals. (Refer to my argument). Without having shown that marijuana smoke is less harmful than tobacco smoke, switching has no positive benefit. Also it is only preliminary findings with a very small sample size of 12 in each group. Even with the small sample size, it was only shown that smokers smoked less after one week when being exposed to cannabis smoke instead of a placebo. This source has very little data and a small sample size. This source is unreliable and switching smokes has not been shown to have any benefits. Source 6 – Effects on Bystanders: I find this source interesting because it does show odd benefit of marijuana legalization. However I would like to quote the source “Research on stoned driving is inconsistent, with some studies finding impairment and others not”. [5] Unnecessary arrest: This portion is irrelevant and only appeals to pathos. “Unnecessary arrests” is actually a false statement. Marijuana is illegal, and proving people are being arrested for drugs and being charged according to the possession of drugs does not support drug legalization. The laws are not “injustice” and have been approved by the legislative of the people and the Supreme Court. Money and the Economy This point (people always use it) shows a lack of understanding of the economy and the Constitution. Disposable income will be spent either through one means or another. Colorado has seen a massive increase in tourism, which helps its economy [6]. Anyways it economic growth is similar to other states like Texas, showing no performance increase due to marijuana [7] [8]. Source 9 implies that instead of sending people to jail we can tax them. Avoiding a Slippery Slope fallacy, legalizing actions so they can be taxed is morally wrong and would be unconstitutional because the legalized actions are not for the benefit of the people even if the government generates tax revenue. Safer Cannabis: Thank you for supporting my argument. As with every drug, once marijuana was possibly approved by the FDA after medical researching that showed it was “safe and effective” it would be regulated to be not contaminated. Also like every drug, marijuana needs to be shown to be “safe and effective” before being sold to the public. So it should not be sold. Conclusion: Marijuana has not been shown to be a “safe and effective” drug to be sold to the public either recreationally or medically. Any study showing its safe has another study saying it is unsafe. Until medical research proves that it has no negative effects, it should not be sold to the public. Pro’s quotes I quoted: [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.psychologytoday.com... [3] http://www.webmd.com... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [5] http://healthland.time.com... New quotes by me: [6] http://www.denverpost.com... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://www.sfn.org...

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Content: Thank you. It's true that this subject is a matter of opinion, as many debates are; however, I would like to bring some scientific reasoning and research in the negative effects of recreational marijuana use to the table. 1. Marijuana, or cannabis, is a drug known by many to bring about feelings of relaxation and freedom from troubles. While this may be beneficial for medicinal use, the legalization of this drug can have drastic effects, both short-term and long-term, on the population of our society. While some of these issues may seem manageable, the detrimental influence they have on the life of a person as a whole are too great for the national government to overlook. Some of the physical effects of marijuana are listed below. Short term effects: - Distortion of the senses - Impaired short-term memory - Panic and anxiety attacks and feelings of paranoia - Poor coordination and reduced reaction time - Increased risk of cardiac problems due to increasing of heart rate - Irritation of the throat and lungs - Overall impaired sense of judgment Long term effects: - Increased susceptibility to illnesses which could prove to be fatal - High risk of developing a form of mental illness, including but not limited to depression, schizophrenia, and psychosis - Strongly reduces libido and the production of sex hormones, thus decreasing the ability to conceive - Overall reduced motivation and impaired ability to focus on, organize, and learn/retain information - Destruction of lung fibers and the formation of lesions on the brain - Growth disorders of the user or fetus inside a pregnant female user I again emphasize that, although these symptoms of marijuana use may appear to be tolerable to some users, frequent use of the drug poses immense risks to each individual user. While use of marijuana will not lead to overdose or direct death, the consequences of using this drug can pose serious threats to the lives of users and others. 2. Among these threats is the unfortunate destruction of an individual's capacity to learn. Whether in school or on the job, learning is an integral part of life that helps to ensure our well-roundedness. Though the government may appreciate increased revenue due to a tax on marijuana sales, it would be unfortunate for the investment it puts into public education to go to waste due to ineffectiveness in marijuana users. This is not to say that every student who attends a public institution uses or will use marijuana; however, with its legalization, the increased access to it could be tempting for curious teens to experiment with. These teens will become the adults of tomorrow, the leaders who set an example for future generations; should many lack the motivation to create a better world, it is not only the individual users but society as a whole that will be affected by their choices. In addition, in the workforce, oftentimes new regulations, processes, etc. are implemented that must be known and carried out in order to complete work appropriately and successfully. Should a frequent cannabis user arrive at work unable to comprehend/carry out these new implementations, depending upon the type of work, this could pose dangers for the clientele and coworkers, or the user him/herself, who could be laid off. This on a grander scale, as a result, would lead to a potential increase in the national unemployment rate, an event that the government would not like to see happen. A point to note: imagine you are in need of a crucial surgery and decide to have the operation done by a trusted, licensed surgeon. What if the surgeon went outside smoke some weed during the day and eventually returned to complete your surgery high and uncoordinated? Although this is a very specific situation, the moral behind this example can be applied in many a situation. 3. Although addiction to marijuana is not as common as is for other drugs (say, heroin or nicotine), it can not be deemed impossible. According to a 2013 study by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, marijuana use accounted for an approximate 4.2 million of the estimated 6.9 million cases of drug dependency in the United States. So even if you, your buddies, or any other cannabis user you know has never been addicted, these statistics show irrefutable evidence that addiction has a likeliness to occur. And it is true that other such harmful drugs such as nicotine and alcohol are legally sold and can benefit the economy, among all other products that are sold for economic profit. However, it is not unheard of for dependency on these drugs to lead users astray, which in some cases can lead to the destruction of relationships and loss of self-worth and happiness. It is human nature to look out for those close to us, and seeing what may occur as a result of using this substance, it is sensible for the government to want to protect its people from any impending harm. 4. Finally, as a part of my introductory argument, I believe that as Americans, we do have the right to choose what becomes of ourselves and what we believe is right and wrong. As a result, I accept all opinions and arguments from either side of this debate. I would just like to note that one of the main reasons our national government has prohibited legal marijuana use for all this time has been because it, in this sense, cares about the health and well-being of our people, as aforementioned. Although there are many citizens who could use marijuana responsibly and/or be lucky enough to suffer from no ill effects (the odds of which are not likely), there runs a great risk in legalizing a substance such as this which poses such consequences to the health, well-being, and character of the people and, as a result, the structure of our society - it is our choices today that influence the world tomorrow. I too look forward to the rest of this debate. Again, I respect any and all opinions and do not mean to offend anyone with my views or presented data from trustworthy sources. Thanks! Citations: http://www.brown.edu... http://www.drugfreeworld.org... http://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.drugabuse.gov... http://townhall.com... http://www.pewresearch.org...

