The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
25 Points

Legalization of Marijauna

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 8/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,906 times Debate No: 5136
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (5)




Sources from will be cited by the number corresponding to where it was found.

Understand that I believe that possession and the private use of marijuana should always be legal. Driving while intoxicated should not (and already is illegal). Smoking in public should be a local issue, as it is the preference of the people living there that should decide whether marijuana can be used publicly. Trafficking of drugs is the only thing that should be federally regulated, as it is an international issue and directly falls under their jurisdiction. Also understand that whether or not you use (or would use) marijauna is your choice, having marijuana legalized only means you can legally make the choice for yourself. At all times you can decide not to use it, but those millions of americans who do are facing excessive criminal penalties for behavior that affects only them, NOT YOU. You have the constitutional right to not use marijuana, but I believe that it should also be your right to choose for yourself.

Even though I feel that the health effects are moot in regard to personal choice, I feel it deserves special attention given its relative safety (in the opinion of our own scientists, mind you).

The long half-life of THC prevents "crashing" after using the drug and greatly reduces the chance of dependency. Little to no withdraw symptoms were found with average marijuana use.
* paraphrased from the IOM report "Marijuana and Medicine"

There is no scientific evidence that marijuana use leads to 'harder' drugs.
* need citation

Addiction rates:
Nicotine - 35% * almost twice as addictive as cocaine and kills 25 times more people per year (if all 17000 deaths from all illicit substances were contributed to cocaine).
Cocaine - 19%
Marijuana - 9%

Death rates:
Tobacco - 435,000 /yr
Alcohol - 85,000 /yr
All illicit drugs - 17,000/yr
Marijuana - 0 (can not overdose)
* center for disease control
** Alcohol related deaths kill 5 times more people per year than ALL illicit drugs

Very mild calming feeling, Yellow teeth/nails/skin, emphysema, lung cancer, etc.
Obvious acute effects, bronchitis (long term) -- notice I did NOT list cancer.

** A california study observing heavy marijuana users over the course of 8 years found that marijuana smokers were no more prone to cancer than non-smokers.

"Both Australian studies suggest cannabis may actually reduce the responsibility rate and lower crash risk. Put another way, cannabis consumption either increases driving ability or, more likely, drivers who use cannabis make adjustments in driving style to compensate for any loss of skill (Drummer, 1995). This is consistent with simulator and road studies that show drivers who consumed cannabis slowed down and drove more cautiously (see Ward & Dye, 1999; Smiley, 1999. "
* #30

"Since 1969, government-appointed commissions in the United States, Canada, England, Australia, and the Netherlands concluded, after reviewing the scientific evidence, that marijuana's dangers had previously been greatly exaggerated, and urged lawmakers to drastically reduce or eliminate penalties for marijuana possession."

"...It criminalizes large numbers of otherwise law-abiding, mainly young, people to the detriment of their futures. It has become a proxy for the control of public order; and it inhibits accurate education about the relative risks of different drugs including the risks of cannabis itself."
* #37

"Statements in the popular media that the potency of cannabis has increased by ten times or more in recent decades are not support by the data from either the USA or Europe."
* #39

The U.S. federal government spent over $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second. The budget has since been increased by over a billion dollars.
* Office of National Drug Control Policy
** Don't you think this could go to more important expenditures? If this money was divided equally between the 48 continental states each state would receive approximately 395 million dollars annually. This money could be used to improve our hospitals, schools, roads, and provide financing for finding eco-friendly power sources.

Just this year 540,658 arrests have been made for cannibis. FBI statistics reported 829,625 arrests in 2006 for cannibis, the highest ever in one year, and of those arrests 738,915 (89%) were for possession alone. An American is now arrested for violating cannabis laws every 38 seconds.
*Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation



1. Marijuana is not addictive; no withdrawal.

I smoke pot. A lot of it (and not that mediocre suburban crap either :P). If marijuana were not addictive, why would I have just spent a good deal of money on the stuff just yesterday? Clearly it's not because "I just like it" because there are a lot of things I like or want yet choose not to spend the money on them. Rather I chose to buy weed yesterday because I have what some call a "mental addiction" to the drug, meaning my urges are more cumpulsory than addictive. I acknowledge this. But whether I smoke because I'm addicted or simply THINK I'm addicted makes no difference to me. The fact remains that I felt compelled to buy and smoke weed and so I have and I did.

