The Instigator
Thugzbunyyy
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Babeslayer
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Legalization of Marijuana

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Thugzbunyyy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,103 times Debate No: 34666
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Thugzbunyyy

Pro

Hello all, I will be arguing for the legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational use in the United States (to at least a level equivalent to that of alcohol's) . I will begin by presenting a few main statements and their subset points if they apply. I respectfully request for my opponent to refute them, then I will challenge their arguments. Also feel free to add any points you may have or to not address any of mine that you choose. I do not wish to focus on other drugs besides cannabis although I intend to mention them for argumentative purposes if necessary. This is simply to establish a sense of organization, please and thank you.

My Arguments
1.There will be little to no negative effects to the country/society from marijuana's legalization.
a) Marijuana is not addictive.
b)Marijuana is physically impossible to overdose on
c) Marijuana's supposed "negative" effects, whether long term or short, are negligible, and many of which cannot credibly be declared true.
d) The Gateway theory is fundamentally flawed
e) Marijuana's intoxicating effects are not harmful to the users or others within itself (i.e. causing aggressiveness or other adverse changes to mood or perception), and therefore responsibility is placed on the user.
f) Youth's access to marijuana will not be increased by legalization but will in fact be decreased
g) assuming it is true that marijuana's potency has increased since the 1900's, it is an irrelevant fact seeing as how the negative effects remain unchanged.

2. There will be a plethora of positive effects resulting from marijuana's legalization.
a) The revenue saved and made from marijuana's legalization will be substantial and much needed to the country
b)The medical benefits of marijuana would benefit many of its citizens, saving lives and creating a greater quality of life for many
c) Legalization will allow regulation of cannabis and therefore a greater degree of damage control. (i.e. preventing child access, stopping drugged driving)
d) Legalization will improve society by ending prosecution and punishment of responsible, contributing citizens simply for committing the victimless crime of consuming marijuana for medical or recreational purposes.
e)Cannabis integration would benefit our culture and uphold our rights as a nation under the constitution.

3. Even if marijuana was a harmful substance it is clearly no more harmful than legal substances (i.e. alcohol, tobacco) which have been perfectly integrated into society and are tolerated. Therefore, it should be treated no differently.

4. It is not the governments place to tell us how to live, but to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all.
Babeslayer

Con

Just a reminder, I can get a little harsh. Since this dumb site doesn't allow curses (yeah, because all the controversial topics about sex & drugs are totally ok for kids to see) Expect quiet a few asterisks. (*)

Before I begin, I'd like to state my stance on the weed argument. I don't smoke weed, and don't have the intention to ever smoke weed. I don't think It should be legal, but I'm not a religious wingnut who thinks it's "The devils salad" or any of the stupid things those crazy people say. So, let's begin.

1. "Marijuana is not addictive."
Look, anything that you take one of and want more of is addictive. Video games are addictive, sports are addictive, & hitting on women at bars is addictive.

2. "Marijuana is physically impossible to overdose on"
Not an expert on weed, but I'm pretty sure that - like any other substance - yes you can. Weed gives your body an unnatural effect, and smoking too much weed might cause harm. I'm not saying it'll kill you, just that it'll harm you.

3. "Marijuana's supposed "negative" effects, whether long term or short, are negligible, and many of which cannot credibly be declared true."
So tell me again how getting a sudden urge to eat all the cookie dough, potato chips, cream cheese & marshmellows in your house isn't a negative effect?

4. "The Gateway theory is fundamentally flawed"
How is it flawed? People who do drugs tend to take other drugs. Why? Because people who take drugs probably have a rebellious personality. They do one rebellious act against the law, they want to do another, just to get that rush of doing something illegal. Teens drinking alchohol is just as much of a gateway drug as weed, but weed is still a gateway drug.

5. "Marijuana's intoxicating effects are not harmful to the users or others within itself (i.e. causing aggressiveness or other adverse changes to mood or perception), and therefore responsibility is placed on the user."
It completely does. Alchohol does too, every mood-changing substance does.