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Content: You can point out all you want, but the comparison is valid. Both are considered recreational drugs. Marijuana is all natural, and helps with many ailments. It has been prescribed and freely ingested for hundreds of years or more. Not one death has been fully attributed to it at all. http://freecannabis.net... Prohibition of marijuana is comparable to that of alcohol in the early part of 1900s. People are going to do it, regardless of legality, if marijuana was legally available as an option other than alcohol, you would be essentially saving those lives from liver disease, alcoholism, and other short or long term effects of alcohol, in exchange for some slight memory loss, (which is why smart phones come in handy) good sleep, and a surge in sales at local cookie factories. For those states that have yet to legalize, the marijuana market belongs mainly to drug sellers that sell far worse chemicals along with it. Looking at Colorado, where it has become legal, crime rates have dropped, and jobs have been created. Since the first retail marijuana stores opened on January 1st, 2014, the state of Colorado has benefitted from a decrease in crime rates, a decrease in traffic fatalities, an increase in tax revenue and economic output from retail marijuana sales, and an increase in jobs. http://www.mintpressnews.com... Farmers are finally making a decent living now. Taxation of marijuana has helped build schools, and more. The age requirement helps keep the plant out of underage hands, when drug dealers have no age requirements, and young customers may be tempted to buy more dangerous drugs. The money from these deals usually go to buy guns, etc. Cartels get a lot of business from the black market, which is unavoidable due to the increase in useage, so keeping the sale illegal is ideal to them. The prison industry also gains plenty from prohibition of marijuana, because most people don't want to quit using, regardless of legality, resulting in overcrowded prison populations, most for as little as a single cannabis cigarette. It is for this reason America has the highest percentage of incarcerated people's in the world. Smoking the plant, while far less dangerous than cigarettes, provide the easiest, quickest release of thc, but with legalization, comes more innovative, safer techniques for intake, such as edibles and vaping. http://www.iflscience.com...https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Big pharmacy, which accounts for very serious side effects, will also take a paycut with the legalization of marijuana, which I'd like to point out to our voters you have dropped. Over half of American adults have at least tried marijuana. Over half of Americans at least think it's a good idea to legalize it. It's a creation of nature that has harmless side effects in most people, and to those who feel it dangerous, or decide they would like to keep their short term memory, only need to stay away from the plant. Did you know that the USFG prescribed a few people(and still supply to this day) several marijuana cigarettes every day? They know it has medical significance, even admitting that cannabis cures cancer in question 6 of the q&a section of the .gov link below, which is hypocritical.http://www.cbsnews.com...http://www.cancer.gov...Doctors, lawyers, and business owners like myself smoke cannabis on a daily basis. While it's best done in privacy to unwind. Most of America thinks it's a good thing, it makes most people happy with very little dangers, if any. Notice how many time my opponent uses words like "may" or "could" and saying they don't know the long-term effects. We've been using this God given plant for centuries, is it possible that there are no long term effects? If you are scared of it, don't use it. Simple as that, but prohibition is not working right now, and we should learn from the areas that have legalized it, and move forward. Many states would have already done so I'm my opinion, if it weren't for the USFG. The government has a shortage of hackers, some of the smartest men and women on the planet in my honest opinion, because none of the best ones can pass a urinalysis for cannabis. So much for that whole brain killing argument.http://motherboard.vice.com... http://www.wsj.com...

Title: In most countries where there is an acceptance of the medical value of cannabis it is fairly easily available, this would simply condone its recreational use Content: At a time when governments, along with health professionals, are trying to restrict the use of legal drugs such as alcohol and nicotine, giving the use of cannabis the sanction of government approval would take health policy in a direction that most people do not wish to contemplate. Effectively, such a change in policy would announce, ‘We’d rather you didn’t drink or smoke but it’s okay to get high’. In most nations where this discussion is even happening the personal use of mild narcotics is ignored by law enforcement. However, legalizing the use of drugs in any way says to the world at large, ‘this isn’t a problem, do what you like’. The production of drugs ruins lives and communities. Any attempt to fully legalise marijuana for medical use would only be effective in western liberal democracies. There is a high probability that it would incentivise increased production of the drug in states where it remains illegal. For the reasons given above, legitimatizing cannabis’ use as a medicine would increase or entrench its use as a recreational drug Restrictions on cannabis production would place the market under the control of criminal gangs. As a result, cannabis growing would continue to be defined by organized violence, corruption, smuggling and adulteration of the drug itself. Legitimatising cannabis use via state legislation ignores and conceals the human suffering caused by the production of drugs in both developed and developing states. . Moreover, many organized crime networks prefer to grow and sell cannabis over other, more strictly regulated drugs. It remains highly likely that the legal market for cannabis that the state proposes to create would become a target for organisations attempting to launder the proceeds of crime, or pass off tainted marijuana as medical grade forms of the drug.

Title: Cannabis Legalization in the United States (Medical and Recreational Uses) Content: In my opinion, cannabis or marijuana should be legalized in the United States. I believe that it would have many useful medical, as well as recreational purposes. If the proper laws are instituted, cannabis legalization would prove very useful in the United States.

Title: Recreational Marijuana Should Be Legal Content: I do not think recreational marijuana should be made legal, this is because of a multitude of reasons for which I believe the cons outweigh the pros. I look forward to this debate.

Title: The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use Content: R1: AcceptanceR2: Opening Arguments (no rebuttals)R3: RebuttalsR4: Defense & Conclusion (no new arguments)Definitions:Marijuana: cannabis, especially as smoked in cigarettesLegalize: make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law.Recreational Use: used without medical justification for its psychoactive effects

Title: The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use Content: I accept.

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use Content: Hello, and thanks to Pro for giving me the opportunity to debate this important issue. I will begin by stating my contention. Growing marijuana, possessing marijuana, and using marijuana for recreational use (medical marijuana should be legal) should remain illegal, but the penalties for each of these violations should be altered drastically. This is a much more reasonable policy than full legalization. I would like to begin by stating that I agree entirely and will not attempt to refute many of the claims I anticipate that my opponent will make. I agree that marijuana has been proven to be an effective treatment for pain, that THC has been adequately proven not to have a direct adverse effect on the human body, and that the United States' policy on drugs is completely ineffective and has made no progress whatsoever towards their goal. If my opponent would like to present any other traditional arguments against the illegality of marijuana, chances are quite high that I will agree with them. However, Pro should not be disinclined to present them - just know that we are probably on the same page on 90% of issues concerning marijuana. I will now give overviews of how laws concerning marijuana should be changed, and the reasoning behind why it should not be fully legalized. I will not extensively cite sources, as this is an overview of my position - I will use hard data more extensively in later rounds, after I see what my parts of my argument my opponent chooses to combat. First, the so-called "War on Drugs" has been proven to be completely ineffective by both marijuana advocacy groups and neutral government research. Those who still agree with our current policies, which incarcerate thousands of people each year on non-violent offenses and cost the tax-payer absurd sums of money, are very few and far between. Instead, fines and other violation level punishments should be enacted to control and discourage the recreational use of marijuana. Why should marijuana not be fully legalized? There are several reasons. 1. The fact of the matter is, while THC itself is not a harmful substance, there are still negative health effects associated with the smoking of marijuana. It is reasonable to assume that if marijuana were legalized, marijuana cigarettes would begin to be sold in stores. As such, people would purchase and smoke these cigarettes. Some studies have found that, while 'joints' do not directly cause lung cancer or emphysema, they do have some negative effects on both the lungs and the brain. 2. Additionally, THC is an intoxicant. Anecdotal arguments are made quite often to suggest that marijuana use does not effect driving ability. However, this is absurd, as marijuana is a psychoactive chemical which has numerous effects on the brain and has drastically different effects which depend entirely on the user. Drunk driving is currently responsible for a great number of car accidents in the United States. While it is a fact that people use marijuana regardless of whether or not it is legal, and drive under the influence, I do not believe that legalizing it would have any positive effect in terms of curbing 'high driving'. Instead, methods for road-testing suspected drivers under the influence of marijuana should be developed, testing technology should be implemented by police departments, and laws should be changed to punish high drivers in the same way that drunk drivers are punished. 3. If legalized, marijuana would being to be mass-produced and large companies would soon dominate the market. Today's massive tobacco companies are very rich, and as such, have powerful lobbyists that make it very difficult to change laws concerning the distribution and marketing of cigarettes. It took years just to legally force tobacco companies to display warnings on their packets, and to change advertising methods to stop targeting children. There is no reason to assume that marijuana companies would enter the market with the public's good intentions at heart. Instead, the same types of money-mongers who capitalize on the public's urge to drink and smoke would presumably take control of the market and gain similar deceitful legal power. There is currently little control over the dangerous pesticides and chemical additives in tobacco cigarettes - again, there is no reason to assume these large marijuana companies would treat their crops and products with a similar disregard for their consumers' safety due to mass-production and distribution. 4. While it is true that marijuana smuggling is responsible for a great number of unnecessary casualties of drug wars in Mexico, marijuana is by no means the only drug these black market cartels are responsible for. While legalizing marijuana would certainly decrease gang activity dealing with that particular drug, it would simply shift their focus to other drugs or illicit activities. It would take full across-the-board legalization of all drugs to effectively end these deadly battles, and that is not the resolution. 5. The culture of intoxicant use in America has a long history, and while views have shifted over the years, there is still a general attitude of reverence towards legal intoxicants, especially alcohol. The simple fact is that legalizing marijuana would cast it in a more favorable light. While alcohol is known to have detrimental effects on the human body, the fact that this is generally recognized does not diminish the drinking culture that is promoted in films and on college campuses nationwide. The fact that alcohol is legal means it is generally permitted, and endorsing yet another intoxicant does not seem productive. 6. Legalizing marijuana would mean that it would be easier to obtain. While those that seek it are able to find it, it is still more difficult and risky than simply walking into a store and purchasing it. This would mean that underage (if, as should be presumed, there was an age law associated with marijuana) people would also be able to obtain it more easily, and marijuana IS proven to have a negative effect on the developing brain. Combining the above reasons, among others, I do not support the legalization of recreational marijuana use. A pre-negation: the argument that marijuana should be illegal because alcohol is illegal is not valid. If brought, I will explain why. If not contested my opponent excepts the validity of this statement. I look forward to my opponent's argument! I have a feeling we are going to agree on a lot, but there are going to be key differences. Thanks again for allowing me the opportunity to debate this issue, and I look forward to a productive, illuminating debate.

