The Instigator
MacGruber
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Ben_Carlile
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Legalization of Cannibus (Marijuana)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
MacGruber
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,362 times Debate No: 27954
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

MacGruber

Pro

Round One will be acceptance.

Marijuana: A plant with properties that, when inhaed through smoke, can cause a high through THC.

Legalised in the United States (Please do not accept if you aren't in the US), all 48 remaining states.

Thank you!
Ben_Carlile

Con

I accept this challenge against MacGruber.
Debate Round No. 1
MacGruber

Pro

Thank you Ben_Carlile, for accepting this debate.

I will begin with three categories: Health Effects, Criminal Attributes (Gateway theory, drug related violence, etc.), and Economic Effects.

HEALTH EFFECTS

When Cannabis Sativa is either ingested or inhaled (smoke or vapor), there are various chemicals that enter the body. These compounds (excluding Tetrahydrocannabinol) are known as Cannibinoids. The main three are Cannabichromene (CBC), Cannabidiol (CBD), and Cannabinol (CBN). [1, 2, 3]

-CBC is the compound that gives C. Sitiva anti-inflammatory and anti-viral properties [1]

-CBD relieves nausea, anxiety, inflammation, convulsions, and can inhibit cancer cell growth. CBD also increases alertness by stimulating the Limbic system. CBD is the largest chemical component, comprising over 40% of C. Sitiva's make-up [2]

-CBN is the main psychoactive component prior to the formation of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and is THC's main metabolite.[3]

When these three compounds meet warm temperatures, they enter a THC-synthase in the Cannabis cells. The resulting product is THC, chemical compound of C21H30O2. [4] THC is known to reduce aggression in many species, including humans, and has no death has ever been reported from consuming natural THC from C. Sativa (there have been 5 deaths related to synthetic-THC from 1997-2005). [5, 6, 7]

Among other things, the smoking of medicinal marijuana is known to decrease obesity --while not limiting hunger--, treat asthma (even if received through smoking, but preferably through vaporizers or ingestion) [8] chronic arthritis, various cancers, viral infections, the tics associated with tourettes and obsessive-compulsive-disorder, cure glaucomas by relieving inter-ocular pressure, and decrease dependency on opiates; as well as treat HIV/AIDS carriers to prevent further transmission. [9-15]

CRIMINAL ATTRIBUTES

There is a strong belief that if any person begins to use Cannabis in any way (smoking, eating, etc.), they will begin to use stronger, harder, drugs to acheive a stronger high. There may be some truth to this, but only in America.

From Gateway Drug Theory on Wikipedia: (source for article also provided [16])

"In 2004, a study comparing cannabis users in San Francisco to those in Amsterdam was done to test the effects of the differing drug policies in the two cities on drug use patterns. The Netherlands has a drug policy of decriminalization in which cannabis can be bought by adults over 18 in quasi-legal "coffee shops" and used publicly, while in the United States cannabis is criminalized and must be bought in the black market (often from the same dealers that sell hard drugs) and used "underground". The results found that, compared with their counterparts in Amsterdam the San Francisco cannabis users were significantlymore likely to use cocaine, crack, amphetamines, ecstasy, and opiates despite similar cannabis use patterns and a more permissive drug policy in the Netherlands"
[16, 17]

This study shows that decriminalizing Cannabis has potential effects to end all speculation on Gateway theory, and decrease the useage of hard drugs.

ECONOMIC EFFECTS

The sale of illegal marijuana is a multi-billion dollar industry each year in th US alone. [18] In California alone, the taxes (a conservative estimate) on legal marijuan would total ~1.5 billion U.S.D. annually. This figure is only based on the value of confiscared C. Sitiva in California. Estimates put yearly confiscation at a maximum of 5% of total trafficking per year. This gives the tax revenue of marijuana in California a possibility of $30 billion U.S.D. each year.

The amount of resources wasted on imprisoning the growers, ditributers, sellers, and users of cannabis would save the state and federal government space in prisons, money, and man-power. [18]

IN CONCLUSION

The United States of America would be in a better place if the legislation for nationwide legalisation of cannabis was passed.

VOTE PRO!




SOURCES

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] Hoaken (2003). "Drugs of abuse and the elicitation of human aggressive behavior". Addictive Behaviors 28: 1533–1554.

[6] Walker, J.Michael; Huang, Susan M (2002). "Cannabinoid analgesia". Pharmacology & Therapeutics 95 (2): 127–35. "…to date, there are no deaths known to have resulted from overdose of cannabis. (p. 128)"

[7] "Deaths from Marijuana v. 17 FDA-Approved Drugs"(PDF). 2005-06-30. Retrieved 2011-02-03.

[8] Seamon, Matthew; Jennifer Fass, Maria Maniscalo-Feichtl, and Nada Abu-Sharie (15 May 2007). "Medical Marijuana and the developing role of the Pharmacist". American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy64 (10): 1037–1044.

[9] Tomar, Rajpal C.; Beaumont and Hsieh (August 2009) (PDF), Evidence on the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke, Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Branch Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency, retrieved 23 June 2012

[10] Joy, Janet E.; Watson, Stanley J.; Benson, John A., eds. (1999). Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

[11] AMA meeting: Delegates support review of marijuana's schedule I status; A change could make it easier for researchers to test potential medical uses and develop a drug delivery form safer than smoking.By Kevin B. O'Reilly, American Medical News. Nov 30, 2009

[12] Claire Bates (2012-09-20), Cannabis compound could stop breast cancer from spreading, Dailymail.co.uk, retrieved 2012-12-25

[13] Ellis RJ; Toperoff W; Vaida F; Van Den Brande, Geoffrey; Gonzales, James; Gouaux, Ben; Bentley, Heather; Atkinson, J Hampton (2009). "Smoked Medicinal Cannabis for Neuropathic Pain in HIV: A Randomized, Crossover Clinical Trial".Neuropsychopharmacology34 (3): 672–80.doi:10.1038/npp.2008.120. PMC3066045.PMID18688212.

