Legalization of Marijuana
Debate Rounds (5)
Thank you Pro, now in to my argument.
My Opponent's argument is not factually backed
My opponent says things, and I quote like;
"marijuana is wasting money and causing wars,"
Now, this is a very broad statement and is not factually based by any source, statistic, or even website. Therefore, for lack of evidence, presumed false.
Another quote, "prescription drugs kill about 100,000 people in the world each year," May be true, but not backed up. I now ask my opponent to show me his sources when he states statistics and makes broad statements.
Rebuttal to my opponent's argument in Round 2
My opponents argument is not factual scientifically at all, and has no sources to back any assumptions up in his first opening argument. My main argument to my opponent is the fact that they assume that it will only be used as a medical drug. You have to understand that once legalized, people will have more access to get the drug. Whether they need it for medical use or not, once legalized for medical purposes it will be released in to the public through the government. Now, another theory is the abused system it will bring. With marijuana now being able to be given out for "pain removing" there will be "pot-heads" that abuse the system to get the drug that they think their body needs.
My opponent says that when marijuana is legalized we will stop "wasting money" but I ask my opponent, what are we wasting money on? And how would marijuana being legalized make us stop, "wasting money" It makes no sense, for my opponent does not go into any further detail. My opponent just states it and move on.
Now, my opponent tries to argue how if smoked safely, marijuana is safe. How is marijuana smoked safely? Earlier in the paragraph my opponent says, "Besides, Marijuana affect would have you pass out before you could try to overdose," [on prescription drugs]
Yes, passing out seems perfectly safe to me, especially if I'm doing something with a group of people at a party, and I pass out. Seems very "safe," And also, my opponent claims that legalizing Marijuana would
"stop the deaths caused by overdose on prescription drugs because they would pass out before they could overdose."
So, my opponent is saying that you wouldn't be able to abuse prescription drugs because you would be passed out because of marijuana. So if I just walked up to someone, knocked them out with a baseball bat, they wouldn't be able to abuse prescription drugs, simply because they are "passed out," The idea is ridiculous to assume because my opponent has to remember that when passed out, people do indeed wake up, and that is not going to stop them from overdosing. Therefore, no, marijuana does not help with prescription drug overdose.
"There has not been any deaths directly related to marijuana,"
Now, this is one thing my opponent has a source cited for. Now, marijuana is considered by the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 as a gateway drug. Sure, marijuana may not be directly related to a persons death, but the drugs after such as cocaine definitely have been directly added to a persons death. According to Web definitions, a gateway drug is;
"a habit-forming drug that is not addictive but its use may lead to the use of other addictive drugs; "
So, according to the controlled substance act, marijuana is a habit forming drug, that may lead to the use of other addictive drugs. So yes, marijuana may not be directly the cause of someone's death, the drugs used because of marijuana do lead to death. In conclusion, marijuana is an indirect cause to death.
My opponent goes in to a great effort to proclaim how dangerous and "toxic" prescription drugs are. In comparison, they are more regulated and researched than marijuana! Marijuana comes in a plastic bag from any dealer, a prescription drug comes in a certified package, with directions suitable for each patient written clearly, and in most cases they are prescribed by a doctor. Not only are they tested by numerous scientists, but also companies in the US such as The Food and Drug Administration, FDA. Therefore, making them more safe than marijuana.
Final argument to my opponent
In conclusion, my opponents opening argument was not based of scientific data or statistics. Causing no direct advantage to society by legalizing marijuana. As my opponent states no direct plan of action to legalize and the advantages it is, so I will state a few disadvantages.
1) A gateway drug, [as defined above] to extremely addictive and harmful drugs such as cocaine and heroin.
2) Leads to an unhealthy lifestyle. The use of marijuana may lead to what is socially claimed as a "pothead," Somebody always paying for marijuana and using it, usually spending a great deal of money on it, and not keeping a good hygiene.
3) Other terms of medical pain relief. There are many prescription drugs and even other plants that relieve pain in the body, so why do we pick a drug like marijuana, that causes unhealthy lifestyles and leads to further drugs, to relieve our pain when there are much other safer ways of going about it.
4) Controversial. A lot of people disagree and want nothing to do with marijuana, and would like to stay as far away with it as they could. I have yet to meet as person that would we ok with the idea of a marijuana store opening up next door or down the road. Many may even move! The basic idea is that people do not like it.
