The Instigator
Davewerty
Pro (for)
Tied
13 Points
The Contender
GWL-CPA
Con (against)
Tied
13 Points

Legalize Marijuana

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,705 times Debate No: 29733
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (6)

 

Davewerty

Pro

Legalizing Marijuana does not condone the use of Marijuana but it is the best way in handling the substance. Criminalization of Marijuana is a faulty approach and is harming our citizens. Legalizing Marijuana is a benefit for all the United States. I support the Legalization on the federal level and as a states rights advocate, I believe that states can vote separately to legalize Marijuana or not.

I challenge you sir to this debate!
GWL-CPA

Con

I have looked at your profile and it does not appear that you have ever been married or have had kids or had kids that you have raised through high school? If I am right about that, I am not sure you are qualified to talk about the legalization of marijuana; unless, you are a high school counselor or psychologist or MD - medical doctor. And, from your profile, that does not appear to be the case since you only have "some college."

My argument against legalizing marijuana is based primarily on.

1. The increasing number of countries that have tried it and are tightening up their regulations because of increased crime and addiction.

2. The addictive and medically destructive effects caused by marijuana.

3. Marijuana will become more readily available to kids in grade and high school.

4. The increased number of deaths that will occur because of those who will be driving stoned.

5. The increased number of grade school and high school students that are currently getting stoned, which will only increase dramatically once marijuana is legalized in many states.

6. My experience dealing with a step-daughter and her friends being stoned in high school and discussions with high school teachers and counselors.

7. My own personal experience with marijuana in the early 1970s.

Marijuana is a harmful substance that has many known adverse health effects, even in moderation - you can't be partially stoned. Booze is a harmful substance too because most people cant just have one or two drinks and stop, even if they don't get fall-down drunk - thankfully most are over drinking at home and don't have to drive. Too many folks smoke the dope and drink the booze at the same time. Too many drink and smoke too much, especially underage. It is epidemic in the USA.

"Survey: 17% of high schoolers drink, smoke, use drugs during school day"
"The survey found that 44% of high school students know a classmate who sells drugs at school, and 60% say that drugs are available on campus. Marijuana was the most-sold on school grounds, students said, as well as prescription drugs, cocaine and ecstasy."
http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com...

This will only get worse if marijuana is made legal throughout the USA.

And, the weed we were smoking today is much stronger than the weed we smoked in the 1970s. We usually smoked some local grown stuff that was strong; but, not as strong as the stuff grown today. But, I do remember getting some Vietnamese Black Tea once (3 lids of it) back in 1972-1973. Had some friends over, one got so high from this stuff that he threw up. One joint and 5 of us were totally zoned out. I mean numb and watching Monty Python Flying Circus on TV. We had life all figured out then; it was so crystal clear; everyone else was wrong and funny.

Anyway, there is no valid reason for anyone to get that stoned. If you have to get that stoned; you have a problem with accepting life as it is and should be get some form of therapy.

Drunk drivers kill over 16,000 annually. And, when you mix in pot, which many do; it is a nightmare. I used to drive stoned, not a lot, just a few times in the early 1970s after graduating from college; I was just lucky I did not kill someone. Legalizing pot will just increase the number of drivers driving while stoned or stoned and drinking.

"Stoned Driving Nearly Doubles the Risk of a Fatal Crash"
"People who drive within three hours of smoking marijuana are at nearly twice the risk of being in an accident that leads to serious injury or death, compared with sober drivers, according to a new review of the research."

"For the new review, published in BMJ, Canadian researchers pooled the results of nine well-designed, high-quality studies that included nearly 50,000 drivers involved in crashes in multiple countries. They found that recent marijuana use was associated with a 92% increased risk of fatal or near-fatal accidents. The better the quality of the study, the more likely it was to show an increase in marijuana-related risk."

Read more: http://healthland.time.com...

You are now going to say, well booze causes more deaths and accidents than pot so pot should be legal. Sure right now because not as many people do pot as drink booze. You legalize pot, and just as many or more will be doing pot within a few years. So, we will have double the problem and thousands more will die from drunk and stoned drivers.

Too many people have drinking problems, and many of these have drug problems too. Saying that pot is no worse than booze; therefore, it should be allowed is insane.

We should be teaching our children that not drinking booze and smoking pot is how life is supposed to be lived, not being high on booze or dope. Free of drugs and booze is how life is meant to be lived.

Clean and Sober Should be USA's Motto; not, let"s get stoned and or drunk!

Too many teens are having their futures ruined because of pot.

"A new study finds that teens who smoke are 14 times more likely to use marijuana than nonsmokers." The survey, conducted by researchers at the American Legacy Foundation and the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University, looked at nearly 2,000 teens ages 12 to 17. They found that 84 percent of the kids who have tried pot have smoked cigarettes within the past 30 days. Also, the study finds those teens who smoke are 18 times more likely to say most of their friends smoke pot."