Title: Cannabis should be legalized Content: "Cannabis, commonly known as marijuana, and by numerous other names is a preparation of the cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug and as medicine." This is my definition of Cannabis, or what we will be calling it; Marijuana. I will be arguing Marijuana should not only be legalized medically but for recreation purposes as well. We are not talking about legalization in a specific country, just legalization period. The rules are as follows: 1st round: Acceptance 2nd round: 1st argument (1 point only!) 3rd round: 2nd argument (2 points only!) 4th round: Rebuttal We will be only doing rebuttals in the fourth round. Good luck my friend DarthKirones

Title: Recreational Marijuana should be legal Content: This is my first time soooo, whatever, lets begin. There is a lot of evidence that some of the compounds in the cannabis plant, which is where marijuana comes from, can help people with certain illnesses. But for healthy people, using marijuana causes a number of bad side effects and negative health consequences. Short term marijuana effects include: Sleepiness and depression, an increased heart rate (which can cause a heart attack, anxiety and panic), and delayed reaction times. Long term marijuana effects include: Over the long-term the drug suppresses the immune system, causes growth disorders, lack of motivation and lung damage, changes mood and personality and lowers libido.

Title: AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally. Content: IntroductionThe goal of the government should be to benefit the common good, while preserving the free will of its citizens. My goal will be to prove that marijuana prohibition works against the common good and takes away free will from citizens, thus, it should be legalized. C1) Marijuana's impact on user and those around user:A) User's Mental HealthMarijuana can help rather than harm mental health. Cannabidiol (a substance found in cannabis) is known to contain anti-psychotic properties (1). Many people use marijuana to help with anxiety, as it has a calming effect. Depression is also known to be decreased among those who use cannabis. Jeremy Spiegel M.D. (from Psychology Today) explains, “In a medical journal Addictive Behaviours, researchers compiled data from over four thousand questionnaires of depressed patients and marijuana users, and determined that those who smoked daily or even less often, also reported less depressed mood and more positive affect than non users (2).” There have been some studies that note a correlation between marijuana smokers and depression/anxiety. However, it is important to remember that correlation is not causation. If my con wishes to use this point, he must explain exactly how Marijuana results in depression/anxiety. Another common myth is that marijuana kills brain cells. WebMD explains, “Long-term and even daily marijuana use doesn't appear to cause permanent brain damage, adding to evidence that it can be a safe and effective treatment for a wide range of diseases, say researchers.” My source continues, “scores on thinking tests were similar to those who don't smoke marijuana, according to a new analysis of 15 previous studies (3).” Through this evidence, I have shown that marijuana does not impair mental health and actually has the chance of positively impacting it.B) User's HealthIt has been proven that smoking marijuana is not as harmful to the lungs as smoking cigarettes, in some cases, smoking marijuana has increased lung capacity (4). Although, I will concede that cannabis isn’t exactly “good” for one’s lungs, the effects are much less severe than one would expect. The way that marijuana legalization can positively impact physical health is rather simple. Cannabidiol (mentioned earlier) aids smokers who wish to stop smoking. An experiment was done, and smokers who were given inhalers with cannabidiol decreased smoking by 40% by the end of the experiment (5). If marijuana was legalized, those addicted to cigarettes would be given a less harmful alternative to cigarettes.C) Effects on BystandersOne thing observed after the legalization in denver was that, as Time explains, "researchers found that fatal car wrecks dropped by 9% in states that legalized medical use — which was largely attributable to a decline in drunk driving (6)." This is because, "Driving under the influence of marijuana seems to be less risky because people who are high tend to be aware that they are impaired and compensate, while alcohol tends to increase recklessness and create false confidence." The idea is that people will start using marijuana instead of alcohol due to the legalization. While driving when one is stoned is certainly not advisable, it is preferable to driving while drunk. This 9% isn’t just talking about any crash, but fatal crashes. What this means is that due to this 9% decrease, three thousand lives are saved every year.C2) Unnecessary arrests:As I have proved above, the effects of marijuana not harmful to the consumer and those around the consumer. Yet, arrest for the possession of the drug is extremely high. In 2007, over 750,000 people were arrested for the possession of marijuana. It is completely unnecessary to permanently impact someone's life by arresting them for the possession of a drug that has little harmful effects on the user. We can see from the chart below that arrests for marijuana have clearly gotten out of hand (7). The Medical Marijuana Magazine explains, “In "lenient" California someone arrested in their home can lose their driver's license, which can obviously mean the loss of a job. In other places people can lose custody of their children. If a person is charged with cultivation of just one plant, the consequences can be even more dire. People can and do lose their homes, farms, etc. to "civil forfeiture (8).” So essentially, people’s lives can be ruined for the act of possession/growing of cannabis. The worst part is that California is one of the more lenient states. In places like Alabama or Texas, the consequences clearly are more serious. C3) Money and the economy:Firstly, we have to look at the current amount of money that is being lost by keeping cannabis illegal. NORML notes, “American taxpayers spend more than $1 billion a year incarcerating citizens for using pot (9).” Most of these crimes are for simple possession. So, not only is keeping weed illegal unfair to consumers, but it is unfair to the taxpayers. It is a waste of the government’s money as well as a waste of the people’s money. Secondly, look at the large amount of tax revenue that will come from the legalization of marijuana. Colorado, saw 10.8 million dollars in the first four months of legalization. It is estimated that 1 billion dollars will be raised altogether by the end of 2014. 40 million dollars of this will go towards bettering the schools in Colorado (10). So not only does legalization of cannabis earn money, but it saves money, resulting in funds that can be used for various positive causes. Moreover, the marijuana industry generates jobs and boosts the economy in other ways. The governor of Colorado explains, “Gov. Hickenlooper compared Colorado’s economy since legalization to that of other states by noting, “While the rest of the country’s economy is slowly picking back up, we’re thriving here in Colorado.” C4) Safer cannabis:When obtaining marijuana from a drug dealer, one can never be sure of what they will get. There is always a possibility that marijuana can be laced with a substance such as PCP, cocaine, crack, or even embalming fluid. These things are obviously highly dangerous; with federal regulation, this problem will go away since marijuana will be sold through reliable sources. Some companies in Colorado have begun testing marijuana for contamination, but if the drug was legalized federally, it would have to be tested in order to be sold. ConclusionLet’s assume marijuana is a harmful substance for a minute. I have shown in numerous ways that keeping it illegal hurts works against the common good. It contributes to prison overcrowding and takes money away from taxpayers. It gives drug dealers money, but ultimately hurts the consumer (who will smoke the substance regardless of it’s legal status). What really makes the argument against legalization fall is the fact that marijuana isn’t a relatively safe drug drug. One cannot die from it, or overdose on it. When it is legalized, people have a less harmful alternative to cigarettes and alcohol. Prohibition of cannabis works against the common good and takes away the free will of citizens. For these reasons, I am pro. (1) http://tinyurl.com...(2) http://tinyurl.com...(3) http://tinyurl.com...(4) National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Heart Lung Blood Institute(5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(6) http://healthland.time.com...(7) http://www.bjs.gov...(8) http://www.drugsense.org...(9) US Bureau of Justice Statistics(10) http://www.thedailychronic.net...

Title: Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use Content: *Con has forfeited round 2, therefore I will not make any new points, to give Con the chance to catch up.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I will proceed by restating my main points so far. If Con forfeits the next round, I will state more points.-The accessibility of cannabis to children and teens will be more limited.-Cannabis does less harm healthfully than alcohol and tobacco, which are legal drugs, so why should it be illegal while alcohal and tobacco aren't?-Legalization will reduce Crime.-The problem of too many people in prison will be solved. -I would like to add on to this. If there are less people in jail, the government would spend less on funding th prison system, which could result in tax reduction or availability of funding to other things.

Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: In summation, We live in a world of risks. Everything we do can harm us. Look at the statistics of vehicular fatalities. Look at the danger of drowning, or injuring yourself during sports. We have guns, which can be used to kill others, even accidentally at times. We eat sugary, fatty, chemical-laced food. We drink sugar-water and food coloring mixes (soda). We drink alcohol, a substances that impairs the mind's ability to think clearly. We smoke tobacco, which is proven to cause lung and mouth cancer, and can often kill. How is marijuana any different? Marijuana is not addictive, like alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana is not, in and of itself, a 'gateway' drug. I have shown this through multiple sources. The people who use these drugs may be more likely to move on to other drugs, but through their own choice, not any fault of marijuana. Con conceded my point when he said this- ' . .. have been urged in some way or another to begin using a different hard drug. ' 'Urged', not addicted. In America, where I am from, we have the freedom to pursue happiness. To some people, marijuana is happiness. To continue to outlaw marijuana is both unconstitutional and contrary to the Declaration of Independence. While I am not someone who has smoked or used marijuana, nor someone who plans to, I recognize the basic right to do what I want with my body. It's not bothering you, so let others be happy. I rest my case. Thanks you as well, this has been a lot of fun, and intellectually stimulating.

Title: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana Content: OF COURSE!

Title: Recreational Marijuana Legalization Content: First of all, I'll start by addressing the burden of proof issue. I believe the burden of proof lies upon the one who wants something to stay legal. Every responsible adult should have the personal freedom to put whatever substance into their body they wish, harmful or not. This choice should not be criminal in the eyes of the government. My opponent states "there is no good reason to legalize it." The reason it should be legal is because there is no good reason people should be imprisoned for such a non-violent crime; it is akin to imprisonment for things such as illegal file sharing or jaywalking. Many teens and adults are forced to live in juvenile detention centers or prisons because of current marijuana policy [1]. "...the chance that there is no link is so unfathomably small that it can be safely discounted." I do not deny the possible connection between marijuana smoking and the dangers associated with smoking any substance. However, it has been proven that alternatives such as vaporization [2] and consuming cooked edibles are much safer ways to consume it, and are preferred by any user who values his/her health. "...the downgrading of cannabis had led to...many of them became lured to 'harder' drugs". The "gateway drug" theory exists simply because it is still illegal, on an illegal market. People (mainly kids) who are exposed to the illegal market are more likely to be exposed to illegal drugs. When marijuana is legal, and accepted as "normal", in a legal market, while "hard" drugs are still frowned upon (i.e. the policy in Amsterdam), it has little to no effect on hard drug use [3]. I have read the source presented [4], and I fail to see the results of an actual study. This appears to be a mere calculation based on the number of regular marijuana smokers compared to the number of deaths attributed to tobacco. Again, I do not deny the dangers of marijuana smoking, but as I've said, there are safer alternatives. The mental illness statistics my opponent presented are based on TEEN use. Use of any drug as a teen is irresponsible and has ill effects on the developing brains of teens. This is not related to the legality of the drug, but the quality of the kids' parenting. Yes, there is evidence of the harms of its use, but that is no reason to criminalize it. Alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs for those of age, with many dangers accompanying their use. Yet these drugs remain legal, as I believe they should be. As I've said, the use of such substances and the acceptance of their harm is a personal freedom; if it is used responsibly, in a safe manner, hospital bills need not be an issue. My opponent accuses me of holding a subjective view, and relates the perception of marijuana to heroin. Heroin is easily proven to be a much more harmful drug to one's health, family, and society [5]. My position on marijuana acceptance in society is based much more on fact than the position of acceptance of heroin. Con calls my argument "groundless", but I find a position which believes innocent people should be imprisoned for the use of cannabis much harder to stomach. [1] http://norml.org... [2] http://norml.org... [3] http://www.drugwarfacts.org... [4] http://www.independent.co.uk... [5] http://www.businessinsider.com...

Title: Resolved: The possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U.S. Content: I will be affirming this topic today, because my view (at least for the purposes of this debate) is that laws prohibiting marijuana use are doing more harm than good. Here are my conditions for a successful debate: Round 1 - agreement to debate, introduction Round 2 - definitions, burdens, values, and contention-level arguments Round 3 - refutations to the arguments and conditions created in Round 2 Round 4 - summary and crystallization of the key arguments and voting issue Round 5 - final focus and comments, connection back to the impacts, conclusion Here are a couple of observations hat I have with respect to the previous structure. NEITHER PRO NOR CON MAY DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS. These should be automatic grounds for disqualification: 1. beginning contention-level arguments, definitions, values, burdens, or observations in Round 1 2. doing any refutations of the opponent's arguments in Round 2 (ex: Con cannot spend his/her Round 2 speech refuting my arguments from Round 2) 3. trolling, loitering, or being disrespectful to the opponent And finally, a couple of expectations for the round (so long as my opponent agrees to them): 1. use evidence, statistics, and examples to illustrate arguments 2. follow through with impacts to arguments, clearly defining how each links back to the values and burdens stated at the beginning of the Round 2 speeches 3. sign-post arguments (ex: using contentions or benefits) I will NOT make any definitions or specific arguments until the Con accepts this debate. I look forward to this debate!

Title: Legalizing Marijuana for recreational use. Content: Well my reasoning for the use of marijuana as a recreational drug is that weed could most likely fix the economical problems by taxing weed.And also everyone says its a gateway drug but to be honest in my experience most people who smoke weed dont go on to do cocaine and heroin.

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Content: Thanks once again. If I understand the outline of this debate correctly, I believe the setup was to consist of four rounds as described in Round 1. According to your guidelines, "any violation to the setup will result in automatic forfeit." Seeing as your arguments have extended into a fifth round, thus violating your setup, does this result in your automatic forfeiture? I will let the community decide. Should this have been an honest mistake, I understand, and I will continue to provide my rebuttals to this bring this debate to a close. First of all, I would like to begin with a response to your question: "If you are so strongly against the use of this drug because it affects other people - please explain how you jumped to that conclusion." Since this is a personal question, I will answer based on my opinion - to put it simply, I have a general care and concern for other people. It is my belief that each and every individual has a life worth valuing, and to watch out for and support others is a matter of utmost respect. I personally find it to be devastating when one person's use or misuse of a substance leads to the demise of themselves or another. Although this is my own personal belief which I do not mean to impose upon others, I answer your question with this response. This is why I have chosen to defend America's decision to watch out for its citizens - including said "innocent bystanders" - and therefore join in this debate. As for the legality of alcohol, its imposition has been in place since the birth of the United States with a temporary pause during the Prohibition era from 1920-1933. It is common knowledge that direct alcohol overdose can be fatal, unlike marijuana; however, both can prove to be equally deadly in the indirect sense. We as a country have already experimented with the removal of alcohol from legality during those thirteen years of Prohibition, an affair that led to the repealing of the eighteenth amendment through the implementation of the twenty-first amendment of the Constitution. As history proves, the population did not respond well to the removal of a harmful and potentially addictive substance from legal acquisition. We can view Prohibition as a lesson, however, that when a substance so controlling and powerful is legalized, we could have a very difficult time reversing our actions should nationalized legalization create significant problems on a wider scale. Also, while alcohol may pose risks as a drug, adding marijuana to the list of potentially toxic substances lawfully available to the public will not resolve any problems in the health and lives of our citizens. Therefore, it is sensible to withhold the legalization of recreational cannabis use so as to not add to the current drug problem we have as a nation, rather than legalizing it just because "it is actually LESS DANGEROUS than drugs ALREADY LEGAL." Also, although this strays from our central focus, I would like to remind you that over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription drugs are different types of pharmaceuticals with names that can not be used interchangeably. While OTC drugs can be purchased at one"s own will, prescription drugs require written consent from a medical doctor to be obtained - much like medical marijuana, which can only be obtained from a pharmacy with certified recommendation. If you"d like more distinction, feel free to explore this link: http://www.fda.gov... It is through these solid facts that I "jump to my conclusions." In response to your rebuttal on the tax issue, one could wonder, when following this debate closely, how the information I have presented is irrelevant to this debate. For those who did read through the article published by the Colorado Springs Gazette, they could have gained some insight in the sense that taxation on marijuana may not have so much a desired effect as you proposed in Round 4. If you think this is an unrelated "card I want to pull," you have the right to believe that, yet I believe it backs my statements appropriately. In addition, I would like to invite you to refer back to my previous rebuttals in which I firmly state that yes, America is indeed a country founded upon the basis of freedom - even yet, however, this country cares for all citizens, including those afflicted by others" drug use. The government may not be able to protect us from all harm, that is true, but it will do whatever it can in its power to ensure our welfare. This governmental body will not jeopardize this right to protect its people; after all, I repeat, it is not only the users of this drug who face its negative repercussions. Call to mind again the "innocent bystanders" - including, but not limited to, the victims of vehicular crashes instigated by hallucinating marijuana users; the young children of cannabis users with no control over what they are exposed to; the emotionally traumatized friends and family of deranged users; and all others impacted by the free use of cannabis by people other than themselves. Yes, this may be what you consider "freedom," but I believe the idea of personal freedom you have in mind contrasts starkly with that of the Founding Fathers, whose ideals of freedom rested with assurance that all citizens should have the right to life. So, in response to your question of "Why should the government try to stop us from making decisions that could affect us - they should just let us face the consequences," I continue to stand firm in my response that this is not what we stand for as an American nation. Again, I reassure you that it is not only the direct users of this drug who are afflicted by its use, and the government does not wish to add to the problem by jeopardizing its people even more than currently so. On a further note, it is interesting to hear about this one, single professional who believes that addiction rates would not rise should marijuana be legalized nationally. Not only is this intriguing because this one man, whose quote was unfairly taken without a cited source, is so confident in his views, which could very well be true; however, it is also fascinating, as one man"s views do not reflect the entirety of a population of experts who may believe otherwise. In addition, I invite you to take a look at this article that questions the trustworthiness of the very professional you have quoted, J. Wesley Boyd: http://www.thecrimson.com... Now that our final rebuttals have been made, it is once again time for me to express my thanks and leave those following this debate with one final task - to give their vote. I welcome any and all feedback you would like to give - I truly appreciate it! Thanks so much, and here's to our great nation. :) Final citations: http://www.fda.gov... http://www.consumermedsafety.org... http://www.thecrimson.com... http://scopeblog.stanford.edu...

