The Instigator
I-am-a-panda
Pro (for)
Winning
69 Points
The Contender
wush
Con (against)
Losing
42 Points

Marijuana\Cannabis should be legalised for both medical and recreational purposes in the U.S.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,090 times Debate No: 12841
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (40)
Votes (22)

 

I-am-a-panda

Pro

I thank Wush for this debate.

== Definitions ==

Cannabis\ Marijuana: Cannabis, also known as marijuana, marihuana, among many other names, refers to any number of preparations of the Cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug. [1]

Recreational: A pastime, diversion, exercise, or other resource affording relaxation and enjoyment. [2]

Medical: Curative; medicinal; therapeutic. [3]

Legalised: To make legal [4]

U.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org...

== PRO Arguments ==

--- Harm of Marijuana ---

There has so far been no deaths recorded that directly result from the use of Marijuana, and there has been no recoded deaths in the U.S., and when stacked up against other products, Marijuana is relatively harmless [5]. Indeed, unlike many other substances, it is extremely hard to die from the use of Marijuana. As noted on the below article:

"A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response." [5]

We can therefore conclude that it is extremely hard to technically kill oneself solely through the use of Marijuana.

Also, Marijuana does not have any detrimental long term effects on a person health and mortality. As noted in two studies [6], the users of Marijuana were far less likely to have shorter life spans. The only noted possible health effect of Marijuana is a increase in heart attacks 1 hour after smoking Marijuana. This is however an extremely rare risk, given that it only occurs in .2% of all heart attacks [6], of which would have to occur within the first hour of Marijuana consumption, an extremely rare risk indeed.

However, if one was concerned with the increase in heart attacks, there would be substances with a far greater plausibility of increasing the risk of heart attacks in the long term, such as Fast Foods [7].

We can conclude from this Marijuana is a therefore a substance which, while it has risks, is safe. One must consider that while Marijuana has negative effects, every product has risks and negative effects.

--- Benefits of Marijuana ---

While we know the are very few extremely low chance risks involved with the use of Marijuana, there are many benefits to it use, most, if not all, of which are medical.

There is a list as long as my arm of illnesses treated by Medical Marijuana [8], but some illnesses include various cancer (Testicular, Prostate, Skin), forms of Hepatitis, Diabetes related illnesses and dependence illnesses. It is also used to stop the build-up of Alzheimers Disease [9], reduces the growth of breast cancer cells [10] and stimulating appetite in HIV\AIDS patients [11].

It is clear there are a large number of medical benefits from the use of Medical Marijuana.

--- Individual Choice ---

Currently, the use of Marijuana is a victimless crime, that is to say, no one is harmed in the consumption of Marijuana other than the consumer, who has willingly consumed the Marijuana by choice. Even should there be mounds of evidence suggesting Marijuana is extremely harmful to consume, it is still the personal choice of the individual to consume it and suffer any negative effects. There is no need for the government to impose themselves in people's lives unless they are preventing them from harming another person directly, which is why people would obviously not be allowed smoke Marijuana and drive a car, or operate machinery.

--- Benefits of Legalisation ---

As it stands, the US government spends a huge amount of money to suppress the use of Marijuana. It is estimated that the US could gain $14,878,200,000+ by legalising and taxing the sale of Marijuana [12]. It is clear that the US economy would benefit from the legalisation of Marijuana through the creation of jobs. The War on Marijuana is also ineffective, as most of the arrests (89%) are possession of Marijuana, not distribution [12].

Furthermore, it would reduce the amount of funding available for criminal gangs, as drugs trading is a huge source of income for them. This would reduce criminal activity and have a benefit to society.

--- Conclusion ---

From my argument we can conclude that Marijuana has very few real risks associated with its use, and has multiple uses as a treatment. Furthermore, the use of Marijuana is one which only carries risks for the user once used on private property, and furthermore, it is uneconomical to attempt to enforce a prohibition of Marijuana.

Seeing as Marijuana has medical benefits, it should to be legalised for medical purposes. Furthermore, as it is a victimless crime and has few risks, it should be legalised for recreational usage.

[1] = http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] = http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] = http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4] = http://dictionary.reference.com...
[5] = http://drugwarfacts.org...
[6] = http://www.webmd.com...
[7] = http://hubpages.com...
[8] = http://www.letfreedomgrow.com...
[9] = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[10] = http://mct.aacrjournals.org...
[11] = http://www.thebody.com...
[12] = http://iloveweed.net...
wush

Con

I thank I-am-a-panda for challenging me to this debate
First of all I would like to say I agree with the definitions presented by I-am-a-panda
*note both the words cannabis and marijuana as used in this text refer to the same drug

My contention for this debate is that marijuana/cannabis should not be legalised so that dealer and user can be free of criminal activity.