"In the 1970s, the baby boom generation was coming of age, and its drug of choice was marijuana. By 1979, more than 60 percent of 12th-graders had tried marijuana at least once in their lives. From this peak, the percentage of 12th-graders who had ever used marijuana decreased for more than a decade, dropping to a low of 33 percent in 1992. However, in 1993, first-time marijuana use by 12th-graders was on the upswing, reaching 50 percent by 1997. Although the percentage of 12th-graders who have experience with marijuana has remained roughly level since then, there is still reason to be concerned. In 1999, more than 2 million Americans used marijuana for the first time. Two-thirds of them were between the ages of 12 and 17. Furthermore, the marijuana that is available today can be 5 times more potent than the marijuana of the 1970s."

"The use of marijuana can produce adverse physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral changes, and - contrary to popular belief - it can be addictive. Marijuana smoke, like cigarette smoke, can harm the lungs. The use of marijuana can impair short-term memory, verbal skills, and judgment and distort perception. It also may weaken the immune system and possibly increase a user's likelihood of developing cancer. Finally, the increasing use of marijuana by very young teens may have a profoundly negative effect upon their development."
http://www.teen-success.org...

Legalizing marijuana will only make this hundreds of times worse than it is now. Too many will buy pot legally and sell it to kids illegally.

End of Part One
Debate Round No. 1
Davewerty

Pro

I'll start off saying that some of your information is either wrong or unfounded. I might also add that it is a very weak argument for the continued criminalization of Marijuana. Most of your argument is based around your belief that legalizing Marijuana would increase the amount of users. This of course ties into another idea that prohibition deters potential users. Prohibition fails in any situation even beyond drug use. This is false and thus weakens the foundation of your entire argument. You're right I have no children, but this does not void my qualification in this argument.

1. "The increasing number of countries that have tried it and are tightening up their regulations because of increased crime and addiction."
Your first argument is down right false. I don't know where you heard that and I failed to see any statistics backing that up. Portugal has decriminalized all drugs and have in fact seen a decrease in drug addicts. Portugal decriminalized all drugs ranging from Marijuana to heroin a decade ago. Since then violence, crime, and drug abuse has decreased. The Netherlands is also leading the world in reformed drug policy. Amsterdam is known for coffee shops and the Marijuana they dispense to consumers of the legal age. Past-year cannabis use among Dutch 15-to-24-year-olds dropped from 14.3 to 11.4 percent between 1997 and 2005.

2. "The addictive and medically destructive effects caused by marijuana."
Given that Marijuana use would not increase, these supposedly unfounded destructive effects, would not effect anymore people then they do now. Actually Marijuana has many medical uses. "Cannabis and its derivatives have shown promise in a varieties of disorders. The evidence is most impressive in glaucoma, asthma, and in [combating] the nausea and vomiting of cancer chemotherapy. Smaller trials have suggested cannabis might also be useful in seizures, spasticity, and other nervous system disorders.

3. "Marijuana will become more readily available to kids in grade and high school."
Legalizing Marijuana will actually make it more difficult for the youth to obtain. Under criminalization the regulator of Marijuana are drug dealers who's main goal is profit. With this, drug dealers often carry harder drugs to sell. Thus creating the gateway effect that Marijuana is so often criticized for. So legalizing Marijuana would have the substance regulated by the government. This means one would have to be 21 to purchase Marijuana. Many youth will tell you that it is easier to obtain marijuana than it is alcohol. Why is this? Alcohol requires an identification and an age of 21, whereas in the case of Marijuana, any kid can purchase the substance from a drug dealers who's intentions are unknown. The youth is safer under government regulated Marijuana than drug dealer regulated Marijuana. Legalization would also rid of the gateway effect that Marijuana currently holds under criminalization.

4. "The increased number of deaths that will occur because of those who will be driving stoned."
This is a silly statement. A law that criminalizes Marijuana will not prevent anyone from driving under the influence. Since there won't be an increase in drug use, in fact more than likely a decrease, there will not be anymore stoned driving than there is now.

5. "The increased number of grade school and high school students that are currently getting stoned, which will only increase dramatically once marijuana is legalized in many states."
"According to the latest report from the federal government, marijuana use by Colorado high school students has dropped since our state and its localities began regulating medical marijuana in 2009. This bucks the national trend of increasing teen marijuana use over the past several years. Nationwide, past-30-day marijuana use among high school students climbed from 20.8 percent in 2009, to 23.1 percent in 2011. Meanwhile, in Colorado, it dropped from 24.8 percent to 22 percent."