2. Marijuana is not a Gateway Drug.

Under this point, my opponent made a note to include an asteric indicating that citation was needed to prove this point. Let me be clear, my friend, but no citation is needed here for me, as I will refuse to accept any "scientific evidence" that attempts to persuade me that marijuana is not a Gateway Drug. Here's why: I live in the real world and I am exposed to real things. I know many people who use drugs and even more who smoke pot. Not the other way around. This means that those who smoke pot may choose to not move on to harder drugs; however, those who use harder drugs do in fact smoke pot. If they don't, they have at some point in their life, and many of them will tell you that marijuana was their first experience regarding illegal drugs. Thus their fascination of 'being high' was introduced thanks to their (mis)use of cannabis. Now I argue that if marijuana becomes legal and therefore more accessible than it already is, this inclination of trying different kinds of highs is only going to become more widespread, and there is no way of telling that a drug epidemic will not occur. The logic here is better safe than sorry.

3. Marijuana vs. Tobacco & Alcohol

Pro's next point of reference was describing the negative effects of tobacco, and how they outweigh those of marijuana. All this point does is prove that nicotine is the more dangerous drug, and perhaps concludes that tobacco use should therefore be illegal. It does not do anything to indicate why mariuana should be legal. Similarly, proving that alcohol remains legal AND has more damaging effects of marijuana does not persuade me that marijuana should be legal. Two wrongs don't make a right. And for the record, Pro is using misinformation when he claims that marijuana has no inclination of causing cancer (notice this wasn't supported through factual citation) -- In fact there is no conclusive evidence indicating whether or not marijuana induces such damaging effects, since most people who smoke pot and have lung cancer are cigarette smokers or abuse other drugs as well.

4. Pot makes you a better driver.

Bologna. At best, you're so paranoid when you're high that you drive slower (Pro's point) because you're terrified of being pulled over by the po-po. However driving slower isn't necessarily safer. Further, what Pro fails to include in his argument is that marijuana also has the tendency to make you lackadaisical (trust me - I would know) and slows down your reflexes while driving just as alcohol impairs your ability to operate machinery. Additionally, studies show that between 6 and 16% of injured persons from car crashes tested positive for the presence of THC in their blood stream [1].

5. Decriminalization?

Now, at this point in the argument, I'd like to point out that all Pro is doing is literally copy and pasting arguments from and presenting them as evidence in this debate. Granted Pro actually cited his information (which is more than I can say about a lot of people); however, it doesn't change the fact that I feel like I am arguing against a website or a statistic rather than an individual. That being said, however, let's move on to the actual point. indicates that government appointed commissions urged law makers to reduce or decriminalize penalties for marijuana possession. However, decriminalization does not = legalization. Further, possession of marijuana is different from buying and selling marijuana... which is a whole other issue.

6. Young people get sent to jail and it ruins their lives.

Boo Hoo. Then they should've chosen not to break the law, however ridiculous they felt it was. That's like me saying that "otherwise law abiding" people shouldn't go to jail for other crimes that they've committed, just because those individuals didn't 'feel' that they were doing anything wrong, or because I didn't want to screw up their future...

7. Media use about cannabis users is exaggerated.

Nah. Everybody smoked pot :P

8. Our money could be better spent elsewhere.

True, but this could be said about a lot of things. Additionally, if criminalizing marijuana saves lives... which it can and it might/does... then how can you argue that our money can be better spent other than for the purpose of saving lives?


1. They say everything that's 'good' is bad for you, and I believe them. Despite popular belief that marijuana is some miracle drug that is not only awesome enough to get you high, but helps us fight things like glaucoma as well as assist cancer patients who are feeling nauseous, the truth is that marijuana IS, in fact, detrimental to your health. An American Cancer Society article notes how marijuana harms the immune system, enhances tumor growth, causes bronchitis and may cause lung cancer (probably because it contains 4x times the amount of the carcinogenic substance known as tar) [2]. Obviously this substance is legally a poison, and unless used for practical or necessary purposes (i.e. recreational does not fall under this category), why should it be legalized? It doesn't make any sense to give cancer patients weed to make them feel better when in turn the marijuana will --> more cancer.