5) We just don't need it. We have survived as humans without it, and since it will only cause harm, why do we need it? It doesn't do things that other medicine wont do anyway, and really doesn't benefit society, so why do we need it?
Now since I have responded to my opponents case and presented my own, I turn the debate over to my opponent.
Google Web Definitions
By: Doctor Lester Grinspoon.
Second, I understand if it is used as a medical drug it will also be used for smoking. You mentioned there will be pot- heads out their. I understand that, but if you look on Fox News, today they talked about how if it was sold they would only sell it in four packs so people can't smoke it constantly and they would use a system to tell how recently the bought it.
Third, we are wasting money by the police using the gas, time, and energy stopping people who are harmlessly smoking the drug. We are wasting money on the gas they use by stopping what many believe is a petty crime. If you would like me to go into further detail I will.
Then, you talked about this sentence, "Besides, Marijuana affect would have you pass out before you could try to overdose". You took me as talking about prescription drugs. I was saying The affect Marijuana, if used improperly by abusers, they would pass about before they could try to overdose on MARIJUANA! When I was talking about prescription drugs, I was comparing about how something you can just go buy, is much more dangerous than Marijuana. I was never talking about using Marijuana and prescription drugs together. I was just comparing the two.
You mentioned how Marijuana has been found in the system of people who have died, but not directly. That because you should not use Marijuana with any other drug. Just like with alcohol, you are not safely supposed to drink and use other drugs at the same time. I got this from the National Geographic " Drug Plant " article.
If you actually would talk to someone who works with Marijuana and prescription drugs you would understand the differences. I would give you a source, but unfortunately all I can tell you is my cousin works with these things at Cambridge University!!
Their is my argument, as I wait for your response!
P.S. you talked about how we don't need Marijuana, but we don't need alcohol and tobacco either!
My opponent is still making claims that are not backed by statistics or facts (Rebuttal to round 3)
My opponent is still stating things that are not factually backed. Here are examples of statements that my opponent has said that is not backed by any data, yet is still presented to us, from who knows where. Most likely not from a real statistic. First off;
"Some people say it kills to many brain cells, but what their not thinking about is that when any brain cell
dies, a new one is created. Which new brain cells are stronger than old ones, therefore making Marijuana healthy for the brain, if smoked safely."
First off, this is not proven factual by science. No scientific research anywhere has ever stated that marijuana is healthy for the brain. Healthy would mean that the substance is benefiting the organ in some way. Fruit is healthy for the body. It benefits us and gives us nutrients. Marijuana is not healthy for the body, like my opponent says, it kills brain cells. And my opponent also makes false claims about when brain cells die, new stronger ones are created. This is also not scientifically backed, and this statement will be presumed false until proven.
" Third, we are wasting money by the police using the gas, time, and energy stopping people who are harmlessly smoking the drug. We are wasting money on the gas they use by stopping what many believe is a petty crime."
First of all, my opponent claims that police are wasting their gas on marijuana calls. Wasting would be
using gas for no purpose, but they are doing a purpose! They are catching people doing a crime! They are doing their job, catching people breaking the law, therefore, they are not wasting gas, because they are doing their job. This
statement by my opponent is also not backed by any evidence or facts. My opponent has not presented a source or number proving that legalizing marijuana will reduce the amount of money police spend on gasoline and resources. Until my opponent presents numbers, data, or facts proving that legalizing marijuana will indeed save the police money on gas, this will also be presumed false.
(Continued) Rebuttal to round 3
My opponent claims that once legalized, marijuana will not be abused as much by "pot-heads" and will actually prevent these avid smokers from getting marijuana in excess. Now, you are probably thinking exactly what I am, how could making marijuana legal lower the amount of usage by avid smokers. It is absurd, and my opponent actually believes it to be true. Here is my opponent's quote;
"Second, I understand if it is used as a medical drug it will also be used for smoking. You mentioned there will be pot- heads out their. I understand that, but if you look on Fox News, today they talked about how if it was sold they would only sell it in four packs so people can't smoke it constantly and they would use a system to tell how recently the bought it."
It is just plain logic that legalizing marijuana will not stop "pot-heads" from being pot-heads. Just because it is sold in rationed amounts does not mean that pot-heads will take it in rationed amounts!
Marijuana is outlawed and illegal--- Pot-heads and other users still get it and use it despite the law!
According to my opponent, when legalized, this is what will happen.
Marijuana is legal--- Pot-heads wont get as much marijuana and will not use it in as much quantity.