"Anyway, there is no valid reason for anyone to get that stoned." There's plenty reason to get stoned. Besides its many medical uses, getting stoned every once and a while can be good for stress. When Marijuana is used in moderation it does no harm. Would you propose that taking Xanax for anxiety is better simply because it is a prescription drug? With much more potent psychoactive effects and higher chance of addiction, Marijuana is a great substitute for Xanax and many other much more powerful prescription drugs.

"You are now going to say, well booze causes more deaths and accidents than pot so pot should be legal"
Uhh, no actually I won't. That's not my argument. Try not to assume in debates.

"Too many people have drinking problems, and many of these have drug problems too. Saying that pot is no worse than booze; therefore, it should be allowed is insane."
Again, I didn't say that. Pot is actually far less destructive than alcohol by the way. Did you ever here of a dad getting stoned coming home and beating his family? Well, I haven't. Have I heard of a dad getting drunk and beating his family? Well yes, plenty of times. It's probably safe to say that is happening right now.

"The survey found that 44% of high school students know a classmate who sells drugs at school, and 60% say that drugs are available on campus. Marijuana was the most-sold on school grounds, students said, as well as prescription drugs, cocaine and ecstasy."
Yeah, this is under criminalization, your point?

"And, the weed we were smoking today is much stronger than the weed we smoked in the 1970s. We usually smoked some local grown stuff that was strong; but, not as strong as the stuff grown today,"
So if someone is feeling pain they should take far more powerful and addictive opiates? Too many cases of drug addiction are caused through Oxycontin, when a good painkiller Marijuana could be used. You are right when you say Marijuana is addictive. However it isn't psychologically addictive and not physically addictive. Even then 1/10 casual Marijuana get "addicted."

Criminalizing Marijuana puts non-violent dealers in a bad position. The government creates negative situations for small-time users and dealers for no good reason. Similarly the War puts cartels in a like position. Not to say that the cartels are not murderous scumbags , but the War in not helping this in any way.
I understand that you believe that there is a level of success. But clearly that is not true. Their efforts to intercept drug trafficking makes no difference. Cartels still laugh with their massive profits. Though the DEA may get drug busts every now and then, it is a hopeless effort. In the long run any individual bust is rendered useless. The War on Drugs is a bottomless pit that the government is funneling millions of dollars into. Law enforcement is wasting man hours and lives for no reasonable gain. They could be fighting violent crimes. Legalizing Marijuana would effectively cut cartel profits by 60% since Marijuana is there main source of income. And if you are talking about the welfare of society than consider this: cartels are ravaging all of Central America. If you aren't aware, cartels and the drug war is destroying Mexico. It is an endless war that leaves hundred of thousands of lives dead in the crossfire. And for what? So I can't smoke weed in my room? The amount of people arrested for Marijuana use is absurd. Is this something not worth looking at? Also, Marihuana is a billion dollar industry waiting to be tapped into. Instead of Marijuana funds going to cartels, the funds could go to the government that can then in turn fund social programs.

Sources
http://www.forbes.com...

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu...

Conclusion of the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. 1982. Marijuana and Health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
GWL-CPA

Con

Davewerty, you are totally misrepresenting the facts in the Forbes article "Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal" , written by Erik Kain " a pot stoner, video game addict or video game stoner, who loves stoner food "e.g., jaoapeno and French fried onions on hotdog).

"Had the best hotdog of my life tonight. Had jalape"o and French fried onions on it, delicious but absolutely stoner food."
https://twitter.com...

Wow! That is righteous stoner talk, dude!

Citing a Forbes" article written by a known stoner, an article about the estimated decrease in heroin addiction in Portugal, where possession of any illegal drugs, including cannabis, is still illegal, doesn't prove anything.
http://www.forbes.com...

Since this is not an ad hominem attack against Erik Kain as such, I will get back to his overstatement of the facts in his Portugal article in Forbes.

What is the actual drug policy in Portugal?

"Drug Policy of Portugal" - "In July 2001 a new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. The offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance.... Even if there are no criminal penalties, these changes did not legalize drug use in Portugal. Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

In the ten years after article written by Erik Kain, he takes a statement out of context by one Portuguese medical doctor, Dr. Goulao, who estimates that the population of problematic hard core intravenous drugs users, which he estimated were around 100,000 in the early 1990s, has decreased by one-half.

But, here is the problem, Dr. Goulao"s estimates about a 50% decrease in hard core drug used are not correct. First off, he has no real numbers on the total number of drug addicts in Portugal in the early 1990s. The Doctor is protecting the programs he has a vested interest in proving are successful. You can read his report and look at the charts.
http://www.rusfeltet.no...