2. If pot becomes legal, children at younger ages will have a higher exposure to the drug than they do now. We put age requirements on things like alcohol because we believe certain things are reserved for what is considerably a certain milestone of maturity... meaning you wouldn't want an 11 year old getting drunk, right? You'd much rather prefer a 21 year old or at least a 16 year old. I believe that most people would agree that youngsters should not have the opportunity to smoke pot, so to increase their chances of exposure would be irresponsible on our parts.

3. I can state that kids will become more adept to smoke pot after its legalization because it will become the new hoo-rah of - you guessed it - Big Tobacco. Every year this corporate whore will make billions by manipulating consumers into killing themselves slowly. Pot won't solve the economic crisis anymore than legalized cigarettes have failed to save the economy.

4. On that note, an addict is actually more likely to hurt the economy, because they would spend a large fraction of their earnings in one particular area instead of distributing it around multiple consumer markets, but I digress.

5. Crime is necessary and useful for society.

6. When cops bust you for pot, they don't turn it in. They smoke that sucka! And I am arguing on behalf of those cops who need a good toke every now and then.

7. My opponent has yet to prove why smoking pot is an inherent, fundamental right.

8. Unlike cigs and booze, marijuana can have hallucinogenic effects... which is pretty friggin cool, but at the same time, not really. You know what I mean.


Debate Round No. 1


1. Who said it has to be smoked? There are several means of using marijuana: eating, vaporizing, brewing into drinks, and capsulizing the crystalized resins.

"...Among these people, 1,421 cases of cancer were found, but marijuana use—defined as taking the drug on six or more occasions—appeared to increase only the risk of prostate cancer in men who did not smoke tobacco. No association was found between marijuana use and any other type of cancer, including cancers normally linked to tobacco smoking." * Marijuana and Medicine: The Science Beyond the Controversy, page 42

When consumed by means other than combustion (a.k.a "smoking" it) these toxins that have you so paranoid are not a factor. Vaporization, which is the process of heating up the matter enough to release the active ingredients without combusting it, allows people to achieve the quick results without sacrificing their health or smoking habit.

Either way it should be their choice whether they smoke or not. The person knows why they smoke and whether it is worth it for them to keep doing it. Some people don't want to smoke, or don't like it, and that's perfectly fine. I just ask that you don't discriminate against those who do, whether recreationally or religiously.


That answer sounds like the garbage you hear from your sunday school teacher. It has good intentions behind it, but that statement is rather ignorant of reality. School kids today find that it is much easier to obtain marijuana than alcohol or cigarettes. I don't believe kids should smoke, and agree they are not mature enough to make that choice, but having marijuana criminalized doesn't make it harder to get. Legalization, just like with alcohol, can come with an age requirement ( and even mandatory classes in order to get an endorsement on your license).

Honestly the temptation to get involved in criminal activity is what draws many kids to smoke weed. Once they smoke it, and like it, they will start to feel like their "tough", because they're doing something illegal. I know that sounds ridiculous, but that's about as complex as some children's thoughts get. Having it legalized actually reduces some of the appeal.


When marijuana is legalized smokers will grow their own weed. There is no money in taxing marijauna, or at least it's not easily enforceable, but you would save many local officer's time from the reduction in arrests (many of which are non-violent offenders).

Tobacco companies would have competition, and those who want to manufacture high grade marijauna will sell it in the same manner as tobacco. Age limit, competing price with tobacco, in places tobacco is usually found.

It is not unreasonable to ask that adults wishing to buy marijuana or grow it go through an informative class first before they get an endorsement to buy marijuana on their license. That will allow the public to make sure everyone is informed of the dangers so that each person, as a perfectly capable human being, can make their OWN DECISION about whether they smoke or not.


How can you say that the well-being of the economy is an excuse to take away a person's right to make their own choices? Legalization, as I have already pointed out, would spark heavy smokers to grow their own supply. They wouldn't spend a penny beyond growing costs (practically free outside) and would have more than they could ever smoke through. Right now people spend all their money on drugs because it costs so much per unit. The black market status of marijuana keeps the prices high, and this keeps marijuana smokers from saving as much money.