1) THE TRUE DANGERS OF MARIJUANA USE [1][2][3][4]
"There has so far been no deaths recorded that directly result from the use of Marijuana, and there has been no recoded deaths in the U.S., and when stacked up against other products, Marijuana is relatively harmless"- I-am-a-panda

While cannabis has never been recorded to kill a user, it can have very serious detrimental effects on the users life.
The short term effects of cannabis use include loss of memory, distorted perception, difficulty in problem solving and thinking, loss of co-ordination and tunnel awareness. High doses of cannabis can induce short term effects of confusion, restlessness, detachment from reality, hallucinations, anxiety and respiratory problems. those are only the short term effects.
Marijuana also has a lengthy list of long term effects. these include, bronchitis, lung cancer, increased cancer risks, learning problems, memory problems, dependence, libido problems and hormone problems
"A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than non smokers. Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses."[1]
From the above information it is reasonable to conclude that despite panda's claims, marijuana can be a very dangerous and harmful drug.
Another risk associated with marijuana is that it can be a stepping stone for abusers to other drugs. Cannabis is a plant that is known to produce three types of drugs. marijuana, hashish and hash oil. While marijuana may be relatively weak in comparison to other drugs, hashish may be four times more dangerous, while hash oil can be up to 12 times more dangerous than marijuana.[4] Abusers may move onto other more powerful hallucinogens like PCP and LSD.
Therefore, although marijuana may have never been recorded as a direct cause of death, it has many serious health risks and may indirectly lead to a death as marijuana is a gateway drug.

2) MEDICAL PURPOSES
I-am-a-panda explained the medical purposes of cannabis in the previous post. However, this information is useless as panda is proposing that all forms of marijuana be legalised, not just medical marijuana. Legalising marijuana due to curative powers would be akin to handing out morphine or prescription drugs on the street. It would be a completely unnecessary step as the use of medical marijuana can be simply legalised in a sterile and risk free environment of a hospital rather than being allowed free rein on the streets.

3)MARIJUANA IS ILLICIT FOR A REASON
Panda points out that the use of marijuana is a personal choice and that marijuana is a "victimless crime." However as I pointed out earlier in my post, marijuana has many health risks. I also pointed out that cannabis abusers were likely to take more sick days than non abusers. When all these days missed from work due to marijuana adds up, a lot of our economies money has gone down the drain. and is money really meant to be compensation for all those people caught in the grip of a harmful drug.
"Furthermore, it would reduce the amount of funding available for criminal gangs, as drugs trading is a huge source of income for them. This would reduce criminal activity and have a benefit to society."
legalisation of cannabis would only allow drug lords to make more cannabis without fear of the arrests. A group of criminals that used to have go to great sacrifices to spread the devastation of cannabis will under the new proposed system be able to expand their hold indefinitely. The legalisation of marijuana will only help drug dealers further their trades and fund their other criminal activities.
In conclusion, cannabis abuse is not a victimless crime but rather a crime that has very serious risks to the abusers health.

http://www.medic8.com... [1]
http://www.drugaware.com.au... [2]
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au... [3]
http://www.unodc.org... [4]
Debate Round No. 1
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

After looking at his links, [2] and [4] can be discarded as irrelevant. [2] simply cite some short-term effects of Marijuana, some of which (Feeling of well being, increased Appetite) are positive and some are irrelevant or trivial (Reddened eyes. Talkativeness). [4] is a UN report on Marijuana potency, which does not seem relevant.

Now, onto Con's arguments.

"The short term effects of cannabis use include loss of memory......High doses of cannabis can induce short term effects of confusion, restlessness, detachment from reality, hallucinations, anxiety and respiratory problems. those are only the short term effects."

--> My opponent has not cited any evidence showing such effects occur through the use of Marijuana. However, if even we assumed such effects were true, these are short term effects, and do not last. Not only would they only be in effect for a few hours at most, but all these effects have a detrimental effect on the user.

"Marijuana also has a lengthy list of long term effects. these include, bronchitis, lung cancer, increased cancer risks, learning problems, memory problems, dependence, libido problems and hormone problems"

--> My opponent has again not shown any evidence to support such claims, and indeed I have extreme doubts about these claims as there have been several sources that negate this, which show lung damage is in fact lower for Marijuana smokers, and that heavy marijuana users do not have an increased risk of lung cancer [1]. Furthermore claims of Marijuana causes damage to one's memory [2] and libido\hormone problems [3] are untrue.

However, even if his other claims were in fact true, it still does not warrant a ban of Marijuana, seeing as all harm is to the user and the user only.

"A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than non smokers. Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses."

--> Firstly, this source states "health problems" which in itself is extremely vague. What health problems is it referring to? The extremely low risk of heart attacks I stated in first round? I would ask my opponent to clarify this. Secondly, while I will not dispute the claim Marijuana can make one more unproductive, it is to the detriment of the Marijuana user if his employer fires them over missed days or productivity issues.