Dr. Goulao's bar chart "Drug Consumption Prevalences (any drug) "Portugal 2001/2007 General Population (15-64 years) " Lifetime Prevalence (Any Illicit Drug) shows increases in every age bracket comparing 2001 to 2007. One bar graph shows the 15-24 as increasing by about 5% between 2001 and 2007. He does another bar graph were he breaks the 15-24 group into three subgroups where the 15-19 group decreases by about 2%, but the 20-24 age group increases by about 8.2%. Then he has another bar graph "Outpatients Clients in the Public Network" where total clients from 2003 to 2009 has increased from 29,596 to 38,875. At the end of this study he has a section called "Trends since 2001" and lists a number of bullet points, most of which say what a great success the program has been; but, three bullet points stuck out for me as very strange and funny:
" Small increases in reported illicit drug use amongst adults."
" Increases in the amounts of drugs seized by the authorities."
" Reductions in the retail prices of drugs"

So according to Dr. Goulao since 2001 to 2009, more adults are getting stoned, more illegal drugs are being seized, and it is now cheaper to get stoned in Portugal.

And, if the drug decriminalization program is working, why any increases at all? And, why are more drugs being seized? More drugs being seized means that more illegal drugs are being made available and used; so their famous program just does not work.
http://www.rusfeltet.no...

And, before you forget this, Dr. Goulao believes all illegal drug use (including pot) is a problem and people who use drugs need help and that is why they have their intervention programs.

You can send him an email and ask him, if you don"t believe me. His email address is at the end of his report.
Joao.goulao at idt.min-saude.pt

Now, here is another article about the real facts since the Decriminalization of drugs in Portugal.

"Decriminalization of drugs in Portugal " The real facts!"

"Portugal faces a worrying deterioration of the drug situation. The facts prove "With 219 deaths from "overdose" per year, Portugal has one of the worst results, with one death every two days. Along with Greece, Austria and Finland, Portugal registered an increase of deaths by more than 30% in 2005 " and " Portugal remains the country with the highest increase of AIDS as a result of injecting drugs (85 new cases per million residents in 2005, when the majority of countries do not surpass 5 cases per million).!"

"The decriminalization of drugs in Portugal did not in any way decrease levels of consumption. On the contrary, "the consumption of drugs in Portugal increased by 4.2% " the percentage of people who have experimented with drugs at least once in their lifetime increased from 7.8% in 2001 to 12% in 2007 (IDT-Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction Portuguese, 2008)."

"With regard to the consumption of cocaine "the latest data (surveys from 2005-2007) confirms the increasing trend during the last year in France, Ireland, Spain, The United Kingdom, Italy, Denmark and Portugal" (EMCDDA 2008). While rates of use of cocaine and amphetamine doubled in Portugal, seizures of cocaine have increased sevenfold between 2001 and 2006, the sixth highest in the world (WDR-World Drug Report, 2009)."

"With regard to hashish, it is difficult to assess the trends and intensive use of hashish in Europe, but among the countries that participated in field trials, between 2004 and 2007 (France, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands and Portugal) there was an average increase of approximately 20% " (EMCDDA, 2008)."

"In Portugal, since decriminalization has been implemented, the number of homicides related to drugs has increased 40%. "It was the only European country with a significant increase in (drug-related) murders between 2001 and 2006″ (WDR, 2009)."

"A recent report commissioned by IDT, the Center for Studies and Opinion Polls (CESOP) of the Portuguese Catholic University, based on direct interviews regarding the attitudes of the Portuguese towards drug addiction (which has strangely never been released), revealed the following: 83.7% of respondents indicated that the number of drug users in Portugal has increased in the last four years. 66.8% believe that the accessibility of drugs in their neighborhoods was easy or very easy and 77.3% stated that crime related to drugs has also increased ("Toxicodepend"ncias" No. 3, 2007)."

Do you think that Erik Kain just forgot to mention the above facts about the failed decriminalization programs in Portugal? Or, is he just another liar, a duplicitous stoner.

I have much more proof to support my position, but due to the limited response space, it will have to wait till my next post.

Debate Round No. 2
Davewerty

Pro

"Citing a Forbes" article written by a known stoner, an article about the estimated decrease in heroin addiction in Portugal, where possession of any illegal drugs, including cannabis, is still illegal, doesn't prove anything. "

I Don't know why you would state this and then continue the rest of your argument on that subject. I feel you should have focused on more important subjects in your rebuttal, but how you conduct this is up to you.

You must see that my main point is the following: legalizing Marijuana does not condone the use of the substance but is the better way in approaching the regulation of the substance for society as whole. When you make comments like "Wow! That is righteous stoner talk, dude!" you make it seem as though I approve legalization just because I am a stoner. However Marijuana remaining criminalized would only benefit me as a stoner, but not society as a whole. I am more focused on the benefit of society not in my self interest and therefor support the legalization of Marijuana. We are both in favor of bettering society, we just see believe in different approaches.