Are you insane? Crime is necessary for society? I can't believe I'M the one viewed as the head case.


Well those cops are people, and i don't see how their job makes them so much more important than those of us who work other jobs. When it is legal, they can grow their own too, just like everyone else.

700k people annually get arrested for cannibis violations. Obviously many americans (just the ones getting caught) don't agree with the current marijuana laws.


You really are foolish. That statement is a perfect example of how your blind ignorance is keeping you oppressed. It's when you're too foolish to even realize you're getting taken advantage of that you realize, you're crazy.

Reason 1:
Everyone knows that america is a land where you can practice your religion freely. There are some religions that use marijuana as a means to develop spiritually. Because marijuana smoking has become taboo these people are being discriminated against.

Reason 2:
The constitution says that it was written to protect a person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Let me break this down for you.

There are many people in this world who are terminally ill. I'm sure you're well aware of the medical marijuana dispute. Well, with all medical evidence showing the benefits of marijuana aside, who the hell are you to take away their medicine when they are ALREADY DYING! You've described the dangers of marijuana vividly, but who cares when the patient (who is in pain, the very reason they are being RECOMMENDED THE DRUG BY A DOCTOR) is already dying from a degenerative illness. Again though, for things like glaucoma, vaporization would effectively eliminate your argument against medical marijuana. The prohibition on medical marijuana is a cruel way of torturing many of our terminally ill citizens of america. Many of these people fought for us in war.

I know you're going to laugh when I associate marijuana with liberty. But in this case you need to look at this a little more broadly. The marijuana issue is merely an example of how your ability to choose for yourself is being taken away. Too much power is given to the federal government, and locally the people are going unheard. If you cannot choose for yourself, then effectively you're letting someone else run your life for you. And you wonder why you're never truly happy america..

Pursuit of Happiness:
This right guarantees that nobody will stop you from finding happiness. Now, don't even think about saying "Well what if happiness was killing people?!?!" or something along those lines. That is wrong, and that is wrong because it infringes on the rights of other people. Anything that does not violate the rights of others should be your right to pursue. It doesn't matter if you approve of jmarijuana or not, as it is not your happiness that it brings. If it disgusts you, if it makes you angry, then don't do it. Don't smoke. Don't think about it. It's not your problem, it's ours. We can do nothing to harm ANYONE if we smoke at home and don't drive. Problem solved.


Cigarettes are very well known as cancer sticks. Essentially it is considered a stick of death, since it's going to "kill you eventually." Yet that remains legal, while the drug that actually has desirable effects is made illegal. This really begs the question... Is it okay for it to kill you, as long as it doesn't make you happy? The general thought of it makes me sick. Really you and those who agree with you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Alcohol related deaths alone account for 6 times the deaths of all illicit drugs every year. You can not over dose on marijuana. Driving while intoxicated (which is wrong, dangerous, infringes on other people's rights, etc...) is already illegal. Even though I said "it makes you drive better" what it was meant to prove is that those who use marijuana know that they are "effed up" and take precautions to make sure they stay out of trouble. I don't support driving intoxicated.

She said "he's just copying and pasting from". That website cites all of it's source. It is merely for YOUR convenience. I've read many scientific reports on marijuana's effects and many law related sources. I know you're too lazy so I helped YOU


1. I'm a little confused by your rebuttal of my first point. Your attack was, "Who says marijuana has to be smoked?" and then went into a whole ordeal about other ways to consume marijuana, followed by a quote with faulty citation regarding marijuana and cancer. However, MY point one was about neither of those things -- in fact, my first point was about addition and withdrawl. As a reminder, my point here was that even if marijuana is not deemed physically addicting, I argue that it is mentally addicting, and buyers make purchases based on cumpulsion or based on the idea that they THINK and FEEL that they 'need' the drug, even if biologically they really don't. And let's face it - if someone THINKS they need something (mental addiction), that's really no different than if they really did 'need' it. Either way the result will be the same: buying and using.

