The Instigator
Nails
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

Autistic children should not be allowed to smoke marijuana.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,451 times Debate No: 10281
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (6)

 

Nails

Con

There is a disproportionately low number of autistic children in gangs. This results in autistic children being underrepresented in the drug trafficking industry. Since we can't easily force gangs to accept autistic children among their ranks, we need to do the next best thing and provide autistic children with an alternate source of marijuana which they can consume [1], sell [2], cut for profit [3]. We could appeal to their autistic side with such advertisements as [4].

======
Sources
======

[1] http://images.ctv.ca...
[2] http://www.cnn.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://steelturman.typepad.com...

PRO can either post arguments in round 1 or wait for round 2 to post. I will be posting further contentions in round 2.
Danielle

Pro

I'll just go right ahead and start making my arguments; I don't have to wait for Con to begin :)

1. For legal purposes, I am in favor of marijuana legalization (buying) for those over the age of 18. Autistic "children" do not fit within these parameters.

2. Similarly, children presumably live with their parents. Therefore, they must typically abide by their parents rules (especially since they have a mental deficiency). As such, if their parents have decided for any number of reasons (including medical or practical as well as moral) that they don't want their autistic children smoking pot, then said children should not be allowed to.

3. Parents with autistic children have been known to give their kids pot for two reasons: to increase appetite, and for social purposes (such as calming anxiety). However, there are healthier alternatives to increasing appetite and calming anxiety, including medical options (other medications) and non-drug induced ways, including meditation, therapy, etc. Additionally, because being autistic involves other complications and medications that may interfere or have a bigger negative affect on people with autism (including the paranoia aspect of marijuana, and the schizophrenic tendencies that tend to emerge after some people smoke), then it's preferable to seek other options.

4. Although the law isn't always a good indicator of what "should" be permissible or legal, the fact remains that recreational marijuana is outlawed in all 50 states. As such, for parents to condone their children consuming illegal drugs would be irresponsible in regard to their impressionable children.

5. Con's only argument has been that there is a low representation of autistic kids in gangs (which is a good thing), and as such they should be given access to buy, sell, and use. However, Con has not yet offered any contentions in favor of these ideals. He has the burden of establishing why this would overall be the best idea. If his points will be based on legalities, I'm prepared to combat it. If the perks he plans to mention are medical, he must show that it's the most useful, practical and overall best medical decision in terms of the problems and effects. If the supposed benefits are economic, then his points should only be considered if I can't offer viable and preferable alternatives.

So with that said, I challenge my opponent to put his game face on and come back at me in R2.
Good luck, Nails -- this should be fun:)
Debate Round No. 1
Nails

Con

Rest assured, my game face is on. I imagine that I'll need it for this debate.
I'd also like to suggest to my opponent that further discourse be laced with reeferences to marijuana. To voters: finding them all will earn you brownie points. Here is a rather elephantine list of slang terms to utilize: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov...

=======
Contention
=======

I was zooming through news headlines this morning, and there was a report claiming that marijuana was charged with curing an autistic boy of his chronic symptoms of autism.
http://www.kauz.com... (The video in this link will really hit home.)
http://www.independent.co.uk...
http://rawstory.com...
Just Google 'Marijuana Cures Autism' or anything of similar kind, and you'll see pages and pages of these claims. Some are loco, but there are a few that I wouldn't dismiss as light stuff.

As of yeh, there has been no reliable scientific study to conclusively confirm or deny these, thus I contend that we ought to legalize marijuana for autistic children so that scientists may get to the root of this claim.

As I have debated "Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization" atleast 51 times durong the past month, I used the term 'allow' and not 'require' because mandated marijuana is no better than its current ban. Another, better, solution is: all parents willing to allow their autistic children to consume marijuana will be used as part of the study.

=======
Reefutation
=======

1. While the arguments are probably stacked in the favor of 18 legalization, if Pro toke this debate to argue that point, she's in the wrong place.

2. I'm not advocating or debating that children should break their parents' rules. Given the probable physical and mental condition of those children eligible for this study, I highly doubt any would be able to lay hands on a stash of pot, let alone hide their habit from their parents.