Let us define several things that I should have done so in the first round. Let me define the law currently prohibiting Marijuana. The Controlled Substance act currently has Marijuana under s schedule 1 drug along with Heroin. In fact it is scheduled higher than cocaine, if you see no problem with this, then it is clear you have a bias particularly against Marijuana.

Schedule I substances are those that have the following findings:

A. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
B. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
C. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

1. Prohibition is a failure at high costs.
Let's see how this prohibition has worked.
The CSA was passed in 1970.
By the 1970"s marijuana use had grown 20%.
Marijuana hit its peak use at 1979.
Prohibition is a failed approach to control substances. If there is a demand than there will be a supply. This is true regardless of laws. Prohibition is enforced through the war on drugs. Let us look at the effects the WoD has on society. Since society is the the most important factor at hand here.

The stats show the frivolous attempts by the WoD to halt drug trafficking. Given that the WoD only intercepts 15% of narcotics being imported presents us with the fact that these efforts might as well not exist. 85% of narcotics still make it into the United States. I will attempt to take this 85% from the micro to macro scale to display fecklessness of the 15%.10"15% of illicit heroin and 30% of illicit cocaine is intercepted. Drug traffickers have gross profit margins of up to 300%. At least 75% of illicit drug shipments would have to be intercepted before the traffickers' profits were hurt.

Years after the declaration , cocaine use had multiplied by five. Marijuana hit its peak use at 1979. More contemporary, MDMA and other amphetamines have also alarming rates of increase. Similar to cocaine they have too increased by almost fivefold.

The drug network is very similar to a large business. Let us say a narcotic addict (Harris) wants to buy heroin. Harris knows many small time dealers, but there is a particular man that he likes to buy from(Max). Max buys from Erik who gets larger quantities of heroin from which he pushes to small time dealers. Erik then may know two main drug dealers for the town. These two dealers get the largest amount of heroin from regional narcotraffickers. From these regional narcotraffickers we can assume maybe one or two more stages until we reach the drug lord inside the United States. Even though the efforts of the WoD intercepted 15% of narcotics, Harris can walk outside and buy any amount of heroin that he wants ( given he can afford it) regardless of that seized 15%. Feel free to replace Heroin with Marijuana wherever it applies.

Now that tree could very well have flaws in regards to the specific stages, but it is the idea that counts, the same conclusion applies give or take several stages I may have missed.

Now we must look at this example and apply it to the goals of the WoD.
Will you accept that the goals of the WoD are the following?

- End the import of illegal narcotics
- End the manufacturing of illegal narcotics
- End the selling of illegal narcotics
-End the use of illegal drugs

As seen in my example, no single one of these goals was achieved. Harris bought drugs that he is going to use. These drugs were manufactured and then imported. Now multiply this transaction by several thousand, and you get the number of transactions or "failures" that are completed every day within the United States. Since the WoD is unable to achieve any of its primary goals, the WoD is a failure.

Even U.S. drug enforcer Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.
"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful, Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

The availability of drugs will always be there and it is open to those who want to use them. If they do not want to they do not want to. The WoD will never change the validity of that statement.

"The increased number of grade school and high school students that are currently getting stoned, which will only increase dramatically once marijuana is legalized in many states."

In August, the Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity, which poet-turned-peace activist Javier Sicilia founded after his son was murdered by suspected drug-gang members, put the death toll from Mexico's drug war at roughly 70,000.

Marijuana comprises nearly 60% of all cartel profits. By legalizing Marijuana and having Marijuana be government regulated we can effectively weaken or dispose of these destructive cartels.

When you have high level drug dealers saying prohibition is good, you want to scratch your head a little and think, well shoot why would they want to continue prohibition? Because prohibition allows drug dealers and cartels to reap massive profits thus perpetuating the drug trade.

Answer me this: Does 70,000 lives and 1 trillion dollars in spending seem like a problem that need to be solved? Or are you more keen on making sure that I don't smoke pot in my room? Even though prohibition does not work and I will smoke pot in my room if I want to just like every other person who wants to smoke pot.

Sources:
http://latino.foxnews.com...
http://jim.com......
http://www.gallup.com......
Stephen R. Kandall, M.D.:Women and Addiction in the United States"1850 to 1920
http://www.monitoringthefuture.org......
http://www.drugwarfacts.org......
http://www.justicepolicy.org......
http://www.lao.ca.gov......
GWL-CPA

Con

I have looked at your arguments, and they appear centered around making marijuana legal, which will somehow stop drug trafficking, which is nonsense. And, if somehow the US miraculously makes marijuana legal in all 50 states and D.C. (which will never happen), that does not mean we will have a drastic reduction in the money spent fighting drugs and related crimes, which you claim are trillions of dollars (it is actually significantly less than that per year - under $30 billion per year). We will still have to spend billions annually to stop all the illegally activities done by Mexican Drug Cartels including the sale of other drugs and tons of Mexican marijuana, which will still be distributed in the US. And, it will not reduce the number of Mexican citizens killed by Drug Cartels.
http://www.timeanddate.com...