[14] Salazar M; Carracedo A; Salanueva IJ; Cecconi, Sonia; Pandolfi, Mar; González-Feria, Ainara; Iovanna, Patricia; Guzmán, Cristina et al. (2009). "Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells". The Journal of Clinical Investigation119 (5): 1359–72. doi:10.1172/JCI37948. PMC2673842.PMID19425170. Lay summary – HealthDay (1 April 2009).

[15] Morel LJ, Giros B, Daugé V (2009). "Adolescent Exposure to Chronic Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Blocks Opiate Dependence in Maternally Deprived Rats". Neuropsychopharmacology34 (11): 2469–76.doi:10.1038/npp.2009.70. PMID19553915. Lay summary – PhysOrg.com (7 July 2009).

[16] Reinarman, C.; Cohen, P. D. A.; Kaal, H. L. (2004)."The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco". American Journal of Public Health94 (5): 836–42.

[17] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[18] The Times – California dreaming of full marijuana legalisation, The Times, September 28, 2009








Ben_Carlile

Con

First, I will direct you to a very informative Harvard article about the negative effects of marijuana.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu...

This article shows that marijuana is in fact an "immune-suppressant" which means that it does not correct health issues as Pro would have us believe, rather, it accelerates them. Leading to the conclusion that even for medical purposes it is unhealthy and dangerous.

A recent study was done that shows 27% of marijuana users have admitted to having anxiety, which is nearly 300,000 marijuana users in just the teenage population of America, and 15% experiencing paranoia(about 150,000 marijuana using teens) as well as amplifying a variety of aggressive mental disorders. Separate studies link all of these attributes to violent crimes. From this we can draw the conclusion that the use of marijuana increases the likelihood of violent crimes. Not something anyone would like to legalize.

Upon review of these facts, it is plain to see that marijuana is a volatile drug, that presents danger to those around it.

To conclude, Pro, as the Instigator of this debate, holds the Burden of Proof for demonstrating why marijuana should be legalized in America. As the Con, I have no such burden, I only need to refute the evidence brought to attention.
Debate Round No. 2
MacGruber

Pro

First, I will direct you to the same article posted by Con in round 2, realizing that it only sources the ill effects of smoking. Of course smoking is bad for you! It's inhaling the smoke of a substance with a temperature of at least 451° Farenheit or 232° Celsius. There is no conclusive evidence of ill effects when consumed or inhaled in any way other than smoke.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu...;

Where is the source for your "recent study?" If it cannot be provided, I will conclude that your percentages in round 2 in incorrect and conceded. Until this is given, your entire argument of round 2 is invalid and does not stand to disprove any of my statements in round 1.

I believe my BOP has been met as I have:

A. Shown the positive health effects from ingesting C. Sitiva or Tetrahydrocannabinol.

B. Proven the economic benefits of legalisation.

C. And shown that the Gateway Theory stands to question, as it cannot prove Cannabis to provoke the use of other, "harder" drugs.


TO CONCLUDE

I have met my BOP and refuted all of Con's claims against legalizing Cannabis growth, use and sale thereof. Thank you, and vote PRO!

A message to Con:

I will post all of the links I used to write these rounds below. I suggest you read them to have a more substantial argument and rebuttal in the coming rounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

All sources used on these wiki pages are reputable and all findings have been reproduced. Thank You.
Ben_Carlile

Con

Ben_Carlile forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MacGruber

Pro

Con has forfeited.

In conclusion, Cannabis growth, sale, and use thereof should be legalized, as it is not adverse to health, criminal behavior, or the economy. In fact, it improves health in some cases, and is a valuable crop.

Thank you.

Vote PRO!
Ben_Carlile

Con

Ben_Carlile forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Ben forfeited my debate on Socialism as well. Too bad. You raised interesting points. :)
Posted by phanindra121 4 years ago
phanindra121
i support the legalization of cannibus
Posted by MacGruber 4 years ago
MacGruber
The link only shows the negatives of smoking. My BOP is to prove it deserves legalization, and I prove that through health benefits of consumption.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
FYI, this is the Harvard course webpage that Con's link comes from--

Evidence-Truth-Internet: January 1999
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu...
Posted by MacGruber 4 years ago
MacGruber
Before I post my next round, allow me to say: the link you provide discusses the negative effects of SMOKING cannabis. I never said legalization of smoking cannabis. Only legalizing it. Smoking is extremely terrible for your health, and public smoking bans should be nationwide, which I intend to debate later on.
Posted by MacGruber 4 years ago
MacGruber
Adams! Shush. I'm trying to not give him all my big arguments in my first round
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Lol @ comparing San Francisco to Amsterdam. There are many culture differences. Many other arguments could be made that are superior.
Posted by MacGruber 4 years ago
MacGruber
Muahahaaa!!
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
Now, that this is a different debate, my first comment will seem really out of context... XD
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
Dude, please. This is just not interesting whatsoever to me.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
MacGruberBen_CarlileTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro for FF's. con dropped arguments and Pro had very good points. Sources for obvious reasons.
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
MacGruberBen_CarlileTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FFs. Sources for obvious reasons as well.