Debate Rounds (3)
Cannabis should not be legalized and available for retail as are alcohol and tobacco.
Many say that marijuana should be legalized because there are other more harmful things in the world, such as alcohol, cigarettes, speeding, and unregulated gun distribution. However, if we also legalize marijuana, is that not just a gigantic leap backwards in our society?
Alcohol (I choose this example because it also distorts perception) has many damaging side effects, short and long term, too. It has no regulation.
Here is an article from
[ Marijuana can impair thinking, memory and learning for weeks after use. It produces a range of psychological and physical effects that can be unpredictable at times. It can relieve pain, control nausea and increase appetite. Marijuana typically gives a high, or feeling of well being, which is why it abused. But marijuana can also cause acute psychosis, or a temporary break with reality. Marijuana-induced psychosis happens more often in new users or in people prone to mental illness. Marijuana can cause short-term memory and learning problems, dry mouth, impaired motor skills and red eyes. Within minutes after smoking marijuana, the drug increases the user's heart rate. Heart rates can double in some cases, which is a risk for people with certain heart conditions. Some people may feel relaxed after using marijuana; others may develop anxiety and paranoia. ]
There is illegality with this drug, and it is still a huge problem in the health of our nation. Why would we legalize it, inducing harm unto many more people?
I know, some say that they 'do not do marijuana because they know the risks or they don't want to, but not just because it's illegal.' Really? Do people know the affects of drinking or smoking? They do them anyway! If there is a tiny $5.99 bottle of whisky at the counter of a gas station, it is infinitely more tempting than it would be if it were illegal. There would be the same effect with marijuana.
I await your rebuttal!
I will attempt to answer your statement as completely as I can, going through your words piece by piece from start to finish.
You ask if legalising marijuana is not a step backwards in society. I would say that less control over people's lives is more typically forward leaning than backwards, I cannot think why outlawing practices could be considered forward thinking. I think you mean (correct me if I'm wrong) that the last few decades have seen a movement towards eradicating cannabis and that allowing it to be legal would essentially be 'giving in' or reverting back to old ways or something. But I would say that societies are not as linear in their social development, nor as simple as that. I believe a perfect society would have members that would not abuse drugs because they didn't need/want too, not because they would be prosecuted.
Now this article has many truths. It is clearly not written by a user of cannabis. There is no evidence (that I have herd) that proves cannabis causes psychosis. Much, if not all, of the research is based surveys that; note all people with psychosis, and then note what percentage smoke cannabis; and compare this percentage that smoke cannabis in the general public. This research doesn't account for variables such as; poorer people more likely to have psychosis, poorer people more likely to smoke cannabis; people who think differently and are rebellious are more likely to be psychotic, but are also more likely to smoke cannabis because of its 'rebellious persona'. This shows how cannabis use can appear to be the cause of the psychosis when in fact it may be just a symptom or a typical trait of a person who has psychotic tendencies.
From my own experience I can see how cannabis can provide a crutch to a person that he would perhaps be bettor of not having. It can make it much easier to seclude yourself and separate yourself from society but it is by no means the cause of the behaviour. The fact that it is illegal doesn't help with the seclusion either, but bigger factors, such as poor education, materialistic culture, bad diets and un-satisfying jobs are the main reasons for bad mental health in my opinion.
As for the other claims in the article; personally I have experiences memory loss, though I know some who have smoked it their whole lives (age 30 something) and have brilliant memory. Though I don't doubt cannabis smoking, or the inhalation of any plant matter, is bad for you. But it is cause for concern that not one human, in the history of recorded deaths, has died from smoking marijuana. Now when you consider that up to 6000 deaths a year are from caffeine, you are aware that we know when a substance has cause a death, and yet cannabis still has no victims.
You argue many more people would smoke the drug and this would be bad. Okay, probably true. Though not quite so simple as some smoke it to be cool because its illegal, and I'm sure many would merely 'swap' there normal drug of choice (typically alcohol) for cannabis. If you are concerned with more people doing cannabis or drugs then the approach should be on reducing the need for it. People who didn't do drugs (alcohol included) before wouldn't start smoking weed when it became legal, and obtaining cannabis isn't much harder (in many cases easier) than going to the shop now anyways, so the increased availability may not have as strong effect as you may think.