2. My 2nd point was that I do believe marijuana to be a Gateway Drug, based on the fact that most if not all of hard drug users began getting high via marijuana. I've also noted that marijuana users can choose not to move on to harder drugs, however, those that have chosen to do so will almost always cite marijuana as their introduction to the 'highs' that they are now addicted to. Pro in no way refuted this fact nor did he provide citation stating otherwise.

Instead, Pro responded with the most BS answer that I have ever heard: that legalizing marijuana will NOT make it harder for kids to get pot. Um, is that a joke? Clearly he can't be serious. I'll ask that you think of it this way, ladies and gentlemen... say you are 16 or 17 and want a pack of cigarettes. Legally, you should not be able to walk into a store and buy them, however, we all know that there are ways around that (apathetic store workers who don't care who they sell to, older friends who will buy them for you, lazy workers who don't ask for ID and assume you're 18, etc.)! Yet if you're 16 and want to buy POT, well, that would surely be a harder feat! First you have to know a drug dealer. But what if that dealer is out of town, out of weed, or out of patience for answering calls from annoying bug-a-boos who call non-stop looking for bud, hmm? Anyway, I can't believe I'm wasting my time/characters with this... the point is that every educated person can assume that it is more feasable to buy cigarettes than it is weed. I resent Pro for saying I'm "ignorant of reality" when he is clearly the ignorant one in terms of this debate!

Regardless, in response to Pro's point that, "Once they smoke it, and like it, they will start to feel like their 'tough', because they're doing something illegal" (about smoking weed). I agree. That doesn't change the fact that they are still smoking and becoming addicted though, so...

3. Pro's 3rd point is, "When marijuana is legalized smokers will grow their own weed." I argue that there is no basis for this argument. As it is, people can make their own wine, brew their own beer or roll their own tobacco; however, that is incredibly unpopular to say the least! Even though people CAN do these things, most people DON'T and there is no proof that people would do the same with weed. The only reason people grow their own weed today is to eliminate interaction with a drug dealer or to save money. Truth be told, most Americans lack the time, patience or care to grow their own crop, not to mention the money. Let's not forget that America is not the ideal place to grow weed (especially a city like Seattle, for instance), therefore one would have to invest in a mini green-house, if you will. Either way, society's behavorial patterns show us that people growing their own weed is not likely, thus my point about Big Tobacco being in complete control in yet of another terrible product stands.

4. At this point, I have come to conclude that while Pro may be a passionate indivudual with big ideas, he's not too keen on neither political, economical or philosophical know-how. For instance, pro exclaims, "How can you say that the well-being of the economy is an excuse to take away a person's right to make their own choices?" This completely disreards a simple concept such as tax tariffs. You may believe that a person should have the right to make their own choices about what products to buy, for example, but that doesn't mean that the government will let you (without a price) for the sake of the economy.

5. "Are you insane? Crime is necessary for society? I can't believe I'M the one viewed as the head case." First of all, nobody ever called you a head case. At least I haven't. Second, apparently Pro is completely ignorant of the POPULAR philosophical idea that crime is necessary for society, for which there has been extensive research and support. Perhaps Pro should take the time to research Durkheim, or, for the short version: Durkheim argued that crime is functional. By punishing criminals, society reaffirms it own values. If crimes were not committed, then the values of society would become blurred. If there is no punishment, then there would be no way of reestablishing the values that the crime offends [1].

6A. I never said that cops were above the law. I simply said that cops should be allowed to smoke some weed every now and then after a stressful day (I don't know about where you're from, but here in New York City, cops have it rough...). Simply because I don't think something is immoral does not mean that I feel it should be illegal for other purposes.

6B. Pro says that just because 700k people are arrested for marijuana violations, and many others are known to smoke pot, that a lot of people don't agree with the current legislation and therefore pot should be decriminalized. What kind of faulty logic is that? Just because a lot of people believe in something doesn't make it right. A lot of people believed in slavery -- that didn't make it right or mean it should remain legal.

7. After calling Pro out for not providing any evidence to back his contentions about rights and liberty, Pro proceeded to call me ignorant and foolish (ha). Rather he is the ignorant and foolish one because I never disagreed with those ideals but rather highlighted a fundamental mistake with his approach to this debate... i.e. not providing any reasoning whatsoever!

