The Instigator
denisemarie323
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
XStrikeX
Pro (for)
Winning
3 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 1 vote the winner is...
XStrikeX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,943 times Debate No: 15038
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

denisemarie323

Con

Marijuana should not be legalized. Marijuana is the most commonly abused illegal drug in the U.S. and around the world. Those who support its legalization, for medical or for general use, fail to recognize that the greatest costs of marijuana are not related to its prohibition; they are the costs resulting from marijuana use itself.

The effects of marijuana are harmful and often lead to other drugs. If we legalize marijuana we will be opening up the gateway of drugs to impressionable teens. The legalization will increase the chances of the drugs falling into teens hands. Why would we want to make it easier to obtain such harmful drugs? Legalizing marijuana is not going to stop the illegal selling of the drug. For example Gambling was made legal and is now taxed, but that has not stopped illegal gambling. Legalization of marijuana is just going to set us up for illegal marijuana trafficing to avoid taxes.

Also the legalization of marijuana will increase the number of people using the drug in the united states. The numbers may not increase quickly but like tobacco and alcohol, the numbers of people with addiction to marijuana will increase. How in the world could people think that legalizing a harmful drug is a good idea, lets risk everyones health and lives to make a few extra bucks. Why dont we stop paying some people like stock brockers so much if we are in such dire need for money.

Also After doing some research about the effects of marijuana i found that there are over 10,000 scientific studies that prove marijuana is a harmful addictive drug. There is not one reliable study that demonstrates marijuana has any medical value. Marijuana is an unstable mixture of more than 425 chemicals that convert to thousands when smoked. Many of these chemicals are toxic, psychoactive chemicals which are largely unstudied and appear in uncontrolled strengths.
The harmful consequences of smoking marijuana include, but are not limited to the following: premature cancer, addiction, coordination and perception impairment, a number of mental disorders including depression, hostility and increased aggresiveness, general apathy, memory loss, reproductive disabilities, and impairment to the immune system.

Another point is if marijuana is legalized, whos to say people wont get bored of it and start experimenting with other drugs once the marijuana stops giving them a high. When everyones tolerance is up because getting pot is so easy, the gateway is open. Now someone tell me why in the world legalizing marijuana is the smartest decision for the U.S cause frankly I don't see much benefits to killing our own people.
XStrikeX

Pro

Thank you, denisemarie323, for starting this controversial debate.
I would like to keep this debate solely to the United States. Furthermore, I would like to base the legalization of marijuana on the rules of California's Proposition 19 [1.] Thank you.
Without further ado, let the debate begin!

Refutations

"The effects of marijuana are harmful and often lead to other drugs."

All research suggesting that marijuana leads to other drugs is incomplete, and scientists say more studies are required before actual conclusions can be made. Various factors can be involved in the usage of other drugs and cannot be completely blamed on marijuana. People believe that it may lead to other drugs, but so far, no hardcore, solid evidence has been shown. Here is some evidence against it. If marijuana was a gateway drug, you would expect to see high numbers of marijuana consumers also being, for instance, cocaine users. But, this correlation does not really exist. In America, for every roughly one hundred marijuana user, there is only one cocaine user. In addition, it is nearly impossible to establish a direct causal link between an individual's marijuana consumption and their subsequent "hard" drug consumption [2].

"Legalizing marijuana is not going to stop the illegal selling of the drug. For example Gambling was made legal and is now taxed, but that has not stopped illegal gambling. Legalization of marijuana is just going to set us up for illegal marijuana traffic[k]ing to avoid taxes."

Please explain "illegal selling" before I can properly refute this. I fail to see how gambling really ties into this argument.

"Also the legalization of marijuana will increase the number of people using the drug in the united states. The numbers may not increase quickly but like tobacco and alcohol, the numbers of people with addiction to marijuana will increase."

There is no evidence that marijuana is physically addictive. While it may be psychologically addictive, in the sense that people like it and want to do it again, this is little different than alcohol. But, certainly, cigarettes are more addictive than marijuana. And, since cigarettes are physically addictive and yet legal, should addictiveness really be a barometer for a substance's illegality? No. "For some users, perhaps as many as 10 per cent, cannabis leads to psychological dependence, but there is scant evidence that it carries a risk of true addiction. Unlike cigarette smokers, most users do not take the drug on a daily basis, and usually abandon it in their twenties or thirties. Unlike for nicotine, alcohol and hard drugs, there is no clearly defined withdrawal syndrome, the hallmark of true addiction, when use is stopped [3]."

