The Instigator
kris12
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Greematthew
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Legalizing marijuana

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Greematthew
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,850 times Debate No: 34323
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

kris12

Pro

I just wanted to see the view of con and what ideas that i should put in my topic i wish luck and peace
Greematthew

Con

I accept. You may begin.
Debate Round No. 1
kris12

Pro

Let the debate begin,

For my first argument, we should legalize marijuana in certain parts of the globe where drug use of the said drug is abundant, but let me further go in to why and how should we do it why should we legalize this? short and sweet, in countries where there is an outbreak of the usage of the drug, we should legalize it so we can take advantage of the selling of the drug putting tax on it and making even the government to control and produce this. This will boost the economy and we can control the release.

Of course we will make specified areas where there should be release of this drug where doctors can examine each and every one that will use marijuana. The people that will be qualified for the usage will have to be prescribed by a certified doctor to treat people with intense pain with in.

You may say that this social impact will be a tremendous negative effect in society but let us see in perspective if they see you as an illegal drug user they treat you differently they look at you like a criminal if we legalize this at least the people we see a common drug user as a medical state a medical problem they will no look at you any more as a criminal.
Greematthew

Con

I would first like to start off with my opponent's argument towards our economy with the hypothetical legalization of marijuana.

Taxing this drug and producing it will definitely increase and boost the status of the economy. However, you could do the same with cocaine, heroin, PCP, and LSD. Tons of people want these just the same as they want marijuana. The negative effect on society as my opponent has stated would very much be almost stupidly detrimental. There are many products in the world in which we have gains from it. But drugs should not be our number one priority.

Let's take a look at the year 1979. The rate of marijuana users of those 12 and older was 13.2 percent. Just four years ago, in 2008, that rate is 6.1 percent. We should look at this is a tremendous positive effect health-wise, not as a failure due to selfish gains with money and taxes.

When we look at health effects, we view a general loss of perception, memory, and ability to concentrate. These affect performance in school (and looking at US performance, we should be trying to increase that) for millions of kids across the country. On the lungs, you have increased chance of infections, more chest illnesses, and eventually making it difficult to breathe.

Marijuana smoke contains three times more tar than tobacco smoke does. Let us look at the effects to people's health and society rather than look at what it could do to our economy. We have plenty of other ways to fix that than marijuana.
Debate Round No. 2
kris12

Pro

Well may i thank con for huge ideas and possibilities, let us use this rounds purely for rebutting.

Well I did take into consideration in health dangers and problems. As i said during the first round, the government will control the production, have specified areas for this, and in those places their will be doctors over looking giving only designated amounts.

There is on thing I want to point out in you statements, you said that how about the other drugs well let us take one drug at a time not do it all at the same time because they are all different, they don't do the same effects to the body.

Another thing is you said is how dangerous this is and i said on my second paragraph as I quote "Of course we will make specified areas where there should release the drug where doctors can examine each and every one that will use marijuana." So it will be regulated and the Doctor will see and supervise. And you said how harmful it is and everything that is why I stated that it should only be allowed on prescribed patients by a doctor for the avoiding overdoses and its harmful effects.

So as you can see everything that you said that could be considered as an issue was in my statement all along. All I can say is that you should really read an understand.

Thank you for a wonderful debate experience!
Greematthew

Con

While my opponent has provided reasonable ideas that could work for the sale and production of marijuana, there is one slight issue. My opponent speaks as if this is will be actually done within the real world and that he knows how they will do it. This is not a debate about what we would personally do, but what would actually be done and how it would affect society.

Health is huge today in the world. With a world population of over seven billion and continued to grow even more within the next century, we need to take into account that diseases, viruses, and bacteria are all a larger issue with a larger population. Being prescribed by a doctor is one thing, but using it recreationally is another.

I will state no further new point as I already have previously. Our society's health and wellbeing is much more important that a boost to our economy - which can be done via anything else other than marijuana.

I thank my opponent for a productive debate. Good luck with your votes.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Aniline 3 years ago
Aniline
"Let's take a look at the year 1979. The rate of marijuana users of those 12 and older was 13.2 percent. Just four years ago, in 2008, that rate is 6.1 percent."

So what? Less people choose to use marijuana and it's illegal. Making it legal won't necessarily mean that everyone will suddenly decide to use marijuana. It's possible to legalize it and still see reductions in use.
Posted by Mrparkers 3 years ago
Mrparkers
Pro should have talked about how the government should not play the "mother" role in everyone's lives and restrict citizens from using a drug if they want to. Even if said drug is "more harmful than cigarettes" (which isn't exactly true), its still a user's choice to use it and the government shouldn't have a say in what people choose to put in their bodies so long as those choices don't negatively impact the lives of others who choose not to use it. Pro could argue that alcohol is more harmful, and it affects people who choose not to use it (drunk driving, being annoying while drunk, etc), and yet it is still legal. Another thing pro should have talked about is that legalizing marijuana would effectively put the drug cartel out of business, or at the very least reduced it to the point where the death tolls in Mexico due to this drug would be drastically reduced.

Con should have talked about the dangers of second-hand smoke, or the fact that legalizing it would make it more widespread, and thus easier for minors to obtain it. Con also could have talked about driving while intoxicated, or the fact that marijuana is a gateway drug that typically leads to other "harder" drugs that are even worse for you, and the legalization of this drug could lead to the legalization of the other drugs as well.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
kris12GreematthewTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had much better grammar than Pro. There were no sources, and conduct was tied. Neither side really deserved most convincing arguments. Pro confused me with his wanting of doctors, and Con hardly refuted his claims. Both arguments were just weak.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 3 years ago
Mrparkers
kris12GreematthewTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering GeekiTheGreat. There is no reason to give the entire debate to Pro because Con questioned the effectiveness of his plan. I'll talk about the debate in the comments.
Vote Placed by GeekiTheGreat 3 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
kris12GreematthewTied
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: How do you know what the debate is about without asking him? He is the creator of the Debate so it is about what he defines it as.