After finally supplying some type of basis for his argument, Pro notes that because some people use marijuana to "develop spiritually" that it should be legal. Well, some religions kill people as sacrificial offerings for "spiritual development" -- should THAT practice be legalized too? Further, Pro asserts that it is our constittional right to smoke marijuana, but where is the constitution does it say that?

Sure we are (supposed) to be granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but consider Pro's weak argments in their defense (as it pertains to marijuana). According to him, a dying person should be allowed to do what they please. But aren't we all just dying slowly? Additionally, if Americans are going to treat the government like a mom or dad (ie: I spent all my allowance - can I borrow some money?), then they are going to have to obey mom and dad's rules (ie: no smoking pot... because I said so!).

7 (8). Once again Pro talks about the dangers of tobacco and marijuana, so once again I have to ask why that has anything to do with the debate. Just because those substances are bad does not mean that marijuana is good.

9. In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to tell Pro to Shut the Hell Up. I'm tired of his accusations. Truth be told I love marijuana and believe that it should be legalized 100%. I also believe that Pro is an incompetent debater who can effectively argue this postion. Additionally, he has proceeded to call me names and make up stupid stories to compensate for his lack of persuasion. It's a sad day for us Pro-Legalizationers!

Debate Round No. 2


L_Bowman forfeited this round.


Like I said, I am 100% Pro-Legalization of marijuana. However, Pro did not win this debate:

1. He attempted to prove that marijuana wasn't addicting but failed.

2. He did not argue that marijuana was a Gateway Drug. Simply saying "No it's not" does not mean you have presented an effective rebuttal.

3. He had no good response to my contention that Big Tobacco would become the main distributor of legalized marijuana... dun dun dun.

4. I argued reasons for why this movement could be bad for the economy, and Pro responded with the fact that our liberties should trump the importance of the American economy. I proved that this is not always the case.

5. Crime is necessary for society. Pro denied that this was even possible let alone provide an argument for it.

6. I agreed that smoking pot wasn't immoral, however, what does that have to do with its legalization when there are so many other factors...? Pro didn't respond.

7. A lot of people smoke pot. Big deal. A lot of people break a lot of laws every single day -- that doesn't make it right. This argument is void.

8. The 'spiritual development' argument for pot had flaws and I nabbed them.

9. Pro continuously pointed out the dangers of cigarettes and alcohol which remain legal; however, like I said -- just because he proved that those things were bad does not mean that marijuana is by default good.

10. Pro forfeited the final round and tried to make me look foolish in prior rounds simply for "disagreeing" with his faulty logic. Hmm.

In conclusion, I feel a vote for Con is in order... but in the real world, smoke up if you wish!
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by L_Bowman 8 years ago
BTW, a study involving rats with simulated heavy marijuana use found that tumors were reduced in rats and their immune system remained healthy.

Marijuana laws do not save lives. From what? Car crashes? That's a rare incident in consideration of the large pot-smoking base and driving intoxicated is ALREADY ILLEGAL.

Cannibis can NOT be proven to be a gateway drug. It can't be proven either way. It is unreasonable to assume that it IS a gateway drug because of additional drug experimentation because in purchasing cannibis they expose themselves to the black market which tempts them (often enough, subtle or otherwise) to try other things (so they get money, of course).

I'm not keen on political, economical, and philosophical know-how? Ha ha... you don't know me well at all... what I was arguing was not the facts but rather whether we should operate as we do currently. I know how everything works, i've spent too much time in study not to, but I have to beg the question... is this working as well as it could? Not believing things should be changed means you'll become outdated. in this case, as a country.

Cops, along with everyone else, should be allowed to smoke cannibis after a stressful day. Cops are grunts, of course they have hard days... most americans have hard days... public servants don't desrve special treatment. THey get enough of THAT as it is...

We may all be dying slowly, but terminally ill patients go through tremendous PAIN! That's the effing difference... just consider what you would wish for if you were in pain every day and were going to die very soon. I'd say give my fellow american a joint if he asks for one...

I lost my chance to rebut, so I will stop. However, I wish to conclude...

Don't be quick to label people as criminals. Law is law, but it doesn't mean it's ethically right. There is a HUGE difference. End blanket prohibition and restore power to the local governments. Make it a local issue, as it is one. Who can argue wit
Posted by L_Bowman 8 years ago
Go figure I'd miss the deadline for my argument.