3. Pro atleast gets up against the stem of my argument here. However, while there are more alternatives than one could shake a stick at, science is still wet behind the ears when it comes to the study of marijuana. We don't need pin point accuracy, but we need to have at least some scientific backing for our claims. I don't advocate this for the proven effX, but in order to prove the effects.

4. Post-fiat, marijuana would be legal for autistic children, so the parents would not be condoning illegal drug use.

5. Despite the incredible logic behind my original argument, I won't be pursuing it further. I realize that there are preeferable alternatives, most notably the formation of an all-autistic gang.

Note: I'll give anyone a gold star who finds all 28 hidden reeferences.
Danielle

Pro

Con opens the final round beginning with the contention that some people say that marijuana helps autism, and as such it should be legalized for those parents who want to test it out. I'd like to point out that this doesn't refute any of my arguments (which I will relay once more later on in my rebuttal). Further, marijuana is already legal for this purpose in the form of medical marijuana. And, there are special licenses that doctors can obtain to do medical experiments, so this is irrelevant. So now onto his rebuttal of my 5 arguments...

1. I have no idea what Con's "rebuttal" is trying to state. What I said was that the resolution in question was regarding children, i.e. those 18 and under. Extend my arguments until Pro refutes them.

2. Con says that he's not trying to get autistic children to break their parents rules; however, he states this after a round in which he wrote, "We need to do the next best thing and provide autistic children with an alternate source of marijuana which they can consume, sell, cut for profit." Because we can assume that the parents of autistic children would not want this for their kids, we must assume that Con believes the autistic children should be able to go against their parents.

3. My point here was that there are alternatives to marijuana that we should be encouraging for those who use it for medical purposes. He said that science doesn't need pin point accuracy. Uh... okay? My point hasn't been negated.

4. Con says that the legal status of marijuana doesn't matter; however, the resolution didn't say anything about changing the law or assuming that the laws were different (or that they should be different).

5. Con still maintains that an all-autistic gang is the best option; however, fails to mention why. I believe such a thing would not only be unethical but unfeasible. Moreover, he still didn't refute any argument from my 5th point.

So basically, extend all of my arguments until I get a sufficient rebuttal :)
Debate Round No. 2
Nails

Con

Unfirtunately, PRo Has yet to incorporate any marijuana reeferences into her arguments.

Boo hoo, it's water under the bridge, and I'm still having A-bomb debating this.

=========
My Contention
=========

--"I'd like to point out that this doesn't refute any of my arguments (which I will relay once more later on in my rebuttal)."

It wasn't a reefutation. It was a contention fir my case. I made reefutations below that.

--"Further, marijuana is already legal for this purpose in the form of medical marijuana."

Correct me if I'm just blowing hot air here, but medical marijuana is currently legal only for reducing harsh suffering or other medical uses, [1] and only in a fu states at that [2]. It is not currently legal for experimentation on autistic children. If it is, that's fine stuff. Let's kee-p it that way.

--"And, there are special licenses that doctors can obtain to do medical experiments, so this is irrelevant."

I'm not trying to bash PRo's trustworthiness, but hopefully she will be able to post a source of this in the next round to show the exact nature of these 'special licenses.' A Google search sparked up very few results. Of the sources I zoomed through, all seemed to talk only of medical marijuana, and only for those 18 or older and only for relief of harsh suffering. [3] [4] [5]

It wouldn't really blow my roof to find that there were 'special licenses,' but it is a moot point. This is nothing more than a joint conflation of what is with what ought to be, and in the most loco way. Hopefully PRo will elaborate on why the fact that marijuana is currently legal means that for some reason we should ban it.

In the words of theLwerd, "basically, extend all of my arguments until I get a sufficient rebuttal"

=======
Her Points
=======

1.

--"Extend my arguments until Pro refutes them."

To be estra clear, this is the entire text of her original argument 1:
--"For legal purposes, I am in favor of marijuana legalization (buying) for those over the age of 18. Autistic "children" do not fit within these parameters."

She's telling you to extend her opinion that people over 18 should be allowed to do drugs. By all means do; it isn't relevant at all to this debate because, as she points out, "Autistic 'children' do not fit within these parameters."