"Cannabis is a plant that is known to produce three types of drugs. marijuana, hashish and hash oil......Abusers may move onto other more powerful hallucinogens like PCP and LSD."

--> Firstly, Con's source, [4], does not claim that Hashish is 4 times more dangerous than marijuana Hash Oil is 12 times more dangerous than Marijuana, so this claim holds no weight at the current time.

"Therefore, although marijuana may have never been recorded as a direct cause of death, it has many serious health risks and may indirectly lead to a death as marijuana is a gateway drug."

--> Con is incorrect when he cites Marijuana is a gateway drug. As explained here:

"What the gateway theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistic association between common and uncommon drugs, an association that changes over time as different drugs increase and decrease in prevalence. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today. Therefore, people who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. Indeed, for the large majority of people, marijuana is a terminus rather than a gateway drug." [4]

There are many other sources which debunk the gateway theory [5] [6] [7].

"Therefore, although marijuana may have never been recorded as a direct cause of death, it has many serious health risks and may indirectly lead to a death as marijuana is a gateway drug."

--> I have disproved that Marijuana has many serious health risks, if any, and that all are to the detriment of the user. Furthermore, the gateway theory is a study which misuses statistics.

"I-am-a-panda explained the medical purposes of cannabis in the previous post. However, this information is useless as panda is proposing that all forms of marijuana be legalised, not just medical marijuana."

--> The resolution is "Marijuana\Cannabis should be legalised for both medical and recreational purposes in the U.S.". The resolution clearly states that we are contending whether or not Marijuana should be legalised for it's health benefits, as well as it being legalised for recreational purposes.

"Legalising marijuana due to curative powers would be akin to handing out morphine or prescription drugs on the street. It would be a completely unnecessary step as the use of medical marijuana can be simply legalised in a sterile and risk free environment of a hospital rather than being allowed free rein on the streets."

--> I never stated once in my above argument Marijuana would be handed out in the streets for usage. Indeed, my opponent has admitted that medical marijuana should be used in a hospital environment which I completely agree with. Legalising ANY medicine does not mean allowing anyone to hand out that medicine for usage. Medical Marijuana is prescribed by doctors to patients who need it, however, this does not mean restricting the sale of Marijuana to prescriptions. My opponents analogy is therefore wrong.

Unless he changes his stance on this and refutes the many medical benefits of Marijuana I have cited, I have won the medical side of the argument.

"I also pointed out that cannabis abusers were likely to take more sick days than non abusers.....and is money really meant to be compensation for all those people caught in the grip of a harmful drug."

--> Firstly, because Marijuana has health risks to the user does not mean it is not a victimless crime. The effects are restricted to the user and the user only. Secondly, Marijuana is used by a large portion of the US [8], and while Marijuana usage would probably increase with legalisation, the effects of the economy by Marijuana aren't detrimental as it stands. Furthermore, should a Marijuana user be unproductive and unpunctual they can be fired by their employer.

"legalisation of cannabis would only allow drug lords to make more cannabis without fear of the arrests.....The legalisation of marijuana will only help drug dealers further their trades and fund their other criminal activities."

--> Not true. The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is lower than the EU average [9]. Furthermore, if Marijuana ales are regulated then these "drug lords" have the choice of entering a taxed, legitimate form of business, or remaining in an illegal business with risks. My opponent assumes drug lords will have a monopoly on the Cannabis supply, which they won't. Marijuana can be imported by anyone to be sold in a business. As an example, see the rise of "Coffee" shops in Amsterdam, which sell Cannabis.

In conclusion, my opponents claims of health risks are wrong or irrelevant, as re his claims involving the gateway theory and crime increases. I await his response.

[1] = http://www.drugpolicy.org...
[2] = http://www.drugpolicy.org...
[3] = http://www.drugpolicy.org...
[4] = http://www.drugpolicy.org...
[5] = http://www.nap.edu...
[6] = http://www.drugscience.org...
[7] = http://www.rand.org...
[8] = http://www.marijuana-addiction.info...
[9] = http://www.emcdda.europa.eu...
wush

Con

I thank my opponent for his post

1)CANNABIS DANGERS[2][3][4][5][6] (source [1] is video)
My opponent panda made an attempt at refuting the sources I used as evidence in my previous post.
"After looking at his links, [2] and [4] can be discarded as irrelevant. [2] simply cite some short-term effects of Marijuana, some of which (Feeling of well being, increased Appetite) are positive and some are irrelevant or trivial (Reddened eyes. Talkativeness)."