Now that you see a visual model, you can see how absurd my opponents claim is. Marijuana is illegal right now, yet users still get it in excess and use it. When marijuana is legalized, I doubt someone who uses the drug in excess will go buy it from a store that restricts selling it in excess. The pot-head will still go to their dealer and still get just as much. Making it legal is not going to make them stop buying great amounts of it! Which leads me in to my final quote to end my rebuttal, proving my opponent's argument wrong; The only thing marijuana being legalized will do will make citizens that don't usually smoke marijuana want to go out and try it. It will not reduce the amount on the streets, the amount avid smokers get, or reduce the drug in general. The only thing marijuana being legalized will do is encourage new people to try it.
Final argument and closing statement
Some basic facts disapproving my opponents argument;
( taken from http://www.cnbc.com... )
1) The rate of current, past 30-day
use of marijuana by Americans aged 12 and older in 1979 was 13.2 percent. In
2008 that figure stood at 6.1 percent. This 54-percent reduction in marijuana
use over that 29-year period is a major public health triumph, not a failure.
2) Marijuana is the most commonly
abused illegal drug in the U.S. and around the world. Those who support its
legalization, for medical or for general use, fail to recognize that the
greatest costs of marijuana are not related to its prohibition; they are the
costs resulting from marijuana use itself.
3) There is a common misconception
that the principle costs of marijuana use are those related to the criminal
justice system. This is a false premise. Caulkins & Sevigny (2005) found
that the percentage of people in prison for marijuana use is less than one half
of one percent (0.1-0.2 percent).
Number one shows that marijuana usage in young people has actually gone down. Why? There are stricter laws for using the drug. We should not abolish what is already working! Keeping illegal drugs away from young people.
Number two is just restating the fact that marijuana is in fact and illegal drug, and is a problem in the U.S. as it is the most abused drug. Also, since this has been determined by the Controlled Substance Act, will only lead on to harmful drugs, more powerful than marijuana.
And finally, number three just restates that marijuana does not "waste" police funds at all, if anything with the lack of marijuana prisoners, it helps the police!
The whole "legalizing marijuana" issue in America is honestly irrelevant to what our country is going through right now. Our debt is the worst its been, our country is jobless, and our country is obese. There are at least twenty more important issues in our country right now that are way more important than legalizing marijuana. What exactly will legalizing marijuana accomplish with our country in these tough times? We need to stop focusing on irrelevant issues that only cause harm like marijuana and focus on our debt and our poverty. The trouble it takes to legalize marijuana is just a big waste of time. Our country should stop putting time in effort in laws like this and instead take those resources and use them on important issues, that will benefit our country as a whole. I now turn the debate to my opponent.
Justaga forfeited this round.
My opponent's forfeit
Now, at first glance I would just assume that there was a perfectly reasonable excuse for my opponent to forfeit the round, other than he had just surrendered to my arguments. But, doing the easy research by simply looking at my opponent's profile, I noticed he was online yesterday, and even looked and noticed he was on the day before that. Which leads me to say;
My opponent was aware that he had a debate argument due.
Now, if my opponent also forfeits the final round, it will only lead me to the conclusion that I had won the debate. This round may have been a fluke type of round, so I will not assume my opponent fully surrendered.
I anxiously await to hear my opponents decision.
Well, my opponent has stated why he was unable to post any rebuttals to my arguments. I will let my audience take what they want from the explanation, and view it how they like. Whether they believe it or not, there must still be a vote, for there were indeed arguments and points made. Now, I do wonder why my opponent was able to post an explanation in round five, yet still forfeited round four, but who knows what happened.
I would also like to throw in that I gave my opponent a second chance after his forfeit, and he had a chance to still argue after round four despite the forfeit, yet did not reply. And the punishment for no rebuttal was;
"Now, if my opponent also forfeits the final round, it will only lead me to the conclusion that I had won the debate"
My audience can also view that how I want, but I would also like to throw that in there. Whether you take my opponents explanation as a forfeit is up to you.
Thanks to my opponent for a brief, yet entertaining debate. When you are ready and able, maybe we could debate this topic again, and get through all of the rounds. Also; thanks to the audience and voters for reading the debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CRSdave 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:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Concession- Con's arguments were grounded in facts and backed up by sources. Conduct goes to Con simply because I do not quite believe Pro's story of "Computer Problems." But that's just me and I could be wrong. Since he cannot prove the computer crash, and it would be too easy to fake, I must assume that it was faked. Therefore I have given Con the Conduct point
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.