===
===

2.

"Con says that he's not trying to get autistic children to break their parents rules; however, he states this after a round in which he wrote, 'We need to do the next best thing and provide autistic children with an alternate source of marijuana which they can consume, sell, cut for profit.'"

A) I also stated that in the same round in which I said, "Despite the incredible logic behind my original argument, I won't be pursuing it further." My opponent is attacking an argument that I'm not even arguing and ignoring my current position. Though I don't have my logical fallacies down pat, I believe this would be a strawman argument.

B) There is nothing about that quote that sticks out in the way PRo sess it does. It does not say 'autistic children Can consume drugs without their parents' permission.' It in no way impllies that these kids are disobeying parents' orders.

C) Extend the uncontested argument I made last speech: "Given the probable physical and mental condition of those children eligible for this study, I highly doubt any would be able to lay hands on a stash of pot, let alone hide their habit from their parents."

===
===

3.

PRo again said there are primo alternatives.
A) She hasn't verified this claim with any proof yeht.
B) I'm fairly certin this is incorrect. There are no cures of autism that I know of.

Anyway, that wasn't even the key point of my argument. We shouldn't be feeling confident of our current scientific knowledge, since we are still wet behind the ears when it comes to the study of marijuana. Again, I do not advocate this for the proven health benefits, but to prove health benefits.

===
===

4.

I specifically am arguing that we kick the old laws regarding marijuana use for autistic cheeodren.

Suppose the resolution were: Gay marriage should be allowed.
Would you ever argue that it shouldn't be allowed because gay people would be breaking the law?

Same kind of thing here. The reason MJ is not allowed is that illygal. Thus making it allowed (even if I hadn't explicitly stated it) would most probably come in the form of making it legal.

===
===

5. I think an all-autistic gang would be a stellar idea. However, I already admitted: "Despite the incredible logic behind my original argument, I won't be pursuing it further." PRo is beating a dead horse here.

[1] http://medicalmarijuanaguide.com...
[2] http://www.drugpolicy.org...
[3] http://fortcollins.craigslist.org...
[4] http://www.marijuanamedicine.com...
[5] http://www.mahalo.com...

46 hidden reeferences to marijuana. You could find many searching through the spelling errprs in my case.
Danielle

Pro

Con begins by questioning the legitimacy of medical marijuana and how one would go about getting it. Currently, at least 14 states allow for medicinal marijuana; you have to register for a card and then talk to your doctor about a prescription. The information which Con requested can be found here [1]. However, Con is right in stating that it is still illegal at the federal level. While I completely disagree with this legislation, this debate is not about whether or not pot should be legal, or even if it should only be legal for autistic kids. If that were the case, it would have been clarified in R1. However, you'll notice that R1 only talked about the lack of autistic kids in gangs and how/why they should be allowed to cut and sell drugs for profit. So, that is exactly what Con has to defend in this debate.

Rebuttal:

1. Con's point makes absolutely no sense. I said, "For legal purposes, I am in favor of marijuana legalization (buying) for those over the age of 18. Autistic "children" do not fit within these parameters." That argument makes perfect sense -- my personal feelings on legislation do not apply to autistic CHILDREN (the subject of this debate). Con says that this isn't relevant, but clearly it is.

2. Con concedes the first part of the argument, but then claims that he's not telling the children to disobey their parents ~ he thinks they should be allowed to smoke if their parents agree. Well, as I already pointed out (so yes, I did refute it), it would be irresponsible for parents to be encouraging their under-age autistic children to smoke pot. That is a decision for someone of legal age to make. Further, people with autism are considered to be mentally handicapped [2] and in many cases, they're literally retarded [3]. So, given the CHILD'S age (under 18) and the probability that they're not capable of making those kinds of decisions, Con is advocating that a parent use their kids to study something that is not proven to be effective and in fact can severely harm them. This seems like it is violating the child's rights.