6. "Youth's access to marijuana will not be increased by legalization but will in fact be decreased"
Yeah, and you know what happens then? Weed stops being cool and teens turn to drugs that cause them actual harm such as cocaine.

IN RESPONSE TO ALL THE "BENEFITS" LEGALIZING WEED WILL HAVE
Weed can be used mecidally,yes. Because it already is. Legalizing it for the public won't be able to change that. In fact, by making weed legal, you're getting rid of it's use as a recreational mood-changer. It'll probably only be available to those who need it for medicinal purposes. And as for the whole "it'll stop a lot of crime" no it won't. Weed is far from the only drug out there, and getting rid of one will not change that at all. And if it isn't only medicinal, if it becomes something like tobacco did, then it doesn't stop people from driving drugged.

"3. Even if marijuana was a harmful substance it is clearly no more harmful than legal substances (i.e. alcohol, tobacco) which have been perfectly integrated into society and are tolerated. Therefore, it should be treated no differently."
Perfectly integrated? Tobacco is seen as the devils drinking buddy by society, and drinking is now known as being desperate. Weed will stop being known as a calming drug, it'll just become a cautionary tale.

IN RESPONSE TO #4
Since when? Since when has the governments job not been to control us? Oh yeah, let's protect the lives of the US by doing absulutely f***-all about our s*** health care and allow all these terrible massacres to keep happening. Let's protect their liberty by trying to ban the things they love. Let's pursue happiness by going to war with the wrong countries and doing everything wrong in every other countries eyes. As for Canada, well King Prime Minister Stephen Harper banned Count Chocula & Cookie Crisp for being unhealthy, so don't expect us to legalize weed anytime soon.
Debate Round No. 1
Thugzbunyyy

Pro

Thanks for accepting :)

"Look, anything that you take one of and want more of is addictive. Video games are addictive, sports are addictive, & hitting on women at bars is addictive."

Thank you because this is exactly my point. Physically marijuana is not addictive (i.e. in the way heroin or meth is), and mentally, marijuana is no different from any of the things you mentioned. So why then should it be banned? Should video games be illegal? What about sports or talking to women?


"Not an expert on weed, but I'm pretty sure that - like any other substance - yes you can. Weed gives your body an unnatural effect, and smoking too much weed might cause harm. I'm not saying it'll kill you, just that it'll harm you."

That's just it, it is not like any other substance, weed is literally the safest consumable substance out there (even more so than water). What harm do you speak of? If there is no death or other adverse affects then there is no harm. In order to consume an amount of marijuana to the point of toxicity would require a human being to smoke 1000+ joints in the span of 12 minutes. Like I said, physically impossible, look it up.

"So tell me again how getting a sudden urge to eat all the cookie dough, potato chips, cream cheese & marshmallows in your house isn't a negative effect?"

You said you were a non-smoker but that was unnecessary as I can see this in your arguments. As a proud marijuana smoker I can tell you that what you gave is a gross overexageration of the munchies. Yes an increase in appetite is an effect but that's about all it is. One does not go into a gluttonous rage upon consuming cannabis and one would hardly call heightened appetite a negative effect, especially seeing as how it benefits many (i.e. cancer patients). And to clarify, that point was to discredit the supposed negative health effects of marijuana (i.e. lung cancer, brain cell destruction) not psychoactive effects (i.e. munchies, giggles).

"How is it flawed? People who do drugs tend to take other drugs. Why? Because people who take drugs probably have a rebellious personality. They do one rebellious act against the law, they want to do another, just to get that rush of doing something illegal. Teens drinking alcohol is just as much of a gateway drug as weed, but weed is still a gateway drug."