Title: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Content: The key to the issue is causation vs correlation. 1. So, in response to your 'gateway drug' argument, marijuana is actually not a gateway drug. In fact, the National Institute on Drug Abuse says that ' the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, "harder" substances. '. Factcheck.org says this- 'Though studies of large populations of people have indeed found that those who smoke marijuana are more likely to use other drugs, these studies show a correlation without showing causation " a commonly misunderstood phenomenon in science.'. So its like saying that since usually it rains the day after your neighbor mows his lawn,mowing the lawn must bring rain the next day. It says more about the type of people that use drugs, than any problem or addictive power of marijuana. In Holland, where marijuana is legal, there has actually been a decrease in people falling into the 'gateway' trap. 'A 2010 Rand Institute report found that there was "some evidence" for a "weakened gateway" in The Netherlands, and concluded that the data "clearly challenge any claim that the Dutch have strengthened the gateway to hard drug use." '-from a Time magazine article entitled 'Marijuana as a Gateway Drug: The Myth That Will Not Die'. 2. I will also point out that while marijuana has been linked to depression and anxiety, it can also be used to treat depression and anxiety. So wouldn't it stand to reason that the people who use marijuana take it because it relieves the depression? But when they are tested (presumably not while smoking a joint) they show up as depressed, anxious, etc.? What I mean is that the people more likely to smoke marijuana are people who are more likely to be depressed and/or anxious. 'There have been a number of studies that have explored the link between marijuana use and mental health symptoms. Strong associations are often found but this is not the same as a causal link (i.e. one causes the other).'- The Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute. They also say that 'results are mixed'. 3. Smoking weed does not cause lung cancer. Research from Johns Hopkins University showed that 'Marijuana, unlike tobacco and alcohol, does not appear to cause head, neck, or lung cancer.' In marijuana/cancer studies, there is often no link between the two after accounting for smoking and drinking. Many weed users also do those things. The presence of tobacco can skew the results of such studies, unless you account for those substances. Marijuana on its own is 'unlikely to cause head, neck, or lung cancer', according to WebMD. (On a somewhat irrelevant note, 'What we do know, is that smoking marijuana may help some people cope with cancer. According to the National Cancer Institute, "cannabinoids may have benefits in the treatment of cancer-related side effects."- Verywell.com. So marijuana may have the opposite effect. ----I bring this in not as a reason to legalize, but just to show that it has the opposite effect than what some claim it does.) (We can pretend I didn't say it if you don't want it in.) So while weed may have some adverse effects on your lungs, it most definitely has not been proven to cause or increase the chance of lung cancer. (Rebuttals/Summations in Rd 4?)

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use Content: 1.The information you present on the effects of marijuana is definitely interesting, but I have to ask, would legalizing marijuana for recreational use have any impact on lowering the instances of driving while high? 2.Pro has very good points here. However, I believe that legalizing marijuana and allowing companies in the US to mass-produce it for recreational use would have a negative effect on the safety of the product. Pro makes a good point saying that marijuana is a clean plant, but so are oranges, apples, and grapes. You can eat these right off the plant. Now that food is mass-grown, however, each individual plant gets less important. Harmful pesticides are blanketed over the crops by plane. Additives are used to preserve plants and enhance flavor. Seeds are genetically modified to produce the types of fruits we EXPECT when we go to the supermarket – we want big juicy oranges and crunchy apples, and we want them to be the same every time we buy them. They should look perfect, taste perfect, be perfect. We want this enough that we are willing to allow these big companies to use potentially hazardous chemicals to meet our standards. We have a couple of options, of course, to avoid these potentially hazardous chemicals. We can buy local (or sometimes organic) foods that are guaranteed to be free of the chemicals, or we can grow our own crops. However, these options come at a premium. They are more expensive. People without the resources or time to eat healthy are forced into purchasing the cheap, often less healthy alternative. The same standard applies to the inebriants on the market today. More expensive cigarettes, like American Spirits, are additive free. Cheaper cigarettes are not. More expensive liquors are purer. With marijuana legalized, there is no question that the corporate mass-producers of marijuana would seek the cheapest way to produce and distribute their crop. If that means making it less healthy by using pesticides, preservatives, and additives, so be it. Now, you might argue that legalizing marijuana would mean local growers and home-growers could grow without risk, dropping prices and making the safe product more available. However, using the previous example, it is legal to grow fruit, and yet local products are still more expensive. This is because the mass-producers are extremely good at making their product as cheap and available as possible. There is no reason to assume that the mass-produced marijuana would not also be less expensive, forcing consumers without a lot of resources into purchasing that cheaper, less healthy alternative. Also, keeping marijuana illegal maintains that element of risk on the parts of both mass-producers and local growers. This means less concern is placed on making the product cheap than on finding viable ways to distribute the product. Therefore, illegal growers have less incentive to use harmful chemicals to cheapen the product. People are willing to pay a lot of money (and currently do pay a lot of money) in order to obtain marijuana, and prices are high mostly because of the risk involved. In my experience (and if Pro has counter examples, please bring them) I have never heard a dealer describe one product as being ‘safer' due to less chemical use than another. This is because, due to its illegality, dealers don't fly planes over their crops dumping pesticides. Keeping it hidden is the whole point. Legalizing it would open the plant up to a world of additives and pesticides that are currently of no interest to growers and distributers, as their focus is on keeping it out of view, not making it cheaper. Additionally, large companies invariably release different varieties of their product. This means using the cheapest chemical flavorings available. Marijuana is currently available in many varieties, but none that I know of are chemically flavored. If mass-producers were to flavor their products, which is an inevitable eventuality, they would seek to use the cheapest method available, which is chemicals, regardless of their health effects. 3.I agree that marijuana is a great source of income for these cartels. I am still not convinced, though, that legalizing marijuana would be the best way to stop the violence between these cartels. Black markets find a way to sustain themselves. Instead of putting a dent in these cartels' business by removing one of their sources of income, we should be more active in our assistance to Mexico in battling these cartels. This sounds hypocritical – after all, I have already conceded that the War on Drugs has been ineffective – but the difference is that we should be shifting our focus to eliminating the source of these drugs rather than discouraging its use with insane punishments for users. 4.As Pro said we generally agree here. However, the fact of the matter is that alcohol (and marijuana, actually) use is praised in this culture. I agree that the stoned pose an immeasurably lesser threat to society than drunks, but the fact is that legalizing marijuana is a way of endorsing its use. Currently there are countless medications that should by all rights be illegal that are instead prescribed by doctors. Is relying on these medications to solve our sleep issues, our depression, or our stress the best course of action? Absolutely not. Endorsing the use of drugs of any kind is a bad policy, as it gears our cultural attitude towards seeking release in the form of substances rather than the many beneficial alternatives to substance use. Why get an endorphin release from exercise when you can smoke a joint and feel twice as good? In that same mindset, why seek healthy ways to relieve stress and depression when you can pop a pill? In short, endorsing the use of drugs is bad for our cultural mindset. Thanks, and I look forward to your reply!