While pot can be an incredible tool of medicinal value, it can have devastating effects on one's mental health - particularly those who are already susceptible to mental deficiencies. For instance, in addition to weakening the immune system, marijuana has been linked to the acceleration of mental disorders such as paranoia, depression, uncontrollable aggression, bipolar psychosis, schizophrenia, etc. [4]. So, for a child with autism, this can potentially be incredibly dangerous.

3. I pointed out that there were beneficial and less harmful treatments for autism than marijuana. Con countered this by saying (a) I haven't pointed out any, and (b) that I was wrong because there are no known cures. He's right about the second part - there is NO known cure for autism, including marijuana... so this is a moot point. As far as the alternatives, how about: sensory integration therapy, dietary modifications, occupational and physical therapy, play therapy, social stories, picture exchange communication systems, vitamins, etc. [5].

So, now that we've cleared that up, Con's next part of the argument claims that we should allow for this kind of testing specifically to see if/how marijuana can help with autism. A few things - Based on the evidence and knowledge that we DO have, we can infer or at least draw some kind of conclusion about the prospective benefits and whether or not this would be a good endeavor to look into. Also, why does this testing have to be done on CHILDREN specifically? Most importantly, I already detailed how one could go about getting a marijuana registration card, talking to their doctor about medical marijuana, and doing this in a safe and legal way. However, I do think people should consider the risks (especially as it pertains to other mental health disorders and associations regarding pot).

4. Regarding the legality of this issue, it was never clarified in R1 that we were discussing changing the current laws. Moreover, it was not implied or specified in the resolution. So, when I accepted this debate, the only thing up for discussion was the resolution and what Con posted in the first round:

"Since we can't easily force gangs to accept autistic children among their ranks, we need to do the next best thing and provide autistic children with an alternate source of marijuana which they can consume, sell, and cut for profit."

While I think pot should be legal (that's obvious), I don't think it should be legal for children as I have mentioned. Further, if it becomes legal, it should be legal for STUDIES and an advancement of science as my opponent said -- not for autistic people to consume (without knowing the dangers), sell and cut for profit. The basic point, though, is that even if it WERE legal - that doesn't necessarily mean that people *should* smoke pot, let alone people with autism, let alone children with autism. If I can prove -- and I believe I have -- that KIDS with autism probably shouldn't be smoking pot, then I have won this debate.

5. Con concedes that having an autistic gang is unethical and unfeasible.

[[ Update ]]

So it seems to me the only arguments in question are:

1. If those under 18 should consume pot (Con says yes)
2. If parents should be able to give their under-age and mentally ill children pot (Con says yes)
3. If pot with all of its negative connotations to mental health should be administered to mentally ill children when there are other, healthier alternatives (Con says yes)

In the first round, basically Con said that autistic children need a voice (they're not represented in gangs) and should have pot accessible to them. However, as I've pointed out, children should not have this option, and parents should seek healthier alternatives which have proven to be effective. Experimentation is fine, but it should be administered first to adults and those who would probably benefit the most (which science can help us infer). Plus, if this argument applies, then it should apply to ALL people that pot can benefit - which would be most people - not just those with autism. And again, this debate is about autistic children. Even if it were legal for these individuals, their parents should have the first and foremost say about what they ingest for medicinal reasons. Most parents would probably agree that this is a bad idea.

[1] http://www.mahalo.com...
[2] http://www.autismspot.com...
[3] http://www.autism-resources.com...
[4] http://cyber.law.harvard.edu...
[5] http://www.neurologychannel.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Nails

Con

======
Rebuttal
======

1. "my personal feelings on legislation do not apply to autistic CHILDREN (the subject of this debate). Con says that this isn't relevant, but clearly it is."

Well, my feelings on legislation DO apply to autistic children, and they are FAR stronger than Pro's feelings. This means you vote for me. Well, not really.

That's just the point, Pro's feelings, Con's feelings, even the judge's feelings shouldn't matter at all. There is no reason to trust Pro's feelings anyway:
a. Because she is involved in this debate and stands to gain from testifying for the side she is defending
b. Because she has no credentials to qualify her opinion as professional. Her degrees have little to do with medicine. [2]

---

2. "Con is advocating that a parent use their kids to study something that is not proven to be effective and in fact can severely harm them. This seems like it is violating the child's rights."

