Legalization of marijuana
Debate Rounds (3)
It is bad for health, this is a fact, not something people think.
"Aside from a subjective change in perception and, most notably, mood, the most common short-term physical and neurological effects include increased heart rate, increased appetite and consumption of food,lowered blood pressure, impairment of short-term and working memory, psychomotor coordination, and concentration. Long-term effects are less clear. A July 2012 report in Brain reveals neural-connectivity impairment in some brain regions following prolonged cannabis use initiated in adolescence or young adulthood. " 
Cannabis is another word for marijuana. 
"Prohibition does not help in any way it causes problems and costs big money. The U.S. government currently spend billions of dollars every year to chase PEACEFUL people who use marijuana."
1st, Banning this will help, because it prevents all these heart rate increasing and decreasing memory and the not-so-clear long term impact.
2nd, These are not peaceful people. There are drug related crimes everywhere. These "Peaceful" people could possibly be criminals.
"Around 80 to 90 per cent of crime is related to alcohol and drug misuse, according to one of New Zealand's top judges."
Plus, "does not help in any way" is not a valid argument as you do not have any sources to back it up.
Now I'll say why you should ban marijuana.
1. It IS harmful to health, not just imagined to be.
2. Without proper medical knowledge, ingestion of it can be potentially dangerous.
3. It also causes crime.
4. It impairs concentration,  which could potentially cause the same danger as drinking and driving. No one wants people to get injured in a car crash.
As I said before, Marijuana is harmful to health, and also affects non-addicts too, in ways such as impaired driving.
With this legalized, medicaid will need more money, and there is still more victims, while the corporations make big money selling marijuana. This tax partially fills in the higher medicaid costs, but the marijuana corporation gets more money and expands. As it expands, it makes more people consume marijuana, so there is a higher medicaid cost. This loop makes a bubble that will eventually burst. The stock market is not going to be the only one hit, but also people's health.
Plus, marijuana is not a "extremely useful crop" as it is unnecessary for people's survival. This also takes up space that people can use for essential food crops like:
Wheat, soybeans, corn, potatoes, carrots, lettuce, spinach, rice, barley, etc.
Marijuana: Does not help the economy other than creating a billion-dollar bubble that will burst someday; is bad to people's health; also harms non-addicts and distracts farmers from their actual job.
In conclusion, throughout the history humanity used marijuana for different purposes, and no matter if it is legal or not people will continue using it in the future. Humanity has no other choice rather than legalize it and profit from it, because prohibitions and wars against marijuana are not working and never will.
Hamish Turner, the president of the Coroners' Society, told The Telegraph that the marijuana, often portrayed as harmless, has increasingly been the cause of deaths that have been reported as accidents or suicides. "Cannabis is as dangerous as any other drug and people must understand that it kills," said Mr Turner. "From my long experience I can say that it is a very dangerous substance. Increasingly it is mentioned not only as the first drug taken by people who overdose, but also in suicides and accidental deaths. 
Plus, taking marijuana and driving afterwards reduces the driver's concentration.  This could be an "accidental" death.
Plus, my opponent did not adequately refute my following arguments:
Marijuana will create a billion-dollar bubble that will burst someday.
Harms non-addicts by impaired driving.
Distracts farmers from their job.
Pro also changed standing on this several times.
Round 1: He thinks marijuana is only imagined to be harmful and should not be banned.
"Even though some people THINK that marijuana is bad for health and should be illegal, ..."
Round 2: Now he changes to: Just because alcohol is legal means marijuana should be legal.
"I can see strong connection between marijuana and alcohol, but alcohol is still legal and profitable."
Round 3: Now he says that it does not cause death, while ignoring my following arguments: impaired driving (indirect death), all the symptoms, the big bubble it will make in the economy (Which will eventually burst.) and distracting farmers from their job.
Then he goes on to say that just people will find illegal ways to get it, it should be legal.
Pro only said prohibition of marijuana (cannabis) will not work, but the only reason he gave is that it is costly (with no source listed) and if it works or not is only based on Pro's personal experience, because he did not list how many people smoke cannabis before and after banning, etc.
Marijuana harms victims both directly (by overdose) and indirectly (impaired driving), and legalizing it will only cause this bubble (Which will pop.):
Marijuana company sells marijuana--> People get sick --> Higher medicaid and medicare costs--> The tax the marijuana corporation fills in the blank--> Corporation expands, resulting in more drug users--> The circle goes all over again.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RationalMadman 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:||3||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar is missing full stops for pro's round one debate at end and missing commas in many places. Con had more reliable sources. It's just a fact. Arguments to pro because actually the feasibility issue was a huge argument that destroyed con.
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.