OK, first I'll explain my logic and then respond to your points. It is a flawed theory because it basically states that because and only because you performed act A, you then performed act B. If there is a physical, or systematic force connecting the acts then you can say that act A was the gateway for act B. For example, you drink a bottle of water within 30 seconds, after 20 minutes your digestive tract has taken the nutrients and what not from the water. Then, what's left is waste and you now have to pee, therefore because you drank water you went to go pee. This works as both a physical and systematic gateway example because physically, there is water in your bladder because you drank it and it needs to come out, systematically, peeing is the end phase of the digestive system that started when you drank the water. There is no natural physical or systematic connection between marijuana and other drugs. It is easy to say that X amount of heroin, cocaine, and meth users used marijuana first, but this misleads from the why. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today. Therefore, people who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, and cocaine are likely to have also used marijuana. Anyone willing to use heroin would obviously be willing to use weed, but few weed smokers would even consider using anything stronger, there are even those who don't drink alcohol. This because marijuana users know of it's benign nature from first hand experience and can clearly see the difference from it and other drugs. The fact of the matter is that anything close to the gateway theory is actually promoted by marijuana prohibition. How, because an uniformed cannabis consumer wants to purchase more, they go to the black market dealer and purchase, then the dealer, who supplies all kinds of drugs, pushes his/her other, more addictive substances onto the consumer and you have a gateway theory. Were marijuana legalized one could go to a nice simple shop purchase their product an be on their way. "They do one rebellious act against the law, they want to do another, just to get that rush of doing something illegal. " This is not credible because motivations for using drugs in any way vary widely and cannot be defined with so simple a reason. Just because someone uses drugs does not mean they have a rebellious personality, that's like saying someone who gets A's and B's in school is a socially reserved bookworm. Just like everything in anti-weed propaganda; it makes sense but if you really analyze, it logically proves to be untrue.

"It completely does. Alchohol does too, every mood-changing substance does."

I am not trying to be rude but "it completely does" is not an arguement. Please backup your statements/points with logic and or facts. However I will elaborate on my point for clarification. Under the influence of marijuana, a few general effects are euphoria, mild anxiety, mild paranoia, munchies, giggles, etc. Basically, none of these effects are adverse in and of themselves to the point of making the the substance dangerous. With alcohol, the consumer is severely punished for drunk driving or over aggresiveness not the product. This is because the consumer is stilll responsible for his own actions. If a child eats alot of sugar and is uncontrollable for the rest of the night and hurts themselves, do you ban sugar for all or do you blame the childs parents for allowing them to consume that much?

"Yeah, and you know what happens then? Weed stops being cool and teens turn to drugs that cause them actual harm such as cocaine."

Ok, well at least you acknowledge that weed does not harm people and that youth use will be decreased so I don't need to go into that. However, the notion that weed will no longer be the "cool" drug and "rebellious" users will go onto other hard drugs is yet another non-fact based hypothesis, one I can disprove. The reason weed usage is so poular and widespread among teens is because they are aware of its benign nature despite the governments and anti-weed groups lies and propaganda. This leads to increasing acceptance and use of cannabis in youth. On the other hand, youth are also aware of the dangers many "hard" drugs present and make the decision to stay away from them. Therefore if weed was legalized, youth would'nt simply switch to heroin or crack because they know of the associated risk.

For your Benefits response:
Currently, weed is used for medical purposes to a degree. However this degree would be exponentialzed along with the overall benefits were it legalized nationwide. Because now only a few states have actually legalized the use of medical marijuana. How would making weed legal make people not wanna use it recreationally? Explain your logic please. Marijuana is the number one most used illicit drug, and the number one U.S. cash crop (even though it is illegal). All of that revenue is going to thousands of dealers pockets, and they often have to resort to violence to protect what they have or expand it. Were the business taken away from the dealers (through legalization) the amount of crime would be decreased substantially because they would no longer be any weed to fight over. With regards to drugged driving, weed prohibition is a colossal failure, people still and will still use regardless of the laws, which means there are going to be drugged drivers regardless which means there is no point in banning weed for such a purpose.


Unfortunately, I cannot fit all of my responses in this round so I will make my best efforts to respond to the last two next round.


Babeslayer

Con

"Should video games be illegal? What about sports or talking to women?"
Say what you will, I've heard it before. Quite frankly, I've never heard a case of a f***ing mexican cartel geting in a shootout over the latest copy of Call of Duty or some s*** like that.

You made a good point about the harmful affects, so I'll give you that one.

