The Instigator
starfire2150
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Legalizing Weed

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,817 times Debate No: 25447
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

starfire2150

Pro

Why Shouldn't We Be Allowed to smoke weed? Because the government says it makes you lazy... Lets see which is better, dying from cigarettes or being lazy from weed?? Legalize smoking it in the house or at a party lol. Give it rules like not smoking behind the wheel or while operating machinery, some bullish like that LOL. Partys are better when ur hi :D Likes it up !!!!!
THEBOMB

Con

Thanks. I hope we can have a productive debate...

Contention 1. The dangers of marijuana


Let's be completely blunt. My opponent is asking the American Government to sanction a drug which has many adverse side effects. My opponent references alcohol and tobacco in their case. But, if you have 3 things, all of which have dangerous side effects, two are legal, one is illegal, why should the government legalize the third? How can my opponent logically justify legalizing another dangerous substance?

Marijuana is an extremely potent drug. According to Microbiologist Tom Klein of the University of South Florida, "it's [marijuana smoke] so toxic, you just get it near the immune system and [the immune system] dies." (1) The killing off of one's immune system is never good. It opens a person up to disease and other harmful side effects. A study in the "American Review of Respiratory Diseases found that marijuana smoke is as irritating as tobacco smoke"…furthermore…"mothers who smoke contribute to low birth weight and developmental problems for their children and increase the risk of abnormalities similar to those caused by fetal alcohol syndrome by as much as 500 percent." (2) The facts show marijuana is bad. Since "the 1970s there have been more than 10,500 scientific studies which demonstrate the adverse consequences of marijuana use" (2). Marijuana has tremendous adverse side effects. Why should the government sanction such a drug? In fact, according to drug czar Lee Brown drugs are more potent today than they were in the 1990s (2). There is more potential for danger.

Legalizing drugs increases drug use. Between 1979 and 1992, drug use was dropping exponentially. When Bill Clinton was elected president he slashed to office of Drug Control Policy by 80%, dropped the war on drugs from 3rd priority to 29th out of 29, and cut the number of ships and aircraft responsible for drug interdiction 50%. As a direct result, drug use by children ages 12-17 increased 106%. Prohibition, in the past, has been a complete success, at least in the field of public health. Look at the years between 1911 and 1929, alcohol use declined 30-50%, deaths from cirrhosis fell, between 1911 and 1929, from 29.5 deaths per 100,000 to 10.7 deaths per 100,000, alcohol psychosis fell from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 per 100,000, suicides decreased 50%, and alcohol related arrests DROPPED 50%. When it comes to public health, prohibition is a complete success. It successfully deters people from using harmful substances.

Contention 2. Legalizing marijuana violates international law

In 1961, the United States was present at the Single Convention on Narcotics. This was an international treaty to PROHIBIT the production and supply of drugs. The United States signed this treaty along with 180 other countries. (4) Later, the United States signed another treaty known as the Convention on Psychotropic Substances; this prohibits the production of drugs such as LSD and Ecstasy. (5) The United States cannot simply legalize drugs because doing so violates several treaties with foreign powers. The United States cannot simply violate any treaty it feels like. Should the United States violate international law for nothing but detrimental effects? No.

Contention 3. Increases crime.

How can this be true? Let's look at history. Between 1919 and 1922, government-sponsored clinics within in the United States handed out free drugs to addicts. This was an attempt to control behavior. It failed. Why? 1) society revolted against it. They did not want this. 2) crime went up. (2) Let's fast-forward a few years. In 1976, California decriminalized marijuana. After 6 months, "arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles." (2). Plain statistics. Legalizing marijuana leads to more people driving under the influence. Imagine what would happen on a National scale. Imagine how many more drivers, and pedestrians, are at risk because a minority want to smoke freely. In 1970, when the same experiment was attempted in Alaska and Oregon, marijuana use doubled. (2) Its simple math legalizing marijuana leads to more people using marijuana. Why should the government sanction the use of another harmful substance? According to Patrick Murphy "more than 80 percent of the cases of physical and sexual abuse of children now involve drugs. There is NO evidence that legalizing drugs will reduce these crimes, and there is evidence that suggests it would worsen the problem." (2) So legalizing marijuana leads to increase physical and sexual abuse of young children. Once again, why should the government sanction this?

Contention 4. Prison population

According to "Princeton University Professor John Dilulio […] only 2 percent of those in federal prisons were convicted of pure drug possession. They generally committed other and violent crimes to earn a sentence." Furthermore, "70 percent of current inmates were on illegal drugs when arrested and, if drugs become cheaper, violent crime could reasonably be expected to increase" (2). So you want to INCREASE prison populations. How can this be a good thing? There already is a severe problem with prison overcrowding in the United States. My opponent proposes to increase these already crowded prisons.


1. Daniel P. Ray, "Marijuana Use Linked to Cancer," The Miami Herald 8 February 1994.
2. http://www.sarnia.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
starfire2150

Pro

Which is why i said make it illegal to drive while under the influence, And lots of people smoke weed, lots of people smoke cigarettes. When do you here someone say their relative died from smoking weed? And crime went up when people smoked weed? Wow we're going to have crime anyways right? Think about take away the drugs we'll still have crime. So dont try to blame the rate on weed. But look criminals smoke drugs lots of different drugs i know thats bad but still its not weed most people that smoke weed are relaxed or caught doing stupid things like walking around naked lol at least we're to busy being hi to kill people, the government needs to be worrying about more important stuff then what people smoke when they are in their confined homes
THEBOMB

Con

One step at a time...

