The Instigator
E.BurnumIII
Pro (for)
Winning
49 Points
The Contender
polticialwiz
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Legalization of Marijuana

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 8 votes the winner is...
E.BurnumIII
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,980 times Debate No: 19034
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (8)

 

E.BurnumIII

Pro

First Round- Acceptance and Clarification
Rounds 2-4- Debate
Marijuana-Cannabis
I am arguing in favor of marijuana legalization.
polticialwiz

Con

I oppose the legalization of Marijuana, because of the high drug arrest in this country. I also oppose for te following reason:

1 Marijuana is often used as a stepping-stone drug, leading to heroin, cocaine, or other harder drugs.
2 Stoned driving and other dangers would be increased.
3 Some consider use of the drug as morally wrong.
4 Legalization would increase the chances of the drug falling into the hands of kids.
5 Because of drug-related arrests, people who have committed or are likely to commit more serious crimes can be taken off the streets.
6Physical damage would be done to users that abuse the drug.
7 More widespread use would increase the dangers of secondhand smoke-damage to bystanders.
8 Legalization of marijuana could eventually lead to the legalization of harder drugs or all drugs altogether.
Debate Round No. 1
E.BurnumIII

Pro

First of all con did not follow the debate rules by posting his argument in round 1. Secondly, and more importantly, con plagiarized his argument. http://casac.org...

Although con should be disqualified I will continue with this debate.

1 Marijuana is often used as a stepping-stone drug, leading to heroin, cocaine, or other harder drugs.

Con gives no evidence to support this claim and is actually in contradiction with most evidence on this matter. An article on scienceblog.com reads, "Marijuana is not a “gateway” drug that predicts or eventually leads to substance abuse, suggests a 12-year University of Pittsburgh study."[1]

2 Stoned driving and other dangers would be increased.

Con gives no evidence to support this claim.

3 Some consider use of the drug as morally wrong.

Some consider sex before marriage as morally wrong also. Should it be illegal?

4 Legalization would increase the chances of the drug falling into the hands of kids.

Con gives no evidence to support this claim and is actually in contradiction with most evidence on this matter. Legalization allows the marijuana to be regulated in the same way alcohol is. It is easier for teens to get marijuana than alcohol because it is unregulated and sold on the black market to anyone willing to buy.[2]

5 Because of drug-related arrests, people who have committed or are likely to commit more serious crimes can be taken off the streets.

Using this flawed logic we should arrest every person who wears black. We could prevent so many future crimes.

6Physical damage would be done to users that abuse the drug.

Con gives no evidence to support this claim but even if we assume marijuana is harmful, the user has every right to harm his own body. Jacob G. Hornberger, founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, [3] is quoted as saying, “If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.”[4]

7 More widespread use would increase the dangers of secondhand smoke-damage to bystanders.

Con gives no evidence to support his claim that use would be more widespread.

8 Legalization of marijuana could eventually lead to the legalization of harder drugs or all drugs altogether
.


Con gives no evidence to support this claim.


Marijuana should be legalized for many reasons but the fundamental right of every person to do whatever they want with their own body as long as no one else's rights are violated is the most important reason.

[1]http://scienceblog.com...
[2]http://blog.norml.org...
[3]http://www.fff.org...
[4]http://thinkexist.com...

polticialwiz

Con

Legalizing Marijuana will cause the United States to have its own war on Drug crisis in our own backyeard. Its bad enough we have a war on Drugs with Mexico. Does this Country really want another war on drugs, except this time in its own backyard? I know for a fact that I don't.

Unless the CDC and the FDA publishes proof that Marijuana can cure Medical issues, this country will remain split on the issue of legalizing it.

Legalizing Marijuana would lead to more drug related crimes and arrest. Its bad enough that some states like California, are having to release most of its inmates because of how crowded it has become, if we allow marijuana to be legal, all prison populations will grow because people will begin to abuse Marijuana.

Now a days millions of teens and adults are abusing all sorts of drugs. Can you imaging what would happen if we legalized Marijuana?

Think about the questions before responding
Debate Round No. 2
E.BurnumIII

Pro

Legalizing Marijuana will cause the United States to have its own war on Drug crisis in our own backyeard.

We already have a war on drugs crisis. The U.S. has already spent over 33.9 billion dollars this year fighting the war on drugs.[1]

Its bad enough we have a war on Drugs with Mexico. Does this Country really want another war on drugs, except this time in its own backyard? I know for a fact that I don't.

I'm not exactly sure what con means but I will guess that he is speaking of the drug cartel violence on the border. That violence is a result of marijuana being illegal. Rather than being able to call the police to report theft of their property, drug cartels must deal with this issue on their own often through violence. Also, drug cartels would be eliminated as alcohol cartels were eliminated when it was legalized. There becomes no need for the cartels because people can just buy from the store. More than any other group or person, cartels want marijuana to stay illegal.