"a gross overexageration of the munchies"
I don't think so. It may seem like an exaterattion to you, but some of my friends are potheads. I can tell you from personal experience of being around someone who's high but not high myself that they ate every bag of lays in my house. Maybe I took it too far, but as I said I'm a bit of a d*** about the way I argue.

And as for the gateway drug thing that you wrote an entire f***ing seminar on, if weed becomes legal then how does it stop being a gateway drug? People take pharmacudicals all the time illegally, so making it legal might make it worse, because teenagers can get in a whole lot more trouble, and now someone who actually needs that weed for cancer or something can't get it because some idiot names Brody needed to get his weed.

"I am not trying to be rude but "it completely does" is not an arguement."
Okay, fair enough. What I was trying to say is that weed, like any other mood changing substance, causes crazy psychadelic affects. These things can cause certain people to do reckless and impulsive things, mainly because they're just so calm about everything. Alchohol does this too, but instead of calmness, drunks get pissed about everything.

I'm not trying to say weed's a bad thing, I'm just trying to get people to drop the subject. It's not like it's hard to find or anything. Are you too lazy to visit a nearby park that you'd rather wait in a line to get some more pot?
Debate Round No. 2
Thugzbunyyy

Pro

I apologize for the delay. I would also like to say I dont mind your cursing or "a**hole" arguing, we are all mature here.


"Say what you will, I've heard it before. Quite frankly, I've never heard a case of a f***ing mexican cartel geting in a shootout over the latest copy of Call of Duty or some s*** like that."

You haven't argued against my point about addiction so I will assume you acknowledge that. However, you are exactly right, and you know why? Because video games are legal. One basic rule of business is that if there is demand there is a market. And if video games were illegal there would still be demand, therefore there would be an illegal market. Then, I promise you would see shootouts of video game dealers protecting their merchandise.


"You made a good point about the harmful affects, so I'll give you that one."
Thanks

"I don't think so. It may seem like an exaterattion to you, but some of my friends are potheads. I can tell you from personal experience of being around someone who's high but not high myself that they ate every bag of lays in my house. Maybe I took it too far, but as I said I'm a bit of a d*** about the way I argue."

Once again I ask you how this is so negative an effect that it warrants prohibiting a substance to the point of criminalizing its users?
" I doubt you had a such a substantial amount of lays that you were little more than annoyed about what happened. If you were, then you should have made sure they paid you back and if they didn't that's on them not weed.

"And as for the gateway drug thing that you wrote an entire f***ing seminar on, if weed becomes legal then how does it stop being a gateway drug? "

I understand my response was lengthy but that was so I could accurately convey my logic. Based on what you said, I don't think you really read and undersood what I said because I explained how there is no such thing as a gateway between two acts if there is no connection between them. I also explained how making it legal would reduce that which is mistaken as the gateway effect in users. Please reveiew and try to understand what I said so you can properly respond, else there is no point in this debate.

"People take pharmacudicals all the time illegally, so making it legal might make it worse, because teenagers can get in a whole lot more trouble, and now someone who actually needs that weed for cancer or something can't get it because some idiot names Brody needed to get his weed."

It is true that people illegally use things that are legal to a degree but it is also true that people (many of which are teens/youth) smoke marijuana illegally now. So what does it matter? A whole lot more trouble? Consider the difference between what happens now when a teen is caught with alcohol and when a teen is caught with weed. You have it backwards. Also, I promise no patient is gonna be without their medicine when it comes to weeds availiability, anybody can grow the plant so legalization's resulting businesses will have ample availability. That's not to say that prohibition does much to help marijuana patients get their medicine anyway.

" Okay, fair enough. What I was trying to say is that weed, like any other mood changing substance, causes crazy psychadelic affects. These things can cause certain people to do reckless and impulsive things, mainly because they're just so calm about everything. Alchohol does this too, but instead of calmness, drunks get pissed about everything. "

What crazy psychadelic effects are you talking about, red eyes, giggling? And how can one act impulsively if they are calm? I touched on why intoxication effects are irrelevant with regards to legalization already but I will post again. If you do not respond to any of my points I can only assume you either acknowledge them or cannot refute them.
Under the influence of marijuana, a few general effects are euphoria, mild anxiety, mild paranoia, munchies, calming, giggles, etc. Basically, none of these effects are adverse in and of themselves to the point of making the the substance dangerous. With alcohol, the consumer is severely punished for drunk driving or over aggresiveness not the product. This is because the consumer is stilll responsible for his own actions. If a child eats alot of sugar and is uncontrollable for the rest of the night and hurts themselves, do you ban sugar for all or do you blame the childs parents for allowing them to consume that much?