And, your belief that marijuana really isn't that bad of a drug or that addictive or that harmful is hardly supported by any reliable current medical research. Marijuana has a high potential for abuse; its use for medical purposes is under serious rebuke; and there are no acceptable safety standards, even under medical supervision, for marijuana, which is why it is classified as a Schedule I substance. It may not be as addictive as heroin or cocaine, but it is still addictive and more readily available to children, which makes it a much more dangerous addictive drug that needs stricter controls - prohibition, not legalization for any reason!
https://www.ncjrs.gov...

And, prohibition along with other programs have worked in China to stop opium addiction in 1956; so prohibition can work if done properly, just like in China.
http://www.sacu.org...

1.Your comment that marijuana comprises nearly 60% of all cartel profits is at least 2 to 4 times greater than the actual percentage according to a study done by the Rand Drug Policy Research Center; their study indicates that the actual percentage is from 15% to 26%.
http://www.ycsg.yale.edu...

"Some experts on organized crime in Latin America, like Edgardo Buscaglia, say that cartels earn just half their income from drugs."
http://www.nytimes.com...

You forgot to mention that Mexican Drug Cartels make billions from sex trafficking, extortion, stolen goods (even crude oil), kidnapping, heroin, methamphetamines, cocaine, etc. So, they can"t make 60% of their income or profit from just marijuana.
http://kosmo.hubpages.com...

After booze probation ended in on December 5, 1933, did the Mafia end? Of course not! But, you think that if the sale of marijuana is somehow miraculously legalized in all 50 states, the Mexican and American gang cartels will just slowly fade away?

Much of the Trillions (actually a few billion per year) you claim are spent by the US and state government fighting Drug Cartels is spent fighting organized crime in the USA " the Mafia and street gangs.

2.There are better ways of regulating the substance for the benefit of society.

Really, what are they? Do you really think that licensing vendors in Washington State and Colorado or even all 50 states is going to stop the Mexican Cartels or local street distributors from going legitimate and getting licenses or intimating legal vendors to buy from them? Do you actually think they will stop trying to sell drugs? Do you actually think that American marijuana connoisseurs will stop buying high quality Mexican dope?

How exactly are the growing and selling of American marijuana going to be controlled at the wholesale and retail levels?

Then there is the issue of the limited amount of marijuana that one can have in one's possession at one time, which is 1 ounce in Washington and Colorado (1 ounce and 6 plants). Won't local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies still have to monitor that and arrest people for violations? And, there will still be tons (pun intended) of violations. As I stated in another blog, most of the people in prison for drugs are not the casual marijuana users; they are hard core drug sellers and addicts that committed crimes to feed their addictions.
http://www.prisonpolicy.org...

How will the government control that? Will it work like prescription drugs? You can't get a refill on most prescriptions until the quantity, usually 30-90 pills runs outs. This is especially true of prescriptions that are considered a narcotic, which are usually limited to 30 pills at once, even sleep-aid drugs like Temazepam. You try to refill it before 25 days or earlier and the pharmacist will tell you that it is too early and you have to wait. So, the pharmacist would have to tell the marijuana user that they bought 1 ounce ten days ago or whatever time period is legally allowed and it is too early to buy another ounce, you will have to wait. Do you really think most pot smokers will accept those type controls?

So will all the vendors in Colorado and Washington have to be set-up like pharmacies with a vast computerized system to track marijuana sales? Or, better yet, only pharmacies can distribute marijuana - this would save money because the drug tracking system is already in place. And, if it is considered medical marijuana then the insurance coverage could be verified and the pot would be free or with small co-pay. That is a great idea - but, I bet you don"t like that, or do you? But again, how many marijuana users will want to be tracked in a computerized system? You are going to say now, they don't need to be, right?

Actually, what has happened in Portugal and the Netherlands is that many drug users still buy their marijuana and other illegal drugs illegally from drug dealers because they can buy in larger amounts.

Then there is the issue of the strength and price of the marijuana. Will the weed sold by the licensed vendors be strong enough and cheap enough? If not, many users will still buy from the local drug dealers. There would be a price war between legal American marijuana vendors and illegal dealers.

Even if the marijuana is strong and cheap enough, probably most folks will not want their marijuana use tracked by the government, and they will buy the marijuana illegally from the drug cartel dealers in the US.

So, your alternative system fails every time.

And, you make this point that marijuana use reached its peak in 1979. Yes, I saw that study by Norml; but, so what?

Dec. 19, 2012 -- A new survey shows marijuana use by teens remains high, and officials say it will probably increase as a result of Washington and Colorado decriminalizing the drug last month.