Noticing theLwerd's previous debates (and this one as well), she seems to be a clear advocate of marijuana. I'm sure she knows that there are no serious harms associated with it, even for autistic children. [3]

Even if that were the case, it's not the child's decision to make. Parents decide whether children get potentially life threatening shots, they spank their kids, and inflict other punishments. A parent's ability to exercise authority over their children generally goes unquestioned. But why is this an issue anyway? Medical Marijuana hasn't even been found severely dangerous at levels far above the recommended dosage. [3]

You could even justify it using John Stuart Mill's Harms Principle. [4] The autistic children being allowed to receive pot are regularly reported as being violent and being a danger to their parents. [5] At that point, a parent should be allowed to give their autistic children marijuana, because it is not just for their own benefit, but for their parents and care-givers as well.

Finally, I posit that they aren't having rights violated because autistic children would probably enjoy marijuana. Marijuana tend to have a pleasing effect on those who consume it.[6][7] I see no reason why this would be any different for autistic children.

---

3. First, she provides alternatives.

A. She doesn't explain them, she just lists a bunch with a link to them. That's not really an argument.

B. Her source doesn't testify to the efficacy of any of them. In fact, it does just the opposite for some of her alternatives:
"the use of dietary modifications and supplements to treat the disorder is controversial."
"[The treatment] may contribute to behavioral problems in autistic patients."
"Eliminating foods that contain gluten and casein from the diet may cause side effects"
"supplements (which contain vitamins A and D) MAY improve behavior, eye contact, attention span, and learning"
http://www.neurologychannel.com...

C. Her own source even says "Treatment depends on the individual needs of the patient."

There is no 1 solution that is better than the rest, it depends on the particular person. I would say this is a great argument in favor of marijuana. Allowing marijuana gives autistic children one more possible treatment that might work. In the many sources I've posted, you can find multiple stories of children for whom these traditional medications wouldn't work (for example here: http://www.independent.co.uk...) and who were suffering incredibly (as in here: http://www.kauz.com...) As opposed to many situations where there is one best cure, the fact that the optimum treatment varies would lean in favor of leaving marijuana open as a medical alternative.

D. Her own source also says "In most cases, a combination of treatment methods is more effective."

As with point C above, we need to leave all options open. Even children who have seen fairly effective results with other treatments could potentially be further helped by eating pot brownies. Pro seems to put the child's interests first. If that is the case, then there is no reason why we should ban potentially effective alternatives.

---

She then goes on to make the argument that "I already detailed how one could go about getting a marijuana registration card, talking to their doctor about medical marijuana, and doing this in a safe and legal way."

I fail to see how this is an argument against my case. We can safely and legally have access to this marijuana, then what exactly is the problem here?

She also mentions:

"Also, why does this testing have to be done on CHILDREN specifically?"

It doesn't. The point is that it shouldn't be done on adults specifically. Saying 'Autistic kids should smoke pot' doesn't mean 'autistic adults shouldn't smoke pot.' I in no way am saying that autistic adults shouldn't have the same opportunity, just that children shouldn't be left out.

It's also important to note here that PRO has drawn no significant line between child and adult for the purposes of this debate. Generally the argument is that children can't properly choose for themselves. In the case of autism, neither children nor adults can properly choose for themselves. But that's beside the point. The point is that the only time CON ever distinguishes between children and adults is in saying children should respect their parents' decision. Any argument on her part distinguishing between between adults and children in the last speech would be completely new and I would never have a chance to respond.

---

4. "if it becomes legal, it should be legal for STUDIES as my opponent said -- not for autistic people to consume sell and cut for profit."

I made it crystal clear in my last 2 rounds that I am not continuing down the 'Autism Gangs' line of argumentation. In fact, I've advocated exactly what Pro is demanding here: (CON in Round 2)

"I contend that we ought to legalize marijuana for autistic children so that scientists may get to the root of this claim... all parents willing to allow their autistic children to consume marijuana will be used as part of the study."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's exactly what Pro is calling for.

---

"If I can prove -- and I believe I have -- that KIDS with autism probably shouldn't be smoking pot, then I have won this debate."