Yer, the whiskey at the gas station may be more tempting if its legal-but I would much prefer someone at the gas station to buy marijuana than a bottle of whiskey! The 'want' for drugs may take easiest available option, but that is alcohol, if cannabis was there too then some would chose that instead. And I know this isn't an argument about alcohol being better than weed, but in my experience people smoking cannabis are typically much more socially acceptable (in behaviour)than drunk people.
I appreciate your well-sided response and say it was very well-worded and constructed.
As you noticed, yes, I enjoy to discuss the health of the public. (and I apologize in advance for any new points I may squeeze into my retort - here is the first one)
Smoking in public is being legally diminished, and as I attempt to keep as close as possible to yours views, I feel you'd clench that this is wrong. Freedom to please one's self with substance should be their choice and none should be prosecuted for it, but instead all should attempt to teach not to do it or not to do it in public, as I think you might say. However, second-hand smoking is a disaster in the home, and it has been a very controversial topic when regarding recreation in public places. It has been forced out of almost all restaurants, public transit, campuses, and many, many more venues. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke, and it ticks me off when it's from a stranger. How would anyone feel about a second-hand high from recreational use of marijuana? The nation would be outraged and I think we can see which sides would form. Smelling any smoke that one does not want to smell voluntary is terribly unpleasant and outrageous in many aspects. Some would be enraged if it would simply force someone walking on the sidewalk to advert themselves. Others might say that parents do not particularly want their children to see people hitting bongs or fat rolls, as they also attempt and succeed mostly with keeping them from alcohol and nicotine abuse.
As for the step back in society, this is what I thought of to come to my stance. In many cultures, small and large, alcohol is the destruction of man and the earth, as it destroys inhibitions and conscience, the things that make us human. Imagine that everything considered terribly bad to our health was against international morality, or even the state's laws: tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, alcohol, caffeine, energy drinks, etc. I am stating that legalizing any of these is a step back in strides we've tried to make in society: strides to make our communities sterile and helpful environments free of horrible sickness and careless, helpless deaths. In a utopia, obviously, everything in the world would be legal, but everything done would be morally correct. This is wild, but we do not come closer to a more helpful society with the inclusion of casual use of THC, or anything I listed with it. Lastly, to your last sentence on stepping back in society, you are correct. That is a perfect argument to any change in number of people that would use/abuse marijuana. We should, however, not teach more or less about the effects that this would cause just because it is still illegal. We should teach the effects of THC now as much as you say we would if it became legal.
Alright, I quickly copied and pasted that stupid article. Rereading it with knowledge that had slipped my mind while reading it in the first place shows that it is quite ridiculous. I shall, though, say that there are many unknowns to the effects of the "drug" on the mind, and a few unknowns on its effects on the body, included with the side effects correct in the article (and a few long term affects). Also, if some one is high (as people are drunk now), they could get into a car and kill a family of 4 instantly. This could cause many more indirect deaths that are accepted by people taking your stand. I know, it all depends on the person hitting it, but that's just the thing. Many could have wild side effects that could effect the moral of the nation and any new business of marijuana sales that would emerge.
I still think that more people would smoke weed if it were legal and available to them there. I completely agree with you that it would be better for them and their peers if they chose it over alcohol, but I still don't want to make it legal. I don't drink, but I could. I don't want to. It's readily available but it is illegal at my age. Now, if it were perfectly legal and as cheap as it is now, I would be much, much more enticed to drink it. Same with everyone, and same with marijuana. I also agree that it is stupidly easy to obtain cannabis now, but it would be much easier to obtain it if it were legal. Anyone can make it at home, unlike many other "drugs".
Before I forget, I commend and agree with your last sentence. It's not related, but so true.
And lastly, I'll quickly add a few other points.
There are some religions that embrace the herb of the world as their communion. They use it as the most spiritual physical aspect available, such as the Rastafarian movement, a religion based on love and its virtue, and other cultures. I argue, however, that since it's a spiritual aspect of the lifestyle, cannabis should be consumed in a spiritual way in private, not among friends on the streets. That's my argument on any religious part of cannabis use. However, these cultures are in no way embraced in this country. We embrace only the bad aspects of it, and I think that health should be more important in America. It is readily available among others with these spiritual views nearby, though.
