It is unethical to legalize marijuana for recructional use.
Debate Rounds (4)
First round is just for acceptance, and opening statements.
I would just like to clarify a few things in today's debate.
1) In the resolution it does not stipulate an age group, but to even the debate we will suppose that legalizing it would mean 18 and older.
2) We are not talking about the health benefits of marijuana since the resolution does say recreational use.
3) Since the resolution does say unethical we should considered the philosophical point of the resolution.
I thank anyone who reads this, and any opponent considering.
I accept. Milk and tea are marvellous things. A cunning mix allow one to pretend that one is not drinking scotch before 9.
I first thank my opponent for accepting this round.
I affirm today's resolution, since by negating we are leading ourselves back into a "state of nature". When we affirm we allow for us to demolish our government, and therefore our society, into the state of nature since we are allowing complete liberty to smoke marijuana whenever and wherever cigrate smoke is allowed, completely disregarding one's health and other health of them around them. I offer the following arguments to discuss in today's debate:
When we negate the resolution we allow for complete disregard for Hobbe's social contract and disingrate into a "state of nature". Hobbe's social contract details that without a government we are in a "state of nature", in this state of nature we have complete liberty to do whatever we please, but it is misrable in this state so we gather into groups to form a society with laws that are governed. Once we have come into these societies we give up some of our liberty inorder to be protected.
People who begin to abuse marijuana, and use it on a daily basis, will be unprotected by the government, espically students. Smoking marijuana everyday causes the brain to funcution on suboptimal level and even smoking it once can cause memory lose. It is the job of the government to protect everyone, and when we negate the resolution we are demolishing that protection.
Surronded by marijuana is another form of being unprotected by the government. Second hand marijuana smoke can be just as harmful as second hand cirgrate smoke. As I mentioned in the begining people will be able to smoke marijuana, in the same places they would smoke cirgrates, and the levels of smoke surrounding the avrage citizen would increase. The centers for disease control reports 30.2% of college students have used ,arijuana in the past year, but only 19% have smoked a cigrate. If we legalize marijuana these rates will only go up, and the government will continue to not protect the citizens, and people will always be surrounded by marijuana smoke.
This uprises a good question, then why is cirgrate smoke allowed? What we must see is that cirgrates and alchol have been around for a while, alcohol has even been refrenced in Neolithic period (10000 B.C.). They both have been around since no one know even how to test for health concers, and they both have been an extreme part of society. While weed was founded in 525 B.C. it never became a societal norm, other than some tribes. Major civilzed society do not considred it ok to smoke a joint of marijuana while sitting at a table with your coworkers, but drinking a glass of wine and smoking a pipe is ok.
For these I see this resolution in a diffente affirming.
Centers for Diseas Control and Prevention (cdc.gov)
Candian Cancer Society (cancer.ca)
I'd like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this time old subject with an interesting twist free from those irritating statistics.
My burden of proof is to negate any claims that it is unethical. However, I will go further; I shall also attempt to demonstrate that it is infact unethical to ban marijuana.
I will begin by refuting my opponents arguments.
1. Disintegration in to a state of nature
Social contract theory
Hobbes social contract theory makes no claim to ethics of government. Simply stating it does is an assertion without warrant. In addition the theory is not universally applicable. I do not recall signing any such social contract. To assert that it magically applies to me, or any others because the state says so is unwarranted. It also is fairly irrational to use as a basis for banning marijuana. The individual rights that people are ceding on the basis that others do, tend to be property rights, based on the (false, but thats another debate) assumption that the state is superior at organazing certain aspects of society. A whole society ceding the right to use any substance they wish would be completely irrational.
You also make the slippery slope fallacy; you assert that by legalizing marijuana we would enter a state of nature. This is bizarre. We would not enter an anarchic state because one regulation is removed. This is only consistant if one is making the absurd claim that the government should regulate absolutely everything lest we enter this state of nature. For rather self evident reasons, for example the practical issues of getting a state permission slip to visit the toilet, this is undesirable.
In addition you make the unwarranted assumption that an anarchic society is undesirable. Out of politeness and deference to the actual resolution I will not focus too heavily on this (though I am certain I would easily defeat you in a debate on whether anarcho-capitalism was superior to state planning), though I still require some sort of justification for this assumption.
2. Reason for protection is the health risks
You make no argument to support your assertion that the government should protect people from their own choices, or even why it would be unethical not to do so. So I ask; Why should the government protect people from themselves? They have made the choice to trade the health benefits for their own utility. You refer to ciggerettes, do you believe they should be illegal too, considering their health risks are much greater? What about caffiene, that brutal and harmful drug. Evidently not, however, your argument for their legality is shockingly weak; they are a social norm. That has absolutely nothing to do with the ethics of their legality. This here is a clear contradiction in your argument.
If we were to take your argument to its logical conclusion, the government would be ethically required to select your food for you (fast food is far more harmful to your health than marijuana) and prevent people crossing roads for the purpose of recreation (like visiting that night-club across the road, or doing some window shopping); a far more dangerous activity than using marijuana.
My opponent makes no actual attempt to show that making marijuana legal would be unethical. He merely points to their very slight health risks and somehow makes the non-sequiter leap that therefore letting people use it is illegal. We must consider the resolution completely negated until my opponent can justify this point.
The ethics of freedom
A good starting place for ethics is to consider the non-aggression principle*; that any action performed which does not harm another or another's property is not unethical, and similarly the inverse, that every action which does harm another or another's property is unethical. It is considered harm to prevent an individual from performing an action which does not harm anyone, as one is aggressing against them.
Not only does this justify letting people get high, as this can be done without harming anyone else, it also means the act of making it illegal to smoke weed is unethical, as the government is applying force against individuals to prevent them from performing an ethical action.
Not only has my opponent failed to give a single ethical reason for keeping marijuana illegal, I have demonstrated that it is infact unethical for the government to use force to prevent people from using marijuana in a way which does not harm others. It seems that my opponent believes that just by name dropping an interesting and famous philosopher without understanding his philosophies he would gain the upper hand. Alas he is mistaken. [Also my opponents sources are terrible, they are just links to websites without any direction to what information he intends us to find there or where it can be found. I do not believe I have made any claims which require sources though I shall provide them upon request] The resolution is firmly negated. SHADAZEE!
*I am willing to justify this philosophically this if requested, however, I shall not do so at this juncture as no other ethical system has been proposed and most people tend to agree with it broadly speaking.
milktea forfeited this round.
Heh. This is a funny joke right? Right? My opponent thinks he can forfeit. Ha. So funny. You are joking right?
No? Then let me tell you a joke. Its about a man with little patience. A man who can break other men. A man who takes great pleasure in doing so. A man you really don't want to piss off. Because, when such a man has a bad day the whole world knows about it.
People get hurt.
This joke is also about an insect. An insect who doesn't know to whom he should give respect. Now this insect, one day he's walking along and he sees the man. He declares a challenge. A battle of wits, if you will. Now this man, he sees the insect, and thinks to himself; "why not?"
So accepts the tiny insects challenge. Half-way through the insect feels intimidated. Scared. He runs away. He does not show the proper respect.
So the man goes and pulls every leg off of the insect.
That was the punch line. Not very funny you say? Well, maybe you should of thought of that before you decided to Fuckk with Thaddeus J River.
I will be seeing you shortly.
milktea forfeited this round.
Please forgive my opponent for forfeiting that last round. It wasn't his fault. Mutilated corpses can't debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 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:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Milktea failed this entire debate.
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.