Legalizing Marijuana would lead to more drug related crimes and arrest. Its bad enough that some states like California, are having to release most of its inmates because of how crowded it has become, if we allow marijuana to be legal, all prison populations will grow because people will begin to abuse Marijuana.

This argument is absurd. The prison population is overcrowded precisely because marijuana is illegal. Legalizing marijuana would dramatically lessen the prison population.

Now a days millions of teens and adults are abusing all sorts of drugs. Can you imaging what would happen if we legalized Marijuana?

People would continue to use marijuana. The drug war has done nothing to stop drug use and billions of dollars are lost every year.

[1]http://www.drugsense.org...
polticialwiz

Con

My opponent is wrong for saying that the violence with Mexican Cartel is due to Marijuana not being legal. That has nothing to do with it. It has to do witht he fact that these Mexicans will do anything for the sake of gettig their hads on drugs.

Secondly, the moey the U.S. is spending on the war ion drugs is with Mexico, not for the (war on Drugs) that could happen in our own backyard, if we legalized Marjuana. This country has too much debt to deal with, and yet there are people like my oppoenet who seem to think that legalzing Marijuana will casue no harm and will not lead to our own war on drugs.

My oppoenent obviously needs to consult with the CDC and the FDA who will prove the crisis that will occur if Marijuana is legalized in this country.
Debate Round No. 3
E.BurnumIII

Pro

Con's statements are so absurd they deserve no acknowledgement.

In closing I will make a few points for why I deserve your votes.

1. Con Plagiarized
2. Con never provided a serious argument of his own
3. I made more convincing arguments.

polticialwiz

Con

My opponent talks like he is a harvard graduate.

I know what I am taalkign about. I am 18 years old and the oldest son of two retired NYPD officers, who has seen first hand the effect of MARIJUANA.

I may not have presented th ebest arguments, but I know for a fact that I am not stupid.

I hope you will give respect for what I argued for.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jellopants 5 years ago
Jellopants
Ok maybe I missed it...where and what exactly did Con plagiarize? Also, who in their right mind would plagiarize ANY of that?
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Iamabench, you gave points for plagiarism, are you serious?
Posted by Spritle 5 years ago
Spritle
Hahahah. These comments made me laugh alot!
Posted by E.BurnumIII 5 years ago
E.BurnumIII
@polticialwiz
I apologize if you thought I was calling you stupid. I don't believe that you are stupid.
Posted by Lasagna 5 years ago
Lasagna
"My opponent talks like he is a harvard graduate."

You talk like a 4th grader who's going to be staying back this year.

"I know what I am taalkign about. I am 18 years old and the oldest son of two retired NYPD officers, who has seen first hand the effect of MARIJUANA."

Capitalizing the letters in "marijuana" does not add strength to your argument.

"I may not have presented th ebest arguments, but I know for a fact that I am not stupid."

I agree - your arguments sucked. And somebody who is stupid usually doesn't know it.

"I hope you will give respect for what I argued for"

Certainly not.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
PoliticalWhiz, can you please post your own arguments instead of copy-pasting from other websites?
Posted by Spritle 5 years ago
Spritle
Oh, and check up on my debate with Politicalwiz!! Universal healthcare! Be sure to read up and vote!
Posted by Spritle 5 years ago
Spritle
Con lost terribly.
Posted by moneymachine2004 5 years ago
moneymachine2004
Con is being owned. None of his arguments make much sense. Seems that he has bought into the government lies that they tell us.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
why did it go twice?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Jellopants 5 years ago
Jellopants
E.BurnumIIIpolticialwizTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: Con didn't provide anything even resembling a debate. Pro destroyed, plain and simple.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
E.BurnumIIIpolticialwizTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The plagerism is a big point hurter. It costs Conduct and sources off the bat, and since no arguments were made outside of the plagerism, Con loses arguments too. S
Vote Placed by PartamRuhem 5 years ago
PartamRuhem
E.BurnumIIIpolticialwizTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited this entire debate once he plagiarized. He also didn't back up his claims. YOU NEED TO BACK UP WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IN DEBATES WITH FACT
Vote Placed by Spritle 5 years ago
Spritle
E.BurnumIIIpolticialwizTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarizing. Con has a terrible argument.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
E.BurnumIIIpolticialwizTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did plagarize the hell out of his argument but he made many good points that the pro avoided simply be pointing out how he didnt use sources and the pro never refuted the cons solid arguments. Pro did offer counter arguments to his more ridiculous arguments but more than half of his arguments still stood.... could have been better for both sides
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
E.BurnumIIIpolticialwizTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses arguments, conduct, and sources for plagiarizing, and SG for multiple significant errors.
Vote Placed by Crede 5 years ago
Crede
E.BurnumIIIpolticialwizTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was actually hard to read because Con was so bad. You should debate again and get a worth opponent.
Vote Placed by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
E.BurnumIIIpolticialwizTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: All points to Pro, the Con plagiarized his arguments, again. Polticialwiz- You cannot keep plagiarizing.