The number one problem with most people regarding marijuana is its gateway uses. Now, almost all street stuff is laced with harder drugs just so one becomes addicted and the money keeps moving. I realize that new, legal weed would be cleaner and not laced with cocaine or anything for that matter, but it's still a hallucinating. It's still addictive, and it still leads to harder drugs. When you move up in hallucinogen's, you will eventually move to real drugs.
I apologize for my tardiness to this debate, for I've had a cold. But thank you for waiting and I patiently await your response!
Apart from all that however, the government has no right in a free society to punish people for smoking cannabis. It is not a matter of 'occasional smelling of smoke by others' or 'their own good' or whether its bad for health or not, it is a matter of rights and freedom. I am not against the banning of certain things for our own good, though I do question it sometimes, such as the banning of heroine. But only in the most extreme circumstances. I am almost tired of going through the findings that show cannabis to be less addictive than caffeine, less physically harmful (by a long way) than caffeine, not at all a causer of psychosis and all in all a drug that typically makes one hungry, happy and sleepy. Like any substance, continuous use for many years can have an effect but so can any substance abuse (food). Govern't should focus on the factors that lead people to abuse drugs
Last paragraph: Im afraid I must disagree with this argument. As an 8 year smoker of cannabis, and that means 8 years of moving in these circles, I can say with certainty that cannabis is not laced with 'other drugs'. Why would somebody put a valuable substance onto an already valuable substance that would not increase the cost? Cocaine is cocaine, and when people buy it, they know what they want and they get it. When somebody is selling both cannabis and cocaine they sell them separately, mixing most certainly never happens. (It may happen with white powder drugs or drugs in a pill form, and cannabis may be 'sprayed' with glass to make it look more quality. But this kind of thing (wrong, but very rare on cannabis anyway) is done with many products legally in the capitalist market. Cannabis is not laced with other drugs but the gateway drug theory doesn't regard this as the cause anyway. It believes that, like you said, that it 'leads on the harder drugs' and 'when you move up the hallucinogens you move up to real drugs'. This brings me on to my next paragraph.
I don't know what evidence there is to support this idea, I think it is just a theory made by the government or other institution, who's members probably have never moved in these circles and never 'lived it' so to speak, that being the life of a smoker. The argument is so weak (don't take this personally, it is an argument that has been used many times before) that I don't fully know how to approach dismantling it. But here we go: supposing that evidence showed that people who take cannabis are more likely to do harder drugs in their life. This does not mean cannabis led to the harder drugs, it merely shows that the kind of people who take harder drugs are more likely to have smoke cannabis. There are also reasons why those people who smoke weed may do other illegal drugs. This is because they are illegal, and this fact promotes harder drug use in two ways: 1, access. If your the kind of person who knows drug dealers, you will have more access to these drugs. 2, Because cannabis is illegal, it tends to be the lower-classes that use it. These people are much more likely to be in a culture of drug use, unhealthiness and criminality. Because of their typical characteristics these people are drawn to use cannabis, possibly because they disregard the law more than the typical middle-class person, and the law is what stops most people from using it. However, this distorts the figures and gives the impression that cannabis use leads to harder drugs, depression and other negative qualities typically associated with 'lower-class' people. Also, when somebody smokes cannabis he/she wonders: 'if they have lied to me about this-what else are they lying about!?'. And they would not be foolish to think such things, ecstasy and LSD for example are much less harmful and dangerous than alcohol, and its not at all crazy to want to experience that conscious level at least once in your life. I guarantee that most of the good music we have been blessed with would not have been had those individuals not used drugs, at least it would not have been the same. The founder of apple smoked weed his whole life and still smokes a joint a day (don't know how true that is). Sorry I when of topic then, maybe that was a little inappropriate lol, right, back to serious debate. Immersing yourself in a sub culture of drug taking and law breaking is the reason people get onto harder drugs. Cannabis is NOT a gateway drug. NO WAY, much evidence supports this if you look at the more recent articles, not that there was any evidence to prove otherwise in the first place!
incredebater forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Close debate. Couldn't decide!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.