Let me restate that my overall conclusion was that we're giving too much power to a small group of people, and that cannibis is something that should not be regulated. Like anything it CAN be abused, but that's like making leaving your house illegal because you COULD do something illegal.

I apologize for personal comments in r2. I was tired and quite frankly was sick of hearing the same rebuttals from everyone, and took out my frustration.

Even though I instigated this argument, i'm not politically supporting it's legalization. Not because I don't believe that it should be legal I don't think that america has the capability to make such a change. Many policies would have to change, the public would have to be informed of the true dangers and uses, the lawmakers would HAVE to be under pressure, and the president would have to be someone in favor of legalization (I seriously doubt we could pull off a 2/3 majority on that issue...)

Psychiatrists say that "cannibis alters your mind." That's true, it does, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Eventually you'll actually come to a point where cannibis (though it still 'makes you high') loses it's usefullness as a developing aid, and that's when mental addiction is completely destroyed. If you think that last sentence was BS then consider that cannibis and many other all-natural substances have been used shamanistically for thousands of years.

Cannabis, mushrooms, cocaine LEAF, salvia, etc. should all be excluded from the CSA. Substances in their all-natural form have been used safely for thousands of years and it is unreasonable to believe that fact has changed since 1930. Plain dumb.

While I (unfortunately) forfeited the 3rd round argument i'd like to point out that while I may have had several invalid points LWERD YOU HAD SEVERAL AS WELL. Don't get on that high horse and pretend you're a good debater because I made mistakes.

I apologize for forfe
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to tell Pro to Shut the Hell Up.!

Nice one, theLwerd, Pro deserved that for insulting you! However, I suspect the judges in a formal debating competition would expect you to rise above any abuse from your opponent!

b/t/w, I did contact customer support as you suggested and apparently my lousy mobile phone network doesn't support Internet texts so I won't be able to vote in any debates. F@cking rats c*cks!
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Oh you are?

Your profile says otherwise...
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago

You've missed the entire point - that I don't care about warrants for this debate. For those of you who don't know, I am 100% PRO legalization (hell my profile says that I belong to the Marijuana Party!). However, I took on this debate for fun and that is how I intend to argue it :)
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago

narratives usually aren't good warrants.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Brian, you know I love your debates :P

And I'm sorry to hear about the voting issue. You should contact the Webmaster. Hmm.

I'm alright with this new version so far, I guess. I mean it's not confusing but it's certainly not aesthetically pleasing! I like the preview for this version better than what it is now, so hopefully they'll fix or update it soon.

And thx - my cheeks are swollen beyond all belief. I look like a chipmunk or squirrel.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
What a cheek! "Unprofessional" am I, theLwerd!?

Actually, I agree with you, this site should be fun and there's nothing wrong with being anecdotal from time to time.

Sorry to hear about your trauma at the dentist by the way.

Apropos of nothing, b/t/w, this new format is a bit skew-whiff but I'm sure they'll get it sorted out. However, I can't vote because they want my mobile number and I'm not on any of the networks listed.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
PoeJoe, perhaps that was my intention.

I got teeth pulled yesterday and was/still am on crazy amounts of vicodin, not to mention I had just come off of ansthesia and was loopy and out of it. Pardon me for not being 100% serious like I am in all of my other debates. Remember that this site is for fun, and regardless of how well of an argument that I post, all of my debates are going to be down-voted anyway... so yeah, maybe my R1 argument contained a lot of 'personal information' and wasn't so professional. I'm alright with that. I don't see how that's different than Brian_Eggleston's less than 'professional' comments in a debate (which you have admitted you liked), and further, regardless of the way I debated, I believe 100% that I have still done a way better job than Pro. His entire R1 was copy and pasted. Debate is more than just statistics, as I'm sure you're aware. It's also not supposed to be about plaigarism, but I digress. The point is that I'm trying to present an alternate POV with this debate. No more, no less. And I'm having fun with it.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
CON's R1's rebuttal contains too much personal evidence to be taken seriously.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 6 years ago
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 FemaleGamer 7 years ago
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:70 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by jmlandf 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
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