Debate Rounds (3)
The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning.
With these effects on the brain our kids would find difficulty in school and retaining information to the subjects being taught in classes. Which most likely cause grades to drop, remediation, and drop outs. By legalizing it we are allowing them to get their hands on these drugs more easily. All they would need is to find a person with the age of 21 like they do now with alcohol and cigarettes to buy them some. We are putting deadly drugs out on the streets, for our children to get a hold of these drugs more easily. As well Heavy Marijuana users are more likely than non-users to be diagnosed with schizophrenia later in life. A recent study found that people, who had used marijuana more than 50 times before the age of 18, had a threefold increased risk of developing schizophrenia later in life. Heavy marijuana use impairs young people's ability to concentrate and retain information. As well as Marijuana is addictive. More teens are in treatment with a primary diagnosis of marijuana dependence than for all other illicit drugs combined.
With all these effects and the very high possibility of teens getting their hands on it even more when we legalize it we are allowing these drugs to get to them. Most teens do a drug for only a few reasons one would be peer pressure doing drugs would make them seem cool and to fit into a group they would do drugs. Another would be attention as teens will act out for attention and do drugs and other things. And stress, teens are put through a lot of stress and will do drugs to ease tension however this will not benefit them in the end.
3.I must negate this bill because allowing this drug to be legalized will allow teens and underage people to get a hold of these drugs more easily than they are now and marijuana's effects on teens will cause them to drop out of school or fail classes as well as all the other facts I have given. I urge congress to negate this bill.
I'm pretty much doing this debate so I'll have 3 to vote.
Moving on, I'd like to thank CON for instigating this debate.
I'd pretty apparent that this is a speech for a congress bill, so I'm going to safely assume this bill sets marijuana legalization at the age of 21 from what my opponent has said.
For this, I'm going to summarize my opponent's main points into a topic sentence.
CON C1. Marijuana is addictive and causes short term problems.
Marijuana isn't an addictive. It doesn't cause physical dependence, and there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that claims that marijuana causes permanent psychological damage or mental illness in both teens and adults .
CON C2. Marijuana would cause harm to teenagers.
Even today, teens can easily ge their hands on marijuana. In a 2009 survey, 7 percent of 8th-graders, 16 percent of 10th-graders, and 21 percent of 12th-graders had used marijuana in the month before the survey . This shows illegal use on a repetitive level. Furthermore, prohibition allows illegal drugs to be more easily accessed to minors, whereas tobacco and alcohol are more difficult to obtain. A NIDA shows that 86% of high school students viewed marijuana as “easy” or “very easy” to obtain . By legalizing marijuana for those over 21, stricter regulations would be in place.
CON C3. Marijuana would cause harm to teens in school.
Please cross-apply my rebuttal for contention 2.
"Marijuana isn't an addictive. It doesn't cause physical dependence, and there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that claims that marijuana causes permanent psychological damage or mental illness in both teens and adults ."
Objection!!! Long-term regular users of marijuana may become psychologically dependent. They may have a hard time limiting their use, they may need more of the drug to get the same effect, and they may develop problems with their jobs and personal relationships. The drug can become the most important aspect of their lives. --http://www.well.com...--
Defense for CON C2 L:
"Even today, teens can easily get their hands on marijuana. In a 2009 survey, 7 percent of 8th-graders, 16 percent of 10th-graders, and 21 percent of 12th-graders had used marijuana in the month before the survey . This shows illegal use on a repetitive level. Furthermore, prohibition allows illegal drugs to be more easily accessed to minors, whereas tobacco and alcohol are more difficult to obtain. A NIDA shows that 86% of high school students viewed marijuana as "easy" or "very easy" to obtain . By legalizing marijuana for those over 21, stricter regulations would be in place. "
This is a false statement, seeing how the do get alcohol and cigarette's easily by asking their older friends and etc.
Making the availability of marijuana wider will increase underage marijuana use.
As well my opponent assumes there will be no more illegal drug vendors who sells drugs to anyone.
Here's some proof on youths getting alcohol; One of the common ways that adolescents get alcohol is by shoulder tapping or "hey mister." Visit the 2005 "Hey Mister" Campaign here (insert pdf of Hey Mister) Shoulder tapping is when an underage youth stands outside of a location that sells liquor and asks someone going in to purchase alcohol for them. In Massachusetts, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) found that 83 of 100 adults asked to buy minors alcohol did so.http://www.msapc.org...
Defense for CON C3: Please cross-apply my rebuttal for contention 2.
Well please cross apply my defense for 2 and 1 and my entire case with how they effect teens.
CON C1 Rebuttal
The impacts that my opponent draws from his rebuttal are similar to those with the legalization of alcohol for the same age. If you compare alcohol and marijuana, a "long-term regular user" of alcohol will face even more serious problems. Furthermore, unlike alcohol, marijuana doesn't kill and isn't a gateway drug. When examining a bright line of what can and cannot be legal or illegal, if alcohol is legal, marijuana should be legal due to less serious health effects.
CON C2/C3 Rebuttal
First, there would be no illegal drug vendors for marijuana if it were legalized. Look at alcohol as an example. We don't have alcohol dealers because it's regulated at stores. Furthermore, the legalization of marijuana would create a regulatory agency . My opponent cites alcohol as an example of how marijuana would easily obtained by asking around with 83% adults saying that they bought alcohol for a minor when they asked for it, but in the status quo, like I cited earlier, the number is 86% for illegally buying marijuana without a regulatory agency and any regulation in stores. If my opponent would like to empirically compare the two, legalization would prove beneficial; the number of minors obtaining marijuana would decrease, even if the "Hey Mister" ways that my opponent cites of obtaining it arose.
PRO C1. Marijuana would provide economic benefits.
Harvard University professorDr. Jeffrey Miron states that placing a tax on marijuana, if legalized, would produce between $10 and $14 billion dollars in revenue for our government per year . In our economic "great recession," any source of revenue would prove immensely beneficial.
PRO C1. Marijuana legalization would benefit out courts.
Last year alone, 858,408 marijuana related arrests were made . Furthermore, Jon Gettman of the George Mason School of Public Policy found that annually, these arrests cost taxpayers $7.6 billion. It also concluded that prohibition of marijuana fails to produce intended results.
 http://query.nytimes.com... res=950DE6D91038F930A25751C0A962958260
joshuaXlawyer forfeited this round.
Please extend my arguments from the 2nd round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 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:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Via forfeit.
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.