The Instigator
ThewordofGod
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kasmic
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Cannabis should be fully legalised to over 18's.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 898 times Debate No: 84780
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)

 

ThewordofGod

Pro

Resolution: cannabis shouldn't be illegal in the UK.

Definition/meanings:

Fully legal. No limits on growing it. Available like alcohol, though with a ban on advertising (which I would argue should be the case for alcohol, in case anybody is confused).

I will ask the challenger to put forth their reasons first. This is because it seems to me that depriving people of rights, Liberty, property, freedom, the ability to work in many professional careers, and the right to be secure in their own home, requires an explanation. Too long have cannabis users been forced to explain why they deserve equality, it's on those destroying lives who should have to account for their actions.

Rules: first round con should justify the ruination of careers, families and lives for the use of something potentially harmful. Con should begin by saying why people who have smoked weed deserve such abuse and discrimination, when other drugs and substances, which are just as destructive, are tolerated (even promoted).

I am not arguing that cannabis is unharmful, I am arguing that choosing to discriminate those who prefer cannabis over alcohol or other substances is immoral. Some people like sugar, some like smoking, some like alcohol and some like cannabis-I don't understand why this portion of the population (about 10%) are free game for discrimination when the others are not.

Please let's not have that same argument about its health risks because I think it's widely accepted now that alcohol is worse, so this argument is about whether distinguishing cannabis users over other drug uses for discrimination is immoral.
kasmic

Con

Observation:

We are arguing if something should or should not be legal. It is important to note what it is we are not arguing. For example, we are not arguing what punishments are or are not justified. Likewise, we are not arguing about overcrowded prisons, or mandatory minimums, these are not relevant topics to the resolution. Many who argue about drugs often argue that they should be decriminalized. Again, while an interesting and important topic it is not directly related to this debate. For example, It is feasible to argue, as many do, that something should be illegal and decriminalized, or to argue for less stringent punishments for violations. Now that we have covered what is not being debated, we can get to the core issue. This debate rests solely on the question of if all Marijuana should be legalized. Emphasis on all, if I can reasonably show why Marijuana should remain illegal my opponent loses. Also of note, my opponent has brought up alcohol. This has no bearing on the topic at hand, the legality of alcohol does not impact marijuana at all.

I will present my argument in two parts. The first being that the U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from Drugs, and the second, that the Government protects citizens through the rule of law. By arguing such it will become clear that the U.K. Government should not legalize Marijuana.

Argument Part 1: The Government ought to protect citizens from Marijuana.

My case here is quite simple (P = Premise, C = Conclusion)

P1: The U.K. government ought to protect citizens from harm.
P2: Citizens can be and are harmed by Marijuana
C: The U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from Marijuana.

P1: The U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from harm

To understand what the government ought to do it is important to understand the Role of government. The role of government “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare….”

Such governments could only accomplish these goals and realize their purpose if citizens are protected from harm. There can be no justice, tranquility, general welfare etc. if citizens are subject to harm that the government could reasonably prevent. That is to say Governments ought to protect their citizens from harm.

P2: Citizens can be and are harmed by Marijuana

Pro states, “I am not arguing that cannabis is unharmful” he is correct, it is harmful.

Marijuana can alter the user’s sense and mood. It can impair body movement, alter memory, and decrease the ability to problem solve. It is known to affected brain development negatively. It can cause breathing problems, hallucinations, and paranoia. It can cause anxiety, depression, and has been shown to induce suicidal thoughts in teens. (1)

"There is the Denver man who, hours after buying a package of marijuana-infused Karma Kandy from one of Colorado’s new recreational marijuana shops, began raving about the end of the world and then pulled a handgun from the family safe and killed his wife, the authorities say."[1]

You tell me, Is this man’s dead wife more free? Is this man’s family more safe? Is this harm hypothetical? Talk about harm. Marijuana harms in many ways. It is not a stretch to assume that someone who’s mood is altered, having hallucinations, is paranoid, prone to erratic and violent behavior, and/or having suicidal thoughts poses a threat to themselves and others.

"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Household Survey on Drug Abuse asks individuals living in households about their dug and alcohol use and their involvement in acts that could get them in trouble with the police... those who use cannabis or cocaine were much more likely to commit crimes of all types than those who did not use these substances. Of those reporting use... during 1991, 26.1% also report that they committed violent crimes during the year."(3)

We see that drug use is linked to violent crime. That is to say harm to others. Legalizing a drug does not remove the harms inherent to that drug. Thus we see that Citizens can be and often are harmed by Marijuana use.