Title: should marijuana be legalized for recreational use Content: many believe that marijuana is an ok or great drug but marijuana has a dark side to tell that not all people know. The affects can be very damaging both physical and mental. some people also think that it is a natural and good solution compared to the drugs that the pharmaceutical companies make or hospitals or other forms of retailing medical drugs but that is not the truth base on current evidence, marijuana is an dangerous drug drug and that there are less dangerous medicines offering the same pain relief and other medical symptoms without the nasty side effects that occur when consuming marijuana. This depends on how much you consume but getting high tensed to last longer then being intoxicated and we as humans does not jest drink alcohol from fermented fruits other animals do it as well like monkeys, elephants purposely consume fermented fruits to get intoxicated so it is perfectly normal to consume alcohol unlike marijuana! According to scientific studies the active ingredient in cannabis is "THC" which remains in the body for weeks. This ingredient is also used in most rat poisons. The immediate effects of taking marijuana are rapid heartbeat, disorientation, possible violent vomiting, and lack of physical coordination. Afterwards other symptoms which follow are depression, sleepiness, and some users suffer from panic attacks and anxiety which can lead to bodily harm. These are some of the reasons why marijuana should not be legalized.

Title: Medical as well as recreational marijuana should be legal in all US states Content: In this round I plan to conclude my arguments, but first I shall answer my opponent's question. I entered this debate because I thought it would be interesting. Now, on to my conclusion.Conclusion: Marijuana is a very deadly and unhealthy drug. At no point in history, nor today, has it ever helped anybody. It just makes health problems worse, or create new ones. If you really want to legalize it, you must want a lot of people to die, or at least end up in an insane assyleum. As I have explained throughout the previous rounds, marijuana will just make things worse. No has ever, nor will ever, come from its legalization. Especially since potheads are the only ones trying to fight to get it legalized while the medical field is trying to put their foot down and say no. They've been trying to tell us how bad it is, but no ones listening. They think drugs are fun, but they're really not. My girlfriend used to take all sorts of drugs, marijuana being one. You want to know what they did? They made her uterus bleed... A lot. In fact, she called them her periods. But when was the last time a girl had a period 3 times in one month? Marijuana can have just as bad, or worse effects on everybody who uses it. Is this really something we want in our country? Aren't we supposed to be better than the rest? That's not something we can accomplish if we legalize marijuana.I thank my opponent for this very interesting debate, I also thank the readers who payed attention and followed this. Also, for the readers/followers, please be the well educated, sane people I know you are and vote for Con. Show the world that you're above drugs.Thank you.

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Content: Thank you for your response. As this debate comes nearly to a close, I would like to urge all those following it to strongly consider both points of view - your thought is important. However, I also invite you to keep in mind the value of each and every person's life - this is an issue that impacts all Americans, whether they are direct users of the drug or not. Now, to the rebuttals. The information you provide is interesting, yet given your data you mention that over-the-counter drugs cause more fatalities than some more highly lethal drugs, such as amphetamines. However, your data statistic proceeds to show that prescription drugs provoke more deaths than the listed street drugs. While this may contradict your first statement, I would also like to emphasize that medical marijuana itself, where legalized, is utilized as a prescription drug. If it were to comply with your data, this would make the drug more likely to cause death due to abuse than the listed illicit amphetamines. In compliance with the central focus of this debate, however, I move onto my next rebuttal. You indicate in your argument that marijuana, when legalized and has a tax imposed upon it, would make revenue for the government nonetheless (in spite of your theoretical example). However, it's well-known that some of us as Americans at times aren't particularly fond of taxes. Consider the fact that, in the states that have currently legalized the recreational use of marijuana, the black markets are still currently thriving. In order to evade the tax imposed by legal sales, many drug dealers are continuing their business behind the backs of the laws. I invite you to read the following article, featured in the Colorado Springs-based Gazette: http://gazette.com... Should these unauthorized sales continue, the legal economic foundation for recreational marijuana could topple, thus wasting efforts to secure and sell marijuana lawfully. As I have discussed in each of my previous arguments, there are far more feasible and fail-safe ways to ensure taxation, limit the breaking of law, and increase our government revenue - including those ways which are not harmful to our citizens. I would also like to highlight a note from your argument that I found to be deeply concerning. It seems that from your stance the ability to pay completely for drug rehabilitation is of more importance than the prevention of people's needing of rehabilitation. As you noted yourself, marijuana use can absolutely lead to the need for drug rehabilitation. But if the main concern is not preventing the need, but paying for it, what has America come to in valuing the lives of its citizens? This, precisely, is another reason why our government has not legalized cannabis on a national scale. Not only has the U.S. Food and Drug Administration not approved of marijuana as a safe substance, but given the undeniable consequences this drug has the potential to cause (which extend far beyond the user - think of their families, their friends, and all those who would be devastated by the injury, derangement, or death of a user), America has its right to take a stand to protect its citizens. Indeed, our country was founded on the basis of freedom; however, let us not forget that the creation of our first laws put the care and well-being of our citizens first. What would we be as a country if we did not watch out for one another? Do we want to risk everything that is at stake? As I have made clear, this issue affects people beyond the user in ways more than physical, and therefore the prohibition of legalizing this drug shows that our country cares about the lives and futures of our citizens, no matter who decides or how many people choose to use this drug. In backing this statement, I would also like to present to you this article, discussing the vulnerability of what you may refer to as "innocent bystanders"... young children who have no way of controlling the actions of their elders and therefore what they are exposed to. http://www.dare.org... These children are the next generation of our incredible society. When no choice is presented to them over what they are exposed to and therefore endangered by, this calls into serious question again whether marijuana influences only those who make the choice to use it. On a closing note, I would also like to pinpoint one particular statement made in your final paragraph: "Making marijuana legal for recreational use will NOT INFLUENCE the statistics of the drug as they are right now." I would have to argue against this statement by bringing up the point that increased accessibility to the drug will in turn lead to more users getting their hands on it; with this increase comes the chance that more users will become addicted, thus influencing not only the statistic but also the amount of unfortunate repercussions that result on the population - both users and non-users, whether physically, mentally, spiritually, or in any afflictive way. As I understand that in your set guidelines this debate is to consist of four rounds, I would like to rest my case with thanks to the Debate.org community for their listening ears (or reading eyes!) and to my opponent for an intriguing debate. I once again would like to say that I respect all opinions and have no personal bias on this matter - it is my goal, however, to educate the people on the true and often hidden negative outcomes that result from illicit drug use. For some people, they may seem "cool" to use or give you "a good time" - but there is so much more to life than wasting it away. Thank you! Citations (including the earlier presented articles): https://www.whitehouse.gov... http://www.fda.gov... http://www.businessinsider.com... http://gazette.com... http://www.dare.org...