"Also After doing some research about the effects of marijuana i found that there are over 10,000 scientific studies that prove marijuana is a harmful addictive drug. There is not one reliable study that demonstrates marijuana has any medical value."

Actually, marijuana has plenty of medical purpose. "The evidence is overwhelming that marijuana can relieve certain types of pain, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms caused by such illnesses as multiple sclerosis, cancer and AIDS -- or by the harsh drugs sometimes used to treat them. And it can do so with remarkable safety. Indeed, marijuana is less toxic than many of the drugs that physicians prescribe every day [4]." Furthermore, Consumer Reports believes that, for patients with advanced AIDS and terminal cancer, the apparent benefits some derive from smoking marijuana outweigh any substantiated or even suspected risks [5]. As you can see, there are plenty of helpful medical effects.

"The harmful consequences of smoking marijuana include, but are not limited to the following: premature cancer, addiction, coordination and perception impairment, a number of mental disorders including depression, hostility and increased aggres[s]iveness, general apathy, memory loss, reproductive disabilities, and impairment to the immune system."

First off, please include a source. Secondly, many things can cause increased aggressiveness, and memory loss is only short term. Although cannabis does indeed have some harmful effects, it is no more harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. As a matter of fact, research by the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is far more addictive than cannabis. Furthermore, the consumption of alcohol and the smoking of cigarettes cause more deaths per year than does the use of cannabis (e.g. through lung cancer, stomach ulcers, accidents caused by drunk driving etc.). The legalization of cannabis will remove an anomaly in the law whereby substances that are more dangerous than cannabis are legal whilst the possession and use of cannabis remains unlawful.

Arguments

1. People should be free to use marijuana as long as they don't hurt anyone else.
People should be at liberty to treat their bodies how they want to. Indeed, people are allowed to eat and drink to their detriment and even death, so why shouldn't they be able to harm themselves with marijuana use? This is, of course, assuming that their use does not harm anyone else. This means, as with substances such as alcohol or cigarettes, that regulations be put in place to ensure that one individual's consumption of marijuana does not violate the liberties of another citizen. If this is achievable with alcohol and cigarettes, it seems achievable with marijuana.

2. Many marijuana offenders are not convicted of a crime. This means that most of the money being put into law enforcement to battle marijuana results in no convictions. It is estimated that $1.6 billion is spent each year policing marijuana crimes, but most of these crimes lead to no conviction. Therefor, millions of dollars are thrown into a system that typically makes no difference in the issue of marijuana; all the while putting the government deeper into financial debt. By legalizing marijuana, the tax that can be put into place would possibly be able to bring in an estimated $2 billion according to offered California legislation.

3. Many psychological studies indicate that the attractiveness of a thing is often increased when it is scarce or when it is forbidden. This may have to do with a desire to be unique or to stand out. Some associate it with a frequently youthful desire to be rebellious. Whatever the cause, there is substantial reason to believe that the illegality of marijuana actually increases the appeal of it, and subsequently increases its consumption. The Netherlands, which has permitted the possession and retail sale of marijuana since 1976, actually ranks lower than the United States in the percentage of people who have ever used marijuana in every age category, has a higher age of initiation among those that do try marijuana, and fewer adolescents in the Netherlands than in the United States use other illegal drugs.

4. Lastly, according to a study conducted by Harvard Professor Dr. Jeffrey Miron, replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation similar to that integrated on alcoholic and tobacco products would result in annual savings and revenues of between $10 and $14 billion per year that would greatly reduce the deficit.

That's it for this round. I await the response.

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.norml.org.... Colin Blakemore, Ph.D. Chair, Dept. of Physiology, University of Oxford (U.K.), and Leslie Iversen, Ph.D., Professor of Pharmacology, Oxford University. Editorial, The Times (U.K.). August 6, 2001
4. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...
5. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...
Debate Round No. 1
denisemarie323

Con

denisemarie323 forfeited this round.
XStrikeX

Pro

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited this round. Extend all arguments.
Hope to hear back soon.
XStrikeX
Debate Round No. 2
denisemarie323

Con

denisemarie323 forfeited this round.
XStrikeX

Pro

All arguments have been refuted.
Pro deserves to win.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
the only reason X strike won is b/c the other person forfeited. if she didn't do that, she would have won. She was winning until then.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
denisemarie323XStrikeXTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: There was not much to this debate beyond conflicting unproved assertions. Pro had one fairly good source, a non-relevent Wikipedia article, a and a dead link. Con offered nothing. Pro conceded that marijuana was as bad as alcohol or tobacco; that seems to me to concede quite a bit. Pro had the burden of proof only tied arguments, despite the forfeits. Con forfeits lose conduct.