"Based on what we know ... we are predicting that it"s going to go up," says Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. "Just the fact that there are some states that have made it legal ... will send a message" to teens throughout the country.

"Already, the proportion of teens who consider marijuana to be harmful is the lowest it"s been in decades, according to the 2012 "Monitoring the Future" survey of eighth, 10th, and 12th graders. The annual survey of teen drug use is conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan."
http://teens.webmd.com...

The Federal Prohibition on Marijuana needs to remain and more education is needed starting in 1st grade to explain the evils of smoking pot, doing any drugs, and Alcohol abuse. Our children should be taught that "Clean and Sober" is the best way to live life.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
Marijuana is a very dangerous drug; sorry you are too stoned all the time to know why.

Alcohol is less dangerous because most people do not drink to get drunk.

You smoke pot to get stoned; it is an escape from reality.

If you can't deal with reality straight, you need to see a shrink.
Posted by GDawg 3 years ago
GDawg
How come whenever I go on marijuana debates, people act like marijuana is this crazy addictive substance that will destroy your body and life. If you need to lie to support your position, you need to accept that keeping it illegal is not effective in any way, and is actually counterproductive?
Posted by TD_Cole 3 years ago
TD_Cole
Honestly, Didn't read too much into it. But I'd deduct point of conduct to Con for saying what he said in round one. One of whom does not have those qualities does not mean that they are not qualified to argue it. Have you ever smoked it yourself? That'd make you yourself not qualified to argue on weed thus not experienced really in it.
Posted by Davewerty 3 years ago
Davewerty
Again, the boyfriend you describe is a idiot. He probably would have done that action regardless, it is in his character. He is a foolish person, but it is his character that is at fault not the Marijuana. My character differs from his. When I am stoned I like to listen to music, hike with my dog, or just talk with friends. I have no intention in harming other people. So you see, it is the user not the substance that is often to blame. Well, it is clear that we both have different fundamental beliefs. For I do not think jail time is effective. There are too many instances of repeat offenders, so I think a different approach has to be implemented.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
My step-daughter was never arrested for pot; it just screwed up her life and her boyfriends, last two. Her previous boyfriend was a dealer like his Dad, who went to Jail for a few years. This boyfriend, while stoned saw the neighbor women doing her garden and bending over, an old lady about 76. He thought it would be cool to shot her in the butt with his pellet gun, which he did twice. She almost died from an infection. The punk only got probation. I know, an isolated case; but, there are thousands of those isolated case. Kid was and still is a total punk criminal; he needs jail time just like his Dad, not war and fuzzy love.

I am a behaviorist and believe most behavior cannot be changed after about 16 or 18, so put them away in a jail and throw away the keys; it will cost less in the long run and save more people from harm; it has the most utility for society and will cost less.
Posted by Davewerty 3 years ago
Davewerty
Yeah It's a phase, I dont think it requires a psychogist. Teens experiment thats reality. And yeah as a parent I'd to my best to make sure they use it responsibly. Responsible to me is occasionally, maybe a few times a month, not everyday. I'd appreciate if you would stop putting words in my mouth. Your daughter is apart of millions, that is true. But it is under criminilization that this is occuring. So I believe that proper education along with governent regulation is the best approach. Not dealer regulated and scare tactics.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
Sorry, I missed the part about how if you have kids and they chose to smoke pot that you will make sure they use it responsibly. I am stupefied with that remark! If they are under 21, you won"t get them into a psychologist or school counselor? Or, you will tell them not to do more than a joint daily? Too funny!

First of all, you will have no way of making sure your kids will be responsible pot users. What is responsible? Is Daily just in evenings responsible? How many joints or bongs? How about while in school?

Prohibition is the only real solution - you will one day understand that.

Good luck.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
I actually reported more than sufficient conclusive proof. If you want to ignore it, so be it. But, debating this subject is pointless; so is gay rights,e.g., I feel they are sick and need help, but many do not. Debating that proves nothing.

As far as polls, you have states like West Virginia who has a poll that says 53% favor medical pot; but, is that poll right. Most likely not. But, West Virginia will most likely never legalize recreational pot. Texas has already said that the chances of legalizing pot for recreational purposes is "slim to none." Mississippi is an interesting state, 30 grams or less - first offense - is a misdemeanor with a $100-$250; however it goes on your record - try to get a job with that on your record, good luck. If you are in a motor vehicle with that much (except in the trunk) it is still a misdemeanor, but you get 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. If you have between 250-500 grams (about 1/2 pound to a pound), you get 2-8 years in jail, plus $50,000 fine. So, good luck getting recreational weed passed in Mississippi.
http://everythinglubbock.com...

Most of the states in the Bible Belt are going to say no to dope. And your US Congress members from those states will also say NO to recreational pot, and many will say NO to medicinal pot too.

My step-daughter is one of millions, that doesn't bother you? I hope your kids, assuming you want kids when you get older, don't start. But, unless you are going to home school them, the odds are not in your favor. I had stoner friends who had friends (e.g., we would go to a party and I would meet their friends) who were letting their 8 and 10 year-old brothers and sisters get stoned with us. They thought it was cool and thought it was funny to watch them stoned. I just thought it was sad, and usually left the party.

I am sorry you don't see this as a major problem in America; but, many more whom are much smarter than I am smart do.
Posted by Davewerty 3 years ago
Davewerty
I must admit my conduct was rather atrocious. However GWL-CPA, your personal example means nothing. Just because your daughter can't use Marijuana correctly or use it in moderation does not mean it shouldn't be available to everyone else. There are plenty of productive citizens that use Marijuana. You're blinded by your bad experience with Marijuana and for that, you want to take it away for everyone else. Your daughter is retarded from what I can tell, blame that on her not the Marijuana. She is the one making the bad decisions not the Marijuana.

And when I have children, I wouldn't want them smoke Marijuana but if they choose to do so I'd make sure they use it responsibly, just as I do now. It can be used responsibly, it's your daughter who seems not to be able to handle it. In that case she should not be using it, because Marijuana is not for everyone. Don't take it away for those who can use it responsibly.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
This comments was too long, you need to read the three comments below. Sorry about the grammatical and spelling errors, but I was in too much of a hurry to thoroughly proofread it all.

Anyway, I will end where I started. My Pro Drug Legalization opponent has insufficient education to debate me and he has no children, and has never had to deal with kids in grade school that are ruining their lives smoking marijuana. He has ignored all current evidence by professional doctors and researchers on the evils of marijuana as have all you other Pro Drug Legalization folks.

I don"t want to get too off tack, but as for my credentials, I have a BS in Accounting and a minor in Philosophy from Bradley University, Peoria, IL. I won all my debates in Philosophy " many on the Existence of God (I am an Atheist), the fallacy of Metaphysics and "a priori" knowledge, especially Immanuel Kant"s nonsense in his "Critique of Pure Reason". I destroyed all the evidence offered by the Christians in the class; mainly because there is no evidence to prove God exists. In debate, I won the debate on the economic and social system envisioned by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their book "The Communist Manifesto", which is far better than Capitalism. America is being destroyed by vulture capitalism and the Plutocracy. The wealth belongs to the workers who make it possible " the majority of blue and white collar workers. All companies should be employee owned and Wall Street and the Stock market should be closed. And, all the trillions in the trusts and estates should be used to reduce the National Debt. We should have Universal Health Care that should include dental and vision. Maybe some of you folks will want to debate me on those topics just mentioned?

Conclusion: If you are Pro Legalization, there is no amount of evidence that will change your mind " so debating with you folks is pointless.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
DavewertyGWL-CPATied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that Con had the advantage in sources in the last rounds. Time and time again, Con was able to prove that the prohibition can work and showed flaws in Portugal's system as well as effects among teens.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
DavewertyGWL-CPATied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con definitely won. As for portugaul, he do stated many flaws in the system and noted the increase in drug usage and availability of drugs. For sucess stories of prohibition, he brought up china. He also. It's violence, no matter what, would continue. Other drugs, other sources of revenue, and drug crimes. Con won this debate hands down. Sources were tied until the last round in quality. Pro used more biassed sources at the end giving him a lost edge.
Vote Placed by Muted 3 years ago
Muted
DavewertyGWL-CPATied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: One does not simply win an argument about marijuana with an argument about education level. The conduct point goes to Pro. Beyond that, Pro wins because he shows that contrary to Con's increased user argument, the legalization of marijuana will not necessarily lead to higher user rates. I find it difficult to award sources since the highest quality source in this debate, is a news article.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
DavewertyGWL-CPATied
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 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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Wnope 3 years ago
Wnope
DavewertyGWL-CPATied
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: This was not a pretty debate, but Dave failed make a coherent, consistent argument to change the status quo. However, Con's conduct was awful, and it is only Pro's inability to argue that forced me to give points towards Con.
Vote Placed by Grantmac18 3 years ago
Grantmac18
DavewertyGWL-CPATied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and S&G are tied, arguments and sources to Pro -- Con cited a countdown from 1981 to 2008? As for the debate, it was terribly sloppy and almost entirely incomprehensible. Con's arguments against the resolution were assertions and selectively edited sources.For example, "So, we will have double the problem and thousands more will die from drunk and stoned drivers. [sic]", the cited article refutes that claim "Interestingly, researchers have also found that states that legalize medical marijuana have fewer fatal car crashes,[...]". The debate then veers off into heroin addiction and other issues unrelated to US legalization. Con's statements had little to no empirical evidence supporting them.