The links were a list of short term health risks, however I also provided a list of long term health risks along with these links. [2] Had a list of long term risks. The claim that "feeling of well being" was a good thing was ludicrous. In the drug world, this would be called a "high". When abusers are in this state they are prone to taking risks and can often indulge in dangerous behaviour. It is also well known that any drug induced high is followed by a "low". This low may involve depressive thoughts and paranoia. My opponent states that I provide no evidence for any of my claims so on this post, I will include numerous sources.

"However, even if his other claims were in fact true, it still does not warrant a ban of Marijuana, seeing as all harm is to the user and the user only."
This is a ridiculous claim. Just because a drug only affects the user directly, does it actually make it a victimless crime? Would the person held in its ,grip not be a victim? How about the friends and family of the abuser? Cannabis can cause an individual to push away previously close figures.[7][8][9][10]
"I will not dispute the claim Marijuana can make one more unproductive, it is to the detriment of the Marijuana user if his employer fires them over missed days or productivity issues."
Here my opponent admits to the negative influence marijuana use can have on an abusers working life.

My opponent also makes an attempt to debunk the "gateway drug" theory that I presented in my first argument.
His quote from his source [4] does not deny marijuana as a gateway drug but rather uses an irrelevant statistic of cannabis users who use other drugs in comparison to cannabis users who don't. If my opponent meant to make a relevant point, then I ask him to clarify this. In his source [5] I am yet to find a gateway reference. Rather than refuting the gateway theory, my opponents source[6] admits it is a gateway drug."In the sense that marijuana use typically precedes rather than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a "gateway" drug. But because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is rarely the first, "gateway" to illicit drug use."
His source [7] claims to cast doubt on the gateway theory and that is all it does. It only points out the doubt that any reasonable mind should feel when presented with a claim. I myself never claimed it was without doubt a gateway drug, but only claimed it might be. Even if it was not a stepping stone drug for all uses, It is irrefutable that some abusers of harder drugs may have made the transition through the use of cannabis.

Next my opponent claims that legalizing cannabis would be a bad thing for drug lords as competition would rise in their line of business.
"Furthermore, if Marijuana ales are regulated then these "drug lords" have the choice of entering a taxed, legitimate form of business, or remaining in an illegal business with risks."
Which is exactly my point. These drug lords will no longer have to do their "fundraising" behind the scenes. Under the proposed laws they can perform their work wherever they want to without fear of arrest.
"My opponent assumes drug lords will have a monopoly on the Cannabis supply, which they won't. Marijuana can be imported by anyone to be sold in a business."
I make this assumption on the following projections
1) These drug lords have a head start on newcomers to the "industry". They already have well established, reliable producers of this drug.
2)The drug lords can expand their business without fear of arrests so it is in fact very easy to maintain a monopoly over the cannabis "industry."
Also, the producers of this drug would have field day, many of whom are hardened criminals and that have shady business outside of cannabis sale
Of course these are only assumptions and I do not present this as evidence

"Firstly, because Marijuana has health risks to the user does not mean it is not a victimless crime. The effects are restricted to the user and the user only. Secondly, Marijuana is used by a large portion of the US [8], and while Marijuana usage would probably increase with legalisation, the effects of the economy by Marijuana aren't detrimental as it stands. Furthermore, should a Marijuana user be unproductive and unpunctual they can be fired by their employer."
-As I pointed out earlier in my reply, cannabis addiction has multiple victims.
-The effects on the economy may not be detrimental, but that does not mean it is a good thing.
-Yet again my opponent shows the terrible affects on an individuals life marijuana use can have what if the abuser however, owns a business or a franchise? What if other people depend on the abuser?

In conclusion, cannabis is indeed a very harmful drug and damaging to more than just the user, and my opponents claims of it being a victimless crime are nothing but incorrect.
Marijuana/Cannabis should not be legalised.
I eagerly await my opponents last post on this debate.

http://drugabuse.gov... [2]
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com... [3]
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com... [4]
http://alcoholism.about.com... [5]
http://www.talkingaboutcannabis.com... [6]
http://www.nhs.uk... [7]
http://www.adequacy.org... [8]
http://www.talkingaboutcannabis.com... [9]
http://www.talkingaboutcannabis.com... [10]
Debate Round No. 2
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I thank Con for this debate.

Firstly, his source [1] is from the TV Comedy Show the Dead Donkey, and it is visible this is a fake video through the use of the looped laughter track. It therefore holds no relevance in this debate.

"he claim that "feeling of well being" was a good thing was ludicrous. In the drug world, this would be called a "high". ......My opponent states that I provide no evidence for any of my claims so on this post, I will include numerous sources."

--> Firstly, the feeling of well being is a positive thing. My opponent claims there are "lows" associated with Marijuana use in his sources which state the short term use of Marijuana, there is no mention of any form of "low". Furthermore, the feeling of well being is positive in anