The Instigator
fea1990
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
petersaysstuff
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Legalizing Marijuana

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,204 times Debate No: 15168
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

fea1990

Con

Marijuana should not be legalized because you are unable to test to see if somebody is under the influence at a particular time. For example, since reaction time and judgment is decreases when under the influence it is very dangerous for someone to drive. Since the police would be unable to test to see if the person they pulled over is currently under the influence it can cause many problems and possibly many accidents without being able to put any blame.
petersaysstuff

Pro

I would first like to thank my opponent for this chance to debate.

My opponent makes the claim that you are unable to tell if someone has been smoking weed and that leaves room for accidents if the person is driving a car but this is just not true at all. A tell tale sign of someone who is under the influence is bloodshot eyes. Another way to tell is if the person under suspicion is on marijuana is if there they are reacting slowly. For example if they were pulled over you could do a simple reflex test and have a fair enough idea if they were. That combined with a urine sample would be a good way to determine if the person is high.(1) I am excited for Con's argument.

(1)http://www.ehow.com...
Debate Round No. 1
fea1990

Con

My opponent states that bloodshot eyes are sign of someone being under the influence, but smoking weed is not the only thing that causes bloodshot eyes. The person being pulled over could have simply been crying recently which would cause the eyes to be red. Also a couple eye drops could easily take away the redness. Bloodshot eyes does not always mean that the person has recently smoked weed. Another option given was to perform a reflex test, but once again smoking weed is not the only thing that diminishes reflexes. When cops pull people over for drunk diving they may perform similar tests to see if they feel someone is under the influence but it always leads to a breathalyzer test to confirm. Bloodshot eye and diminished reflexes may be a sign of someone smoking, but it does not necessarily mean that they were.
petersaysstuff

Pro

My opponent claims that they are not tell tale signs of someone smoking but in the first post of his he never stated that they had to be tell tale signs, just ways to get an idea. But regardless, both combined are a pretty good indicator and if you combine that with the distinct smell of marijuana it isn't that hard to tell. Another sign is slowed speech which is easy to hear. My opponent also negated the urination test and since that went uncontested we can flow that across. So as we can see, the basis for my opponent's assertion that weed should not be legalized makes no sense.
Debate Round No. 2
fea1990

Con

Just because red eyes and diminished reflexes are signs it does not mean that everyone walking the street with those symptoms has recently smoked weed. Also those signs are not always easily spotted and differ from person to person. So t is possible for someone to be under the influence and not have either of the above mentioned symptoms. Whereas something like BAC cannot be faked or hidden in any way. The same applies to slowed speech, some people may have that problem when under the influence while others do not, it may be accurate for on person but it does not mean it is accurate for everyone. Also the urine test cannot be given on the spot as a breathalyzer can, and marijuana stays in the system for 30 days, therefore someone who smoked a week ago would test positive but that test has nothing to do with the time they got pulled over. The smell can be masked by other things and the smell can also be old. If marijuana is to be legalized it must be possible to test on the spot.
petersaysstuff

Pro

Well the main point that I must include in this last speech is as follows, if we add up all the signs of being high there is good way to tell if someone is on weed.
1st: You could look for bloodshot eyes. Of course those can be masked and may not occur to everyone but if you are high you may not think to cover them.
2nd: Engage in a conversation. If they have slowed speech and trail of and/or don't focus that adds to the accusation. Of course there are other causes of those but if we add them together we get a high chance that they are high.
3rd: Test their reflexes and coordination. Again there are alternate causes to slow reflexes and diminished coordination but with all of these COMBINED it is fairly easy to tell if the person is under the influence.

So to the readers, I strongly urge you to vote Pro in this round because you can test if someone is high using the 3 simple steps listed above.

~~Peter
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
There was one guy at my school who smoke a TON of weed on sunday night came to school, took a urine test and passed
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
fea1990petersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro arguments were well defended.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
fea1990petersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: "Marijuana should not be legalized because you are unable to test to see if somebody is under the influence at a particular time. " not a strong argument, but not fully refuted.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
fea1990petersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: no one posted arguments for legalizing marijuana but pro pretty well refuted cons arguments.