Conclusion of Part 1:

As P1 and P2 are affirmed that the U.K. government ought to protect citizens from harm and that Citizens can and often are harmed by drugs it follows logically that the U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from Marijuana.

Argument Part 2: The Government protects citizens through the rule of law.

How does a government “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility… , promote the general Welfare….?” Simple; through the rule of law.

Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including law makers themselves. Put another way. The Government is subject to law as are citizens of this nation. How is it that the government can protect citizens from the harm of drugs as we have established it should if the laws that make this protection possible are repealed? Simply put it cannot. If all drugs are legalized the government cannot fill its duty. Governments ought to protect citizens from Drugs. To do this it becomes necessary for the law to enable the government to do so. Many drugs are harmful and are thus rightly outlawed.

Conclusion:

It has become clear that;

1: The U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from Marijuana.

How is that done?

2: The Government protects citizens through the rule of law.

From these two points it logically follows that;

C: The Government through the rule of Law should protect Citizens from Marijuana.

This is why I am opposed to the resolution; that is to say that the U.K. Government should not legalize Marijuana.

Sources:

(1) http://www.drugabuse.gov...

(2) http://www.nytimes.com...

(3) http://www.bjs.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
ThewordofGod

Pro

ThewordofGod forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ThewordofGod

Pro

Thank you for your patience.

Firstly I would compliment you on your well structured and well written argument.

In your opening paragraph, correct me if I'm wrong, you hint that punishments are not relevant to discuss. They are fundamental to this debate. What is a law without enforcement? The reason marijuana users are concerned is because of the law: it makes it ridiculously expensive; it means just having some means finding remote areas that don't exist in some cities; traveling abroad on a plane is a nightmare, potentially stopping your holiday; being unable to work a proffesional career, with children, politics, law, or in medicine is life changing and hugely constraining; also the general discrimination felt is also a continual life stress, meaning one has to hide away a part of their lives to all but those who also take it. So the 'punishments' of illegality are not necessarily incarceration, but far more complicated. Suddenly you have a section of the population severely discriminated by modern standards, criminalised and marginalised because they do something (as you put it) do something potentially harmful. I agree that it's best not to do get addicted to cannabis, but is this the best way to achieve this goal?

You also mention alcohol, claiming that it does not impact marijuana legality. I argue it can, for the those who may have turned to cannabis, if it had been legal, may not have drank alcohol. Therefore perhaps, one of the 400 fatal domestic accidents per year, one third of the fires, 16% of the road deaths or one quarter of the work-based accidents may have been avoided (1).

Overview of my opponents argument:

My opponent applies a clear logic to a matter that may be more complicated. The notion that the government ought to ban practices that are potentially harmful seems reasonable at first sight, but in practice do good theories always work out when populations are involved? I would suggest socialism, prohibition and divorce: all make sense on paper but do not work out exactly how they were supposed to in practice. Notice also, that these three proved failures are examples of the state forcing behaviour on the populations personal lives as a result of an ideology of perfectionism. This is mirrored in cannabis prohibition.

My opponents first argument.

The U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from harm.

I agree. However, the right balance freedom must be sought, the government should not incarcerate extreme sports athletes, footballers, rugby player, boxers etc. Nor those with a sweet tooth, those who enjoy a drink or even like driving a car. That would be absurd wouldn't you agree?

Yet all are arguably more dangerous and some are definitely far more dangerous and damaging than even strong addictions to marijuana.

My first argument counters this by suggesting that making it illegal actually causes more harm.

Second argument.

Cannabis can be harmful. Despite the absurd hints that cannabis can make you a murderor, which I fear discredit your position, your case for marijuana being harmful I do not dispute. Though your evidence is poor, as a result of the difficulty in studying the effects of marijuana outside the social context of those people more likely to turn to drugs, I will not entertain a long discussion about the health risks as it's widely accepted by authorities and science that cannabis is not even close to alcohol, tobacco and sugar in terms of health risks. This is significant because this debate is about the mortality of discrimination and prejudice on the grounds of an ideological standpoint.

My arguments

Making it illegal makes addiction worse and causes more harm, countering my opponents first argument. Firstly it makes it less possible that people will come forward for help with their addiction-resulting in more harm from addiction. Secondly, as I have mentioned above, users are marginalised, forced into lowly work and are discriminated by mainstream society. This oppression and marginalisation obviously increases depression and the likelihood of turning the drugs as a coping strategy, increasing addiction, increasing the chances of going onto dangerous drugs and thusly causing more harm to the individual and society at large.

Being criminals makes people marginalised as I have repeatably mentioned, this is a causal factor in depression and other mental health problems. This means more harm will be inflicted on the individual and society.

Overview

My opponents argument works on paper. If cannabis could be eradicated then it would be different, but only incredibly harsh penalties and literal 'war' on drugs would be neccesary for this to be a reality. I'm sure my opponent would agree this would cause more harm than could be justified. However, even if cannbis could be eradicated, it wouldn't stop the problem of addiction which comes from the person not the drug or action. And, as cannabis is less harmful than many of the other potential addictive behaviours, maybe it would be be better they had that than others.

(1) https://www.drinkaware.co.uk...
kasmic

Con

Note: Please disregard my opponent forfeit as 4 rounds is enough to reasonably continue this debate.

Pro argues that having Marijuana illegal “makes it ridiculously expensive.” This is unwarranted and I invite my opponent to support this statement. Even if true, along with all the inconveniences that pro says the law creates is true of all illegal crimes. Certainly the same could be said of slave trafficking, it is more expensive, hidden, and more stressful to those who participate due to illegality. This is as it should be. Laws are established to reasonably restrict and deter illegal behavior. Pro’s argument simply shows the effectiveness of making weed illegal as it provides disincentive to those considering partaking of this admittedly harmful drug.

Pro makes a small attempt to say that if weed were legal, somehow we would have less domestic violence due to less drinking. This argument is a road to nowhere as weeds legality is not connected to alcohol’s and is thus an entirely separate issue.

My opponent begins addressing my statesment by addressing my Observation. Specifically, ThewordofGod states that I “hint that punishments are not relevant to discuss.” He goes on to say that “they (punishments) are fundamental to this debate.”

I had stated that It is feasible to argue, as many do, that something should be illegal and decriminalized, or to argue for less stringent punishments for violations. This is why we cannot feasibly consider punishments until we determine if something should or should not be illegal. My opponent is right, in that a law without enforcement is hollow, however to attempt to affix proper “enforcement” of a law before justification of said law or even establishment of law would be ludicrous. This is why we must conclude the question of this debate that is, if weed should be legal or not, before reasonably arguing over proper enforcement/punishment.

ThewordofGod says “The notion that the government ought to ban practices that are potentially harmful seems reasonable at first sight, but in practice do good theories always work out when populations are involved?”

This is a straw man, I am not arguing that the government ought to ban “potential” harm. Pro even admits “your case for marijuana being harmful I do not dispute.” Thus we see that the harm possed by marijuana is not “potential” it is evident.

P1: The U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from harm.

Pro says of my first premise “I agree.” He does offer an absurd analogy in defense. I am not inclined to debate if athletes ought to roam free, or if candy ought to be banned, or if those who drive should be. This argument rests solely on if governments ought to protect from harm. My opponent agreed, Premise one stands.

P2: Citizens can be and are harmed by Marijuana

As with the last premise, my opponent concedes stating, “Cannabis can be harmful.” And again “your case for marijuana being harmful I do not dispute.” Though he does take a shot taking at my evidence which he states is “poor.” Though, he never substantiates his issue with it. Being that he concedes the harm and his attack on my evidence is unwarranted this premise also stands.

As my premises stand the conclusion logically follows.

1: The U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from Marijuana.

Being at this stands all that is left is to determine how a government like the U.K. operates. This is simple,

2: The Government protects citizens through the rule of law.
Again as {1} and {2} stand, the conclusion logically follows.

C: The Government through the rule of Law should protect Citizens from Marijuana.

Pro repeatedly attempts to stear the debate away from the topic at hand to enforcement.

My arguments all stand. Those arguments justify the illegality of Marijuana.

This is why I am opposed to the resolution; that is to say that the U.K. Government should not legalize Marijuana.
Debate Round No. 3
ThewordofGod

Pro

Rebuttals
Point 1.
He states: P1: The U.K. Government ought to protect citizens from harm.

Pro says of my first premise "I agree." He does offer an absurd analogy in defense. I am not inclined to debate if athletes ought to roam free, or if candy ought to be banned, or if those who drive should be. This argument rests solely on if governments ought to protect from harm. My opponent agreed, Premise one stands.

My opponent has dismissed a point that demonstrates his argument to be flawed by saying he "is not inclined to debate it." If the government ought to criminalise everything potentially harmful, for the sake of argument let"s say everything less harmful than weed, then many other "normal" practices would also have to be banned (driving, rock climbing, sky diving, boxing, rugby, alcohol, sugar: they are all just as harmful by all measures of harm). My opponent recognises this and has declined to address it. This point makes half of my opponents argument flawed, as if its applied to anything else in society that my opponent agrees with (alcohol, sugar, dangerous sports) then it"s clearly ludicrous. As I stated in my resolution: "its about why distinguishing cannabis users over other drug uses for discrimination is immoral." My opponent has not offered sufficient reason why its okay to discriminate cannabis uses because they are engaged in something a little harmful, whilst other people engaged in harmful practices are not discriminated. " His point does not stand if it cannot apply to anything in real-life.
Point 2.
My opponents point:
"My opponent begins addressing my statesment by addressing my Observation. Specifically, ThewordofGod states that I "hint that punishments are not relevant to discuss." He goes on to say that "they (punishments) are fundamental to this debate."

I had stated that It is feasible to argue, as many do, that something should be illegal and decriminalized, or to argue for less stringent punishments for violations. This is why we cannot feasibly consider punishments until we determine if something should or should not be illegal."
I would like to remind us of the resolution: "Rules: first round con should justify the ruination of careers, families and lives for the use of something potentially harmful. Con should begin by saying why people who have smoked weed deserve such abuse and discrimination, when other drugs and substances, which are just as destructive, are tolerated (even promoted)."
You say its "feasible to argue that something should be illegal", but "cannot consider punishments". This is the flaw in this way of dealing with social problems. Because you don"t give any thought to the repercussions of that illegality, only whether it should or should not be illegal based on insufficient logic. Repercussions in the real-world are not anticipated. The repercussions of weed being illegal are significant. I would ask my opponent is he knows what life is like as a weed smoker. Perhaps my opponent does not fully understand the effects of weeds illegality as he is not part of that culture. As a weed smoker you are significantly negatively discriminated, and this is incredibly unfair, harmful, and damaging to society and individual people"s lives alike.
If we don"t consider the repercussions of illegality, then the judgement is based on inaccurate logic. A simple question of whether weed should be present or not can be quite easily answered. If all drugs could disappear for instance, then I might agree to that. But the reality is that making it illegal doesn"t make it go away, and additionally it harms disproportionally and unfairly, the percentage of the population who enjoy it. Therefore there is a case for its illegality, that which you have in fact made and I agree with, it"s just that the case for it not being illegal is stronger.
Point 3
"Pro argues that having Marijuana illegal makes "it ridiculously expensive". This is unwarranted and I invite my opponent to support this statement"
There are no peer reviewed journals that investigate the effect of illegality on price. Here is an article (1), it explains why illegality makes the price higher. It suggests that the high risks involved in the production, transportation and the distribution of the drug means that those taking the risks demand higher pay. This is quite logical when you consider it, also in addition to the risks of police, there is a great risk with being involved in a black market. Growing marijuana also is cheap and productive, for unlike other drugs including alcohol, no processes are required to make the drug consumable that cannot be achieved easily at home. Due to its illegality, the growing process is far more expensive as it must be discrete-a costly task on a large scale, and coupled with the high likelihood of a bust makes it even more costly as an investment.
Point 4
The point about the domestic violence my opponent has misunderstood, its domestic accidents I was referring to. Indeed though the point was made lightly, it"s arguable. People become dependent on drugs because of their personality (2), meaning that it"s possible that those deterred from marijuana because of its illegality will use the other popular drug, alcohol. Considered one the most addictive, poisonous and dangerous drugs on the planet (3), it would be a problem if more people took it. If I may use myself an example, alcohol makes me rather crazy and I have done a list of stupid and dangerous things whilst drunk-including things that have jeopardised my marriage. Now I don"t blame anything but myself, but there"s no doubt that I wouldn"t have done such things sober. I don"t drink alcohol but instead smoke weed, if I had carried on drinking the national drug, who knows what problems could have arisen, or what dangerous addictions I may now suffer from.
The figures of the damage done by just people acting drunk are staggering. I have listed them in my last argument. So if you don"t believe me, just look at those. It"s clear that alcohol use is incredibly destructive in people"s lives, more so than cannabis, so turning people away from cannabis could result in more alcohol drinkers.
Point 5
A note on my opponents second premise: Cannabis is harmful.
The harm caused by cannabis is complicated. I have let my opponent off with this point as its so difficult for researchers to rule out the effects of poverty, dropping out of school and anti-establishment personalities on the studies of the effects of weed. As the demographic of weed smokers (at least admittedly) are of lower socio-economic status, it distorts the sample making weed smokers look less able when really it"s because lower-socioeconomic cultures are more likely to smoke it.
There is no doubt the inhaling plant matter in your lungs is bad for you, though as far as we know it cannot cause cancer, which is the main worry of smoking. Eating shows no health effects, unlike any drug. Indeed weed is less poisonous than water (). But addiction to any mind altering drug is not a good idea, though many people smoke weed everyday of their entire lives and remain perfectly psychologically stable. Addiction however is largely misunderstood: recent research has shown how dependence is a personality issue and not a drug issue. Traditional mentality has been that which my opponent demonstrates; drugs cause addiction-get rid of them. However the truth is that people are already addicts before the drug and any behaviour or drug is potentially addictive. Cannabis is not addictive, however 1 in ten people develop an addiction. This highlights the fact that the people are the cause and not the cannabis, as 9 out of ten users do not develop dependency.
If the harm caused by cannabis is only to long term users, and addiction comes from the person, then it"s probable that these people would have been addicted to something else if cannabis wasn"t an option. My point is that to alleviate harm we must tackle the problem of addiction and not be overly focused on removing a drug that 9 out ten uses enjoy responsibly.
Conclusion.
-Making cannabis illegal causes more harm than good.
-Making cannabis illegal doesn"t do much to stop weed smoking, but at a great cost to everybody and especially the weed smoking community.
-My opponent"s point that government ought to protect society from harm is unsubstantial and doesn"t consider the implications of the law, or the influence of prejudice that may be instilled into it.
-Cannabis is not harmful to the majority of people, those who would be susceptible to marijuana would be susceptible to any addiction-meaning that its no less harmful than the practices of the rest of society.
-The government have no right destroying the lives of, and discriminating against, this section of the community on the grounds of them smoking weed. Most other people engage in a practice just as harmful, and my opponent has still not offered a reason why this is okay.