Title: ALL drugs should be legalized and addiction should be treated as a health problem instead of a crime Content: Since their widespread popularity in the mid-1900s, recreational drugs have shown the world their worth. They have created a generation of people disconnected from reality, disrespectful of society, and counterproductive to our nation. Recreational drugs should not be legalized since they have shown to be hurtful to the individual, to the people surrounding the user, and to society. Marijuana, the most popular illicit drug, is often thought to have no lasting effects on the human body. But according to the National Institute on Drug abuse, marijuana has been proven to hurt the cardiopulmonary system, and contributes to lasting brain damage in many abusers. [1] Marijuana is not the exception, either. Mind altering drugs as a whole have strong tendencies to leave a lasting negative effect in the human brain. My opponent seems to brag that recreational drugs would be cheaper if they were state regulated. I cannot pretend to understand his argument, because he seems to brag that harmful substances would be more readily available for consumption by the public. A government's job is to protect it's people, even from harmful substances. In addition to harming the user, illegal drug consumption hurts those around the user. Those near abusers of crack, marijuana, and other drugs ingested by smoke experience second-hand smoke. Much like tobacco smoke, the smoke from these drugs has negative effect on the person who inhales the fumes. Drivers on mind altering drugs such as LSD, Psilocybin, heroine, and cocaine pose a major threat to others driving. Studies have shown that these drivers are as bad or worse than drunk drivers. It is not fair to the general public to be susceptible to these risks because of someone else's poor choices. Beyond affecting those immediately surrounding the user, legalized recreational drug abuse would affect society as a whole. Cleaning up for drug abuse costs the US over $100 billion every year. [2] Drug abusive generations, starting in the sixties and continuing on to today has made for an irresponsible group of voters, members of the community, and neighbors. Not only do they not help society along, drug abusers downright oppose growth as a civilization. Nearly ten percent of America abuses drugs. [3] Just imagine if those millions of people were actually helpful members of society. My opponent thinks that a better solution to this problem is to declare addiction a medical problem, not a crime. This will not work as thought. A nation that legalizes drugs will have glorified drugs. It will be considered socially acceptable for people to do drugs for recreational purposes. Children will be bombarded with advertising campaigns that show how great cocaine can make you feel. Posters will show how happy people on heroine are. So no, I cannot consider drug legalization to be a suitable form of drug control. I suggest enforcing laws against drugs, advertising against drugs, and increasing awareness about the negative effects of drugs. Sources: [1] http://www.drugabuse.gov... [2] http://www.justice.gov... [3] http://www.drugabuse.gov...

Title: The U.S Government should legalize recreational marijuana. Content: Resolution: The U.S Government should legalize recreational marijuana. The Burden of Proof is on Pro. Con must simply refute my case and show it should *not* be legalized. The debates will be 4 rounds with 5k character limits. Ideally this will be kept under 4k characters though. ==Definitions== Legalize: Make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law. Recreational: Relating to or denoting activity done for enjoyment when one is not working. Marijuana: Cannabis ==Rules== 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions 7. No Kritiks 8. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up may merit a loss. ==Structure== R1. Acceptance R2. Pro's case, Con rebuttals R3. Rebuttals R4. Rebuttals and conclusion.

Title: Legalizing Marijuana for recreational use. Content: Well it would be like alcohol make it illegal to drive and be high thats not that hard. And after reading your whole argument i didn't see any points that said weed was a bad drug. So your only point is that it would take to long to make laws to make it safe. They did it with alcohol they will definitely do it with marijuana.

Title: legalize cannabis Content: I humbly accept this argument.For the sake of clarity, I offer a more apt resolution: "Resolved: Cannabis should be legalized."Before any argumentation is to take place, I offer these definitions (the accordance of these definitions is to be determined by my opponent):Cannabis: A tall annual dioecious plant (Cannabis sativa), native to central Asia and having alternate, palmately divided leaves and tough bast fibers.Legalize: The act of making lawfulI will present my argument in three contentions:Contention 1: The recreational drug use of cannabis is safer than the use of tobacco products and alcohol (both of which are legal) and does not bear any signficant long-term effects for users that do not have pre-existing mental illness.Contention 2: Cannabis has many medical properties and can be used as an herbal alternative to pharmaceutical drugs.Contention 3: Cannabis in its industrious form, hemp, can be used to make a variety of products including paper, construction material, clothing, rope, fabrics, protein powders, and much more.I suggest the next round's use should be to provide elaboration of the contentions/arguments, and for the initial rebuttals. Definition sources:wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwnthefreedictionary.com/cannabis

Title: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana Content: I accept!

Title: AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally. Content: *rings48 turn on rocky theme starts, starts to jog around to random places, punches a wall, remembers why he doesn't do boxing*Thank you very much Debatability. I also want to thank our judges for voting on this debate. I wish luck to Debatability as she starts the debate.*rings48 ices his hand before round 2 starts, smokes a joint, quickly snuffs it out as he realizes he remembers he is Con, has a stupid smile because of the bad joke*

Title: should marijuana be legalized for recreational use Content: I'm for marijuana to be legalized for recreational use, because marijuana can be as dangerous as "food" that we put into our body's. Most people are scared of marijuana and parents, grandparents and other adults tell us that marijuana can kill us. First if alcohol and cigarettes are legal then why marijuana can't be legal too. Alcohol affects on people are scary and unhealthy. People with alcohol addiction are unstoppable they can't control their actions and because of this many life's were lost even of innocent people. To ppurchase marijuana legally you need to visit places like Washington or Colorado to buy a joint, which is far safer then a bottle of vodka. I have seen the affect on people when they are drunk and when they are high, so I rather see high person walking on the street chasing birds, then shouting young man with a vodka or bear bottle in their hands.Second marijuana can be used in medical world, as it shows good potential. Once I had broken my chest and experience is not the best. Pain killers never helped, but as I know marijuana can be used to stop that pain for good. Marijuana can even help in other situations like: mitigates multiple sclerosis and Tourette Syndrome symptoms, and may reduce dystonia. So if marijuana is so bad and its a devils gift to world why some countries, states allow it, maybe its not that bad after and some people should stop worrying about marijuana and start looking how it could help us.

Title: Resolved: The possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U.S. Content: I shall begin my case.Contention 1: Marijuana is dangerousMarijuana has negative side effects when individuals are exposed to it for both short term and long term periods of usage. It distorts your senses, can make you panic, give you anxiety, and increase the rate of your heartbeat, which risks a chance of a heart attack, and since heart attacks are lethal, this means that Marijuana can kill you overtime. Marijuana distorts both you both physically and psychologically. It can make you depressed, reduce your sexual capacity, reduce illness resistance in your body, and destroy your lungs fibers which could potentially be permanent. It also can give you psychosis and schizophrenia. Bronchitis and lung infections are also negative effects you can get from this lethal substance. But worst of all, it increases risk of cancer. It increases amount of cell mutations in your body and when the users smoke them, they inhale carcinogens, which have been scientifically proven to give you cancer by either manipulating your dna directly or increasing the rate of cells dividing, which increases chances of cancerous cells forming. The worst part of Marijuana is the simple fact that it contains up to 50-70% more of the cancer causing substances than tobacco does, and it can cause the same amount of damage as FIVE cigarettes being smoked one at a time.All of the above I have stated are negative effects Marijuana can give you, and we shouldn't allow a drug that is dangerous or lethal, as it causes an unnecessary amount of pain to those who are exposed to it, and each single period of time smoking marijuana is much worse than a single period of time of smoking tobacco.Contention 2: In Colorado, pot increased the crime rateFrom 2004 to 2012, crime rate in Colorado decreased by 32%, that is until pot was legalized, because once it was, crime rate was increased by 21% in just 2 years, with an average of 10.5% per year, whereas the crime rate from 2004 to 2012 decreased at a rate of 4% per year. If crime rates are increasing now with marijuana faster than it was decreasing, then Colorado has a problem. The rate could keep increasing of it is not stopped, and the problem is, this is just Colorado. Imagine if every state allowed people to smoke weed. There are only 4 states in the U.S that have 0 restrictions on Marijuana, while there are 22 states where Marijuana is illegal. Would you want to risk increasing crime rates in all of those states, not even counting the states that have heavy restrictions on Marijuana?Marijuana hurts both the users and the people around the users because as I have demonstrated, it has more cancer causing toxins than tobacco, can give you lung infections which destroy them, can make you depressed and anxious, and it can increase the likelihood of you committing a crimes. Marijuana is clearly not a safe substance, and therefore, it should remain illegal.Sources:http://www.americanthinker.com...http://herb.co...http://www.drugfreeworld.org...http://www.drugfreeworld.org...http://www.narconon.org...