Not quite. Pro's job is to prove that they shouldn't be ALLOWED to. For example, convincing arguments can be made that Pro's consumption of alcohol is a bad idea, yet that in no way proves that she shouldn't be allowed to do so.

---

5. "Con concedes that having an autistic gang is unethical and unfeasible."

Indeed, I have. By all means, ignore my original argument that we should form an autism gang.

======
Con Case
======

"Con has to defend [autistic gangs] in this debate."

I noted in R1 that I would post further arguments, as well as posting in comments that "That's not really my argument for it. I plan on posting actual arguments in r2; I just needed something to put in r1."

theLwerd also talks about marijuana currently being legal. Just extend the argument I already made that:

"It wouldn't really blow my roof to find that there were 'special licenses,' but it is a moot point. This is nothing more than a conflation of what is with what ought to be, and in the most loco way."

This went completely unaddressed: Whatever the current situation, it has no bearing on what we should do.

[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.doublex.com...
[4] http://davidhildebrand.org...
[5] http://www.autism.com...
[6] http://serendip.brynmawr.edu...
[7] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Danielle

Pro

1. Autistic Children

To clarify, I said that I have no qualms with marijuana being legalized for those over the age of 18. Con never disputed that discrepancy. Because children - including autistic children - are not over 18, they should not be permitted to smoke marijuana. I gave a number of reasons for this, including but not limited to the fact that their parents are responsible for them. When an individual reaches 18 years of age and is seen as a legal adult in the eyes of the law (wholly responsible for their actions, and considered eligible for things like voting and the draft), then they should be allowed to legally smoke pot. Again, autistic children should be no exception strictly in terms of the law. Medical marijuana is a different story - but more about that later. For now, you'll notice that Con's only rebuttal here was that my opinion doesn't matter. As you can see, this is not enough to negate my point.

2. Marijuana's Harm and the Harm Principle

I pointed out that parents should not make the decision to give their children medicinal marijuana unless it has been tested or predicted to be severely beneficial. Con's only argument was that (1) I'm in favor of legalization... however, how I really feel is irrelevant; this debate is not about past debates, my opinions, etc. I find it ironic that Con says my opinion doesn't matter in point #1, but then draws upon my opinion as evidence in point #2. Nevertheless, he also writes that (2) marijuana isn't considered severely harmful and (3) JSM's harm principle makes it okay for parents to experiment.

Going back to his second point, I pointed out that medical marijuana has in fact known to draw up some severe mental problems, all of which I detailed and linked sources to in the last round. So, for one with a severe MENTAL ILLNESS or even retardation, it might not be the best idea to have them experiment with pot - a known hallucinogen [1]. That could have devastating mental effects on an individual. Con is right regarding marijuana being essentially harmless; however, he didn't take into consideration the harm that it might have on those who are already mentally ill. While one source did mention less irritability, it did absolutely nothing to discuss the child's mental health.

Further, you'll notice that Con wrote, "The autistic children being allowed to receive pot are regularly reported as being violent and being a danger to their parents." So... autistic children smoking pot are violent and dangerous, and as such we should continue giving it to them? Hmm. Moving on, let's analyze what the harm principle actually says: That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. So a few things -- First, Con has not proven that autistic children are dangerous or harmful. Unruly and aggressive? Sure. But dangerous? No.

Second, Con's only proof that marijuana even works is from a report of a stressed out mom whose kid has autism. So, ladies and gentlemen, if MY opinion doesn't count because it's just a regular opinion (I don't have a medical degree), then Con's lone example shouldn't count either. If you check his source, the example provided was by a mom who gave her 9 year old kid pot as a substitute for the medicine he was receiving prior to that. That's hardly proof or hard empirical data in his favor.

3. Alternatives

I see absolutely no reason why my list of alternatives isn't an argument. How am I supposed to "explain them" as Con suggests? It's pretty obvious that the alternatives I listed were proven medical alternatives to treat autism and the symptoms that pot supposedly helps sure. Moreover, Con says that my alternatives haven't been 100% proven effective... however, he is advocating the legalization of pot for *experimental purposes* -- in other words, his solution isn't proven effective either. Once again, this is a hypocritical argument.