Main Point " My opponent has not offered reasonable cause for the ruination of lives, discrimination, and the breach of human rights and freedom (which come with any criminalisation) for the use of weed when other substances are just as harmful. He has offered no point that makes cannabis so significantly different that it warrants a breach of human rights. He as only stated that its bad for you, which I have reminded him that many other things are more so, that we both agree should be legal. If it should only be illegal because it"s potentially harmful, which is what my opponent has said, then all the other things listed should also be illegal. Im sure we don"t need to demonstrate why making rugby or sugar or alcohol illegal would he the wrong thing to do, so there"s no reason the same isn"t true for cannabis. Therefore the premise my opponent has produced for the justification of the discrimination of cannabis uses, I have demonstrated to be unsubstantial and flawed when applied to many aspects of s
kasmic

Con

kasmic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ThewordofGod

Pro

I extend my argument.

In conclusion, con has not substantially legitimised the ruination of people's lives because of their choice to smoke weed.

The only justification he offered, was that it is harmful. This was easily undermined by the fact that many things are significantly more harmful than cannabis. Things which nobody could justify punishment for doing, such as extreme sports, alcohol-related entertainments and other non-productive activities which involve risk to those being irresponsible.

Disallowing something, on a state level, means making it illegal. Though it's arguable to disallow cannabis or mildly dangerous activities to your children, making it illegal has more severe consequences. These consequences are the reason why I believe it shouldn't be illegal. My opponents logic works, but only on a parental level or in an ideal world where weed could be eradicated. In reality, illegality ruins lives and prevents people from having professional careers because they choose to partake, however responsibly, in an activity that is just as harmful as many other activities.

To conclude.

My opening statement: Rules: first round con should justify the ruination of careers, families and lives for the use of something potentially harmful. Con should begin by saying why people who have smoked weed deserve such abuse and discrimination, when other drugs and substances, which are just as destructive, are tolerated (even promoted).

My opponent did not give reason why cannabis should be punished over other harmful activities.

My opponent has not given a substantial reason why people should have their lives ruined for smoking weed. His only reason (that it's harmful), is not enough unless one also agrees with the criminalisation of all activities that can be less harmful than cannabis.