Title: Resolved: The possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U.S. Content: I would like to begin by defining a couple of terms. If my opponent disagrees with my definitions, then he/she can suggest and justify alternative definitions, however terminology should be agreed upon within the first half of the debate. I will not use dictionary definitions; let us just keep it simple. Possession means owning something. Use means smoking/inhaling/eating/vaporizing/etc. marijuan. Recreational marijuana means that adults ABOVE THE AGE OF 21 YEARS OLD are allowed to purchase up to SEVEN GRAMS of marijuana for any reason, with no medical conditions required. Legalized means that we remove the penalties from marijuana activities and that we regulate marijuana in dispensaries at which consumers of age can purchase it. The U. S. refers to all fifty states of the United States of America; the resolution seeks to essentially overturn the national ban on cannabis. The framework for this round should be net benefits. Unless my opponent is able to demonstrate that the costs of legalizing marijuana in the U. S. overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits, the Pro should win the round. Contention 1: Economic Benefits. Legalizing pot allows the United States to allow a wealth of economic benefits in the form of tax revenue and also in the form of liberating costly prisoners from incarceration. We have already seen examples of collecting revenue. According to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), between January 2014 and October 2014, Colorado accrued 40 million dollars of tax revenue by legalizing marijuana and allowing 21+ citizens to purchase it. Suppose that we extrapolated legalization to the whole country. According to the Huffington Post, this would result in $8.7 billion per year in the form of state and federal taxes. Taxing any good or service allows the economy to grow, because it provides money that is uesd for other programs. In the case of marijuana legalization, these programs translate to education, health care, and drug addiction treatment, valuable impacts in our society. Furthermore, legalizing marijuana prevents costs that are associated with incarcerating individuals. According to the DPA, approximately 750 thousand citizens are arrested for an infraction of marijuana law each year. Furthermore, the cost of incarceration is $47,000 per prisoner per year. This translates to 7 to 10 billion dollars per year that are wasted on locking up stoners (rather than rapists or murderers). Clearly, not only does legalizing marijuana create money; keeping it illegal costs money. This 35 billion dollars could be used to reduce the national deficit, solve other crimes, or perhaps reduce taxes on American citizens. Contention 2: Legalizing marijuana reduces crime. Legalizing marijuana prevents police officers from wasting their time arresting harmless stoners, when they could be spending these efforts and resources fighting actually dangerous crimes, such as murder, theft, or rape. According to RollingStone Magazine, marijuana arrests are no longer real "police work"; law enforcement would rather spend their time tackling other crimes such as murder and rape. This argument is intuitive rather than logical; less time wasted on activity X (stopping pot smoke) leads to more time available for activity Y (stopping murder). LearnLiberty echoes this message: "legalizing marijuana frees up resources to solve other crimes". The impact is clear: a reduction in violent crimes that hurt American citizens, if the U. S. is smart enough to legalize pot. Contention 3: Legalizing marijuana reduces or eliminates racial discrimination in law enforcement. It should be clear to the layperson that most marijuana arrests are against racial minorities, particularly blacks. A black individual is no more likely to use pot than a white person but, in Washington D. C. , is over 8 times more likely to be arrested for it. This is what one could refer to as a Jim Crowe system; blacks suffer from mass incarceration much more than whites do, but they do not commit any more wrongdoings than whites. In order to provide for an American system of equality of opportunity and justice without regard to skin color, marijuana should be legalized. This will prevent irrationally suspicious police officers from locking up "dangerous blacks" (who, in truth, are not the least bit dangerous; they are just minding their own business); this racist enforcement is unethical, discriminatory, and clearly non-beneficial. Contention 4: Regulated marijuana is healthier marijuana. When alcohol was prohibited (i. e. before the 1920's), this led to an extensive black market whereby Americans still found ways to produce, purchase, and enjoy alcoholic beverages such as rum and beer. The same phenomenon occurs with marijuana. Even if marijuana is perceived to be dangerous, keeping it illegal does not deter its use. In fact, the criminal nature of cannabis provides a compelling reason for drug cartels to enter the country and sell cannabis, with no regard to whether the weed is tainted with dangerous chemicals like PCP. Since the illegality of marijuana fails to have any deterrent effect, legalizing pot will allow the government to closely control and regulate it. This allows for high-quality marijuana, meaning that consumers will enjoy marijuana that has no dangerous chemicals in it and that achieves standards of safety and health. This makes it a safer option. The influx of drug cartels is associated with the trade of weapons and also with violence, coercion, and sometimes murder. It is easier for a teenager to obtain a joint than it is for him to obtain a can of beer. Since Americans smoke pot regardless of whether or not it is legal, we should legalize it so that citizens purchase it from trusted, regulated dispensaries rather than untrustworthy, sketchy black-market dealers. Contention 5: Americans have freedom of choice. An American citizen should be able to do whatever she want, so long as her actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. Even if skeptics were successfully able to argue that smoking pot is harmful (which I would disagree with), Americans can choose to engage in harmful activities, as long as the others in society do not feel the effects of these choices. People are allowed to eat candy, drink beer, watch TV all day, and smoke cigarettes. Why should we limit the behavior of an individual simply due to archaic notions without any substantial evidence? Marijuana is used for a wide variety of medicinal and leisure purposes, and its effects have been described as uplifting, stress-relieving, and relaxing. To keep marijuana illegal is at variance with the pursuit of happiness that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when America was established as an independent nation. If individuals want to smoke pot, they should be able to do so, particularly in the privacy of their own homes. For many citizens, occasional marijuana use improves the quality of their lives and has medicinal benefits. Some who need it for medical use are too impoverished to afford to obtain a medical recommendation from their doctors, making their medicinal options severely limited. Keeping marijuana illegal is an invasion of privacy. In short, to legalize pot is to provide Americans with the freedoms of choice and discretion and the liberty that they deserve. I have posted evidence below that substantiates my claim. In short, the legalization of marijuana leads to benefits that address the economy, other crimes, racism, national safety, and the freedom of choice. These are all significant benefits that contribute to my proposed framework of "net benefits". A reason why keeping marijuana illegal is disadvantageous is equivalent to a reason why making marijuana legal is advantageous. Too many dollars are wasted in prohibition. Too many lives are locked up in prohibition. To many blacks and Hispanics are unfairly arrested in prohibition. Too many drug cartels enter the U. S. in prohibition. Finally, too many freedoms and basic liberties are violated in prohibition. For these reasons, the possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U. S. Please vote Pro. I await Con's contentions. . https://www.drugpolicy.org... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . http://www.drugpolicy.org... . http://www.rawstory.com... . http://www.rollingstone.com... . http://www.learnliberty.org... . https://www.washingtonpost.com... . http://www.collegiatetimes.com...

Title: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Content: Rebuttal for your reason 1) You left out all the good physical and health benefits of marijuana: It can be used to treat Glaucoma, It may help reverse the carcinogenic effects of tobacco and improve lung health, It can help control epileptic seizures, It also decreases the symptoms of a severe seizure disorder known as Dravet's Syndrome, A chemical found in marijuana stops cancer from spreading, It may decrease anxiety, THC slows the progression of Alzheimer's disease,The drug eases the pain of multiple sclerosis, Other types of muscle spasms could be helped too, It lessens side effects from treating hepatitis C and increases treatment effectiveness. Marijuana treats inflammatory bowel diseases, It relieves arthritis discomfort, It keeps you skinny and helps your metabolism, It improves the symptoms of Lupus, an autoimmune disorder,While not really a health benefit, marijuana spurs creativity in the brain, Marijuana might be able to help with Crohn's disease,Pot soothes tremors for people with Parkinson's disease, Marijuana helps veterans suffering from PTSD, Marijuana protects the brain after a stroke, It might protect the brain from concussions and trauma, It can help eliminate nightmares, Weed reduces some of the awful pain and nausea from chemo, and stimulates appetite, Marijuana can help people trying to cut back on drinking. ~BuisnessInsider.Rebuttal for reason 2) When you buy a product, there will be a tax - we all know that. So if people are allowed to buy this substance, of course there will be a tax on it. The government will gain profit and BENEFIT from this legalization - it is a win-win for everyone! We all have the freedom of choice, weither it is to take a shot, smoke a cigarette, or make a huge decision. We all know that Marijuana is dangerous - we all get it, drugs are bad (and so are tobacco and alcohol); but we should let people have the CHOICE if they want to consume such substances or not. After all, we are in the United States of America; and isint FREEDOM what being an American citizen is all about?Rebuttal for reason 3) But only 9% of people who experiment with marijuana before addicted.Rebuttal for reason 4) Refer back to by first rebuttal in this round.

Title: Marijuana should be legal. Content: this is going well :/

Title: [Drug legalization resolution too long to post here] Content: Full resolution: If marijuana, as a recreational drug, is legalized for those over the age of 18, it should be legalized to grow on a commercial basis only and any domestic growth of it should remain illegal. First round is up to Con. They can either accept or make a case.