My alternatives are healthier and safer because they don't require an already mentally challenged brain ingesting a hallucinogen, but rather making dietary changes and practicing other forms of therapy to help alleviate negative symptoms. Also, saying that the dietary changes are "controversial" does not mean that it's bad - it just means that a consensus hasn't been reached regarding precise data. Plus, just because there are "side effects" as Con pointed out doesn't mean that those side effects are negative. You'll notice that my alternatives (most of which are therapeutic - and Con only attacked the dietary one) have no known bad side effects according to the link and source, whereas pot does; links for proof can be found in my last round.

4. Legal and Auxiliary Issues

As I said in the last round, it was never clarified in the resolution or R1 that this debate was about changing the current laws. So, under the current legalities, I maintain that autistic children should not be allowed to smoke pot as it is currently illegal. However, assuming that they could legally smoke utilizing a medical marijuana card (and using it was recommended by an esteemed physician), then I would not be against it... But, you'll notice that in R1, Con's argument was that autistic children should have access to marijuana that they could CUT, USE, and SELL FOR PROFIT. In that case, I am against the resolution... and you'll notice that Con absolutely did not defend that assertion, and instead has changed the debate entirely to be about whether or not autistic kids should be able to smoke marijuana legally for medicinal purposes.

While I've adjusted to the new contentions, Con's altering of his stance in the debate is abusive in terms of debate etiquette. While Con thinks it's okay to simply "drop the point about the gangs" ... which by the way has nothing to do with the using and selling for profit, as you don't have to be in a gang to do that ... The reality is that Con ONLY brought other arguments into this which have nothing to do with his original intentions regarding the debate. So, I have been forced to debate something that was never accepted upon in the first round. While Con did clarify that he would add more arguments (and that's allowed), dropping the 1st and only presented argument in R1 to drastically alter the direction of your case is bad conduct. That said, I've also pointed out that even if pot WERE legal, it doesn't necessarily mean that people *should* smoke pot, let alone people with autism, let alone children with autism. If I can prove -- and I believe I have -- that KIDS with autism probably shouldn't be smoking pot, then I have won this debate.

5. Conclusion and Re-cap

A) Con never specified that this debate was about changing the current laws. So, under the current laws, autistic children should not be allowed to smoke pot (it's illegal).

B) Even if pot were legal, it's not good for child consumption - particularly children with mental illness. Con didn't provide substantial MEDICAL evidence that pot helps; only that it calmed 1 particular child down... which is useless information, as we already know that pot can work as a sedative.

C) Pot can be potentially harmful to smoke for those with mental disorders. I linked information in the last round about how it can negatively impact the brain, and provided information as to why it's more likely to be harmful to one who is already experiencing medical difficulties.

D) If a parent disagrees of their child using it, they shouldn't be allowed to.

E) While parents do make most of the medical situations, they can not make all decisions; some can be overrided by doctors or the State. For instance, a parent cannot give consent for those under 18 to go sky diving because it's too risky. The same applies to autistic kids and pot, and The Harm Principle does not apply.

Resolution affirmed.

[1] http://www.acde.org...
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I just noticed that someone gave this debate a -1, probably from reading my opening argument.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
I forgot all about it lol until Vi told me I had 30 mins to post. I was like craaap. So I rushed through it.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Do you always cut it so close to the deadline?
I was thinking this debate was going to be ruined by having a forfeit.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Nails... How did you think this up?

I mean, srsly...
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
lol was going to say.... none of that is reasoning why autistic children should be allowed to use marijuana
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
The law normally prevents us from accessing marijuana.
Gangs allow us access to marijuana.
Autistic children are underrepresented in gangs.
Therefore, they need an alternative source of marijuana.
That source would be, in this case, being allowed to smoke it legally.

That's not really my argument for it. I plan on posting actual arguments in r2; I just needed something to put in r1.
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
Your argument and your title don't quite match up.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
NailsDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 7 years ago
LaSalle
NailsDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
NailsDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Pogosama 7 years ago
Pogosama
NailsDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by dasamster 7 years ago
dasamster
NailsDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
NailsDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04