Thank you for debating.
kasmic

Con

kasmic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by matt8800 1 year ago
matt8800
By the way, the argument that pot is more damaging to developing brains isn't totally being honest. While that is a fact, the exact same thing is true for alcohol but more so. That argument cannot be made for marijuana prohibition unless you argue for alcohol prohibition also.
Posted by matt8800 1 year ago
matt8800
I smoke cannabis every night. I'm very healthy and made my first million by the time I was 34. Hasn't slowed me down a bit. Because of my severe insomnia, it would be a huge problem if I didn't have it.

Yes, I have been prescribed sleeping pills and the side effects of those drugs were incredibly destructive. The fact that other people that have nothing to do with me want to control how I manage my health is offensive. People need to mind their own damn business.
Posted by ThewordofGod 1 year ago
ThewordofGod
Do you smoke weed regularly?
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
Well, for the record I am a 26 year old married man, father of two.
Posted by ThewordofGod 1 year ago
ThewordofGod
I don't think you smoke weed regularly, I don't suggest that you have never smoked it.

I believe this because if you where a regular smoker you would see the harm that its criminalisation has on others who use it. However if you are under 18 and don't have your own family, then its illegality might not seem so bad, indeed it may even make it more exiting. But for adult users this is not the case.

So no, maybe you do smoke it but have not yet become a 'responsible adult', and so its illegality does not effect you so much.

Also, I seldom meet anybody who has smoked weed who agrees with their own incarceration.
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
What makes yo think I don't smoke weed?
Posted by ThewordofGod 1 year ago
ThewordofGod
My personal belief, Kasmic, forgive me if this blunt, is that you"re at ease with discriminating against the weed smoking community because you don"t have to worry about it yourself. It"s not that you hate people who smoke weed (I hope not anyway), it"s that you"re not someone who smokes weed, and so it"s easy to be unaware of the damage your discrimination has. Throughout history this has been the case with all discriminated groups, as those in power and doing the discrimination cannot relate and do not understand the others life whom they are discriminating. Truthfully, can you speak with authority on the side effects of weeds illegality if you"re unaware of it? This is the issue in my personal opinion, as everybody likes some group to discriminate as it makes them feel better about their own group. The truth is that you think all weed smokers can and ought to quit, and if not they should be punished because its easy to change. Well this mentality is old fashioned and damaging, we need to look at preventing people from doing drugs by providing better life opportunities and facilities, not trying to hide everything potentially damaging-as much that is dangerous in life is what makes it worth living.

- thought you might want to comment on this
Posted by ThewordofGod 1 year ago
ThewordofGod
Oh $h!t I didn't copy the end of my paragraph hold on _ I expect a fail on conduct for this haha! Here it is if you want to address any of it
Main Point " My opponent has not offered reasonable cause for the ruination of lives, discrimination, and the breach of human rights and freedom (which come with any criminalisation) for the use of weed when other substances are just as harmful. He has offered no point that makes cannabis so significantly different that it warrants a breach of human rights. He as only stated that its bad for you, which I have reminded him that many other things are more so, that we both agree should be legal. If it should only be illegal because it"s potentially harmful, which is what my opponent has said, then all the other things listed should also be illegal. Im sure we don"t need to demonstrate why making rugby or sugar or alcohol illegal would he the wrong thing to do, so there"s no reason the same isn"t true for cannabis. Therefore the premise my opponent has produced for the justification of the discrimination of cannabis uses, I have demonstrated to be unsubstantial and flawed when applied to many aspects of society.
My personal belief, Kasmic, forgive me if this blunt, is that you"re at ease with discriminating against the weed smoking community because you don"t have to worry about it yourself. It"s not that you hate people who smoke weed (I hope not anyway), it"s that you"re not someone who smokes weed, and so it"s easy to be unaware of the damage your discrimination has. Throughout history this has been the case with all discriminated groups, as those in power and doing the discrimination cannot relate and do not understand the others life whom they are discriminating. Truthfully, can you speak with authority on the side effects of weeds illegality if you"re unaware of it? This is the issue in my personal opinion, as everybody likes some group to discriminate as it makes them feel better about their own group. The truth is that
Posted by ThewordofGod 1 year ago
ThewordofGod
I apologise for the forfeit, would you like to restart? Or shall we continue as there are enough rounds.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
I'd be willing to accept this, as long as I can treat it like a policy debate and argue from a more theoretical perspective as to the details of the plan, as opposed to arguing against the fundamental idea behind "cannabis should be legal" (e.g. if I'm against the plan for implementation, or against the exact proposal but for a similar proposal, etc.). I'd also be willing to debate this from a more straightforward "cannabis shouldn't be legal" perspective of Con, which has been done multiple times on the site.
No votes have been placed for this debate.