"Which is why i said make it illegal to drive while under the influence"

It is illegal, the rate went up despite the illegality.


"And lots of people smoke weed, lots of people smoke cigarettes."

Relevance? " if you have 3 things, all of which have dangerous side effects, two are legal, one is illegal, why should the government legalize the third?" (From round 1)

"When do you here someone say their relative died from smoking weed?"

How is this even relevant to the discussion? Also, I posted many statistics and health concerns...

"we're going to have crime anyways right? Think about take away the drugs we'll still have crime. So dont try to blame the rate on weed."

Generally, increasing these crime rate is no-no. Question: when you drive, would you prefer the driver next to you to be sober or drunk?

"But look criminals smoke drugs lots of different drugs i know thats bad but still its not weed"

Relevance?

"most people that smoke weed are relaxed or caught doing stupid things like walking around naked lol at least we're to busy being hi to kill people"

And yet, "between 1919 and 1922, government-sponsored clinics within in the United States handed out free drugs to addicts. This was an attempt to control behavior. It failed. Why? 1) society revolted against it. They did not want this. 2) crime went up. Let's fast-forward a few years. In 1976, California decriminalized marijuana. After 6 months, "arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles." Plain statistics. Legalizing marijuana leads to more people driving under the influence. Imagine what would happen on a National scale. Imagine how many more drivers, and pedestrians, are at risk because a minority want to smoke freely"


DUI's kill...end of story.

"the government needs to be worrying about more important stuff then what people smoke when they are in their confined homes"

Considering people who use drugs are not always confined to their homes...as I showed.
Debate Round No. 2
starfire2150

Pro

WOW Thats a lotta stuff lol- Look when people smoke stuff and end up in trouble it usually not said to be weed, because the stuff people do and get in trouble for when theyr on different stuff is violent if your on weed and get in trouble like i said its for something stupid. And honestly i think they should take away ciggaretes period weed is a lot better for health yes it may caus problems but if your going by that then bye bye cigarettes and alcohol - and y ask why should they legalize the third because it has LESS consequences ( Health wise ) Then the other things. I prefer sober people driving but think about when its weed ITS HIGH LOL So theyrs really no danger you might drive slower because your calm and out of it but still its better then being under the influence, because then you drive like your insane. And if theyr not always confined there house make them give them rules

BTW- This is soo cool lol ( Its my first debate)
THEBOMB

Con

Yea xD I like to be thorough.

"Look when people smoke stuff and end up in trouble it usually not said to be weed, because the stuff people do and get in trouble for when theyr on different stuff is violent if your on weed and get in trouble like i said its for something stupid."

Like I said...DUIs, prison rates, etc...

"And honestly i think they should take away ciggaretes period weed is a lot better for health yes it may caus problems but if your going by that then bye bye cigarettes and alcohol - and y ask why should they legalize the third because it has LESS consequences ( Health wise ) Then the other things."

I'm just going to say that you should read my first contention.


"I prefer sober people driving but think about when its weed ITS HIGH LOL So theyrs really no danger you might drive slower because your calm and out of it but still its better then being under the influence, because then you drive like your insane. And if theyr not always confined there house make them give them rules"

According to the LA Times "People who smoke marijuana within a few hours of getting behind the wheel may be almost twice as likely to cause an accident" (1)

Yep. The debate is over....



1. http://articles.latimes.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Blunter_Passit 3 years ago
Blunter_Passit
This was a terrible post on why pot should be legal, you're type is the reason it is illegal. "Make it legal to smoke at home or at party's" 👏
Posted by Jessalyn 5 years ago
Jessalyn
Nevermind, I didn't know I could change it. :)
Posted by Jessalyn 5 years ago
Jessalyn
Wow, I'm so sorry, I accidentally voted the wrong side. Ugh, if anyone cares to make it fair again by compensating...? I'm so sorry guys.
Posted by starfire2150 5 years ago
starfire2150
Ll didnt know i could do that, Thx haha
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Star fire, challenge this specifically to thebomb so there is a higher chance you get a good debater like him to accept.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I am tempted too
Posted by starfire2150 5 years ago
starfire2150
You should lol
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
I'm so tempted xD
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by famer 5 years ago
famer
starfire2150THEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Much stronger arguments by CON and no references were provided by PRO
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
starfire2150THEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Who wants to bet that pro was high when he did this debate? Because I'd put money on it.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
starfire2150THEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a strong case. Pro didn't refute it well, didn't deal with the details.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
starfire2150THEBOMBTied
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's arguments more thoroughly refuted Pro's unsubstantiated arguments. Con was also the only one to provide a source.
Vote Placed by Jessalyn 5 years ago
Jessalyn
starfire2150THEBOMBTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Although Pro's POINTS were better (though briefly mentioned and done no justice), Con made much better and more thorough arguments. Therefore, the points have to go to Con.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
starfire2150THEBOMBTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con makes a case. All of pros points are rebutted by C1 and C2 was not really rebutted... Pro said ban DUI, then we're safe. Con proved DUI is always illegal. When it's legal DUI increases, when banned it falls. In other words, pros case is destroyed. Con showed it violated international law... Dropped point. Con wins every point. Star, don't be discouraged, if you stay you will improve... I did :P good luck to both in the future, but con won