"I'm not trying to say weed's a bad thing, I'm just trying to get people to drop the subject. It's not like it's hard to find or anything. Are you too lazy to visit a nearby park that you'd rather wait in a line to get some more pot?"

While I can understand your impatience around the topic, that does not excuse the fact that legalization is whats best for and much needed by the nation as a whole. And no I'm not too lazy, I just dont want the threat of being locked away and deemed criminal for using a perfectly safe and fun drug recreationally (that or getting killed at a deal gone wrong).

"Perfectly integrated? Tobacco is seen as the devils drinking buddy by society, and drinking is now known as being desperate. Weed will stop being known as a calming drug, it'll just become a cautionary tale."

Although some hold these beleifs, I doubt they are the majority, and they still seem pretty tolerant considering I haven't heard anyone talking about prohibiting tobacco or alcohol as of late. By perfectly integrated, I'm talking about things like employee smoke rooms at jobs, smoking sections in restaurants, happy hours, availiability at your local store, events centered around the substance, etc. All societal integrations tobacco and alcohol have.

"Since when? Since when has the governments job not been to control us? Oh yeah, let's protect the lives of the US by doing absulutely f***-all about our s*** health care and allow all these terrible massacres to keep happening. Let's protect their liberty by trying to ban the things they love. Let's pursue happiness by going to war with the wrong countries and doing everything wrong in every other countries eyes. As for Canada, well King Prime Minister Stephen Harper banned Count Chocula & Cookie Crisp for being unhealthy, so don't expect us to legalize weed anytime soon."

What the government does and what is supposed to do are two completely different things. This however, doesn't change what they SHOULD be doing. I take that you agree with me on this so I wont go any further. But, with regards to the U.S., full legalization is becoming more and more likely everyday. Look it up.






Babeslayer

Con

"we are all mature here."
No I am not.

"Then, I promise you would see shootouts of video game dealers protecting their merchandise."
Okay, that may sound accurate now, but drugs are apsychadelic substance people enjoy smoking, so it explains why people would be willing to go to such lengths to protect it. But while normal video games are legal, pirated copies of video games aren't legal. And tell me if I'm wrong, but I've never turned on the news to see people dead in a shootout over bootleg Halo copies.

"I doubt you had a such a substantial amount of lays that you were little more than annoyed about what happened."
You doubt my inventory of lays?

"If you were, then you should have made sure they paid you back and if they didn't that's on them not weed."
It has both to do with them and the weed. I didn't make them pay me back because they were potheads. They've got better things to do with their money. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have to ask me to bring food when I went to their place.

"Please reveiew and try to understand what I said so you can properly respond"
Okay, this time I got of my lazy @$$ (metaphorically, I'm still sitting here) and read your thing on gateway drugs. And there completely are connections between two acts. If say, I'm a kid and I start playing Halo, I'll start playing Call of Duty. I know that there is a VERY large gap between halo - call of duty and weed - cocaine. What I'm trying to say is if I do one thing, I might want to start doing a similar thing. It's a psychology thing, I guess.
Debate Round No. 3
Thugzbunyyy

Pro

"we are all mature here."
"No I am not."
lol

"You doubt my inventory of lays?"
Pardon me.

"Okay, that may sound accurate now, but drugs are apsychadelic substance people enjoy smoking, so it explains why people would be willing to go to such lengths to protect it."

And video games are electronic forms of entertainment that people enjoy playing. Black market dealers don't fight to protect the product, but the revenue the product generates. Since revenue would still be generated if video games were illegal there would still be disputes. This is because money is still there to be fought over.

" But while normal video games are legal, pirated copies of video games aren't legal. And tell me if I'm wrong, but I've never turned on the news to see people dead in a shootout over bootleg Halo copies."

That is because the amount of money to be made off of bootlegs is very small, nowhere near enough to attract the violent kingpins that run the underground drug market. How could it be when everyone goes to gamestop or pirates for free online? The same could be said for marijuana because everyone would be going to the headshops/dispensiaries for it, instead of going to the dangerous dealer(who could've spiked your weed, or tried to rob you).

"It has both to do with them and the weed. I didn't make them pay me back because they were potheads. They've got better things to do with their money. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have to ask me to bring food when I went to their place."

I hope you aren't implying that weed is the reason that they are in such a situation because there are many successful marijuana smokers (i.e. Micheal Phelps). But anyway, do you feel your friends deserve to be imprisoned and criminalized for eating your lay's? If you support prohibition then you do.


"And there completely are connections between two acts. If say, I'm a kid and I start playing Halo, I'll start playing Call of Duty. I know that there is a VERY large gap between halo - call of duty and weed - cocaine. What I'm trying to say is if I do one thing, I might want to start doing a similar thing."

This is the equivalent of what you just said. If say, I'm a human and I start drinking Sprite, I'll start drinking Moutain Dew. All you did was name two things that are within a similar category. You gave no explanation as to why the one act compells a person to the next. Which is exactly what the gateway theory accuses marijuana of doing. The gateway theory in itself is a logical fallacy (please look up if you don't know what that is). Here is a link to a site with all the logical fallacies. The gateway theory is the first fallacy, Faulty Cause. http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu...


Thanks and it's been a pleasure debating!
I welcome constructive criticism from all.
Vote for me everyone!!











Babeslayer

Con

"I hope you aren't implying that weed is the reason that they are in such a situation"
No I'm not. I'm straight up saying it has something to do with it. Not the direct cause, but I'd have to have my head up my own @$$ to say it had nothing to do with it.

"All you did was name two things that are within a similar category."
Yeah, because it's something called experimentation. However, I don't actually think the gateway theory exists. i was just stalling the argument because I was prepping a big gun. An undeniable argument why weed should not become legal.

Right now, weed is popular. It's cool. And the best part, I do agree with you that it's about as addictive as other non-harmful things, such as video games. And like I just said, It's not that harmful. But one of the main reasons people want to smoke weed (besides the fact that it's a psychadelic and people love that s***) it's illegal. It's cool in society to be a troublemaker, so weed is an easy way to break the law a little bit without putting your life at risk. So imagine this if you will - weed stops being illegal. People might still smoke it recreationally, but it would mostly be used medically. Nobody would be saying "come on, just smoke some weed, it's cool." Thay'd just smoke weed a little. Guess what happens then? Cocaine becomes cool. Ecstasy becomes cool. All the things we're afraid weed is a gateway drug to. Those drugs are lethal, severely addictive, and ruin lives. They'll become the new cool thing on the market, because most people have an unquenchable need to rebel. You won't see people with cannabis posters on their wall listening to ragae music. They'll have sold all that stuff to get their fix.

Weed is perfectly fine, but we shouldn't legalize it because it's the lesser of two evils.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Thugzbunyyy 3 years ago
Thugzbunyyy
@ArgentStorm Sigh. Explain exactly how my format gives me an advantage. I merely state all the reasons why I believe cannabis should be legal and allow con to refute them should he/she choose to. I even welcome my opponents own points regarding the debate. Ultimately, if I was wrong, my opponent would have no problem refuting my points. All of these topics should be addressed so voters/readers can have a full understanding of the subject. The format is merely for organizational and text saving purposes.
Posted by ArgentStorm 3 years ago
ArgentStorm
Because he's a one trick pony. Needs a format that gives him, as the opening debater a tremendous advantage as well as a position that's largely considered correct in order to do well.
Posted by dylwal92 3 years ago
dylwal92
Why is it that you have this argument against me as well?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
ThugzbunyyyBabeslayerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: While both sides lacked support from any sources, studies or otherwise, pro carried the debate with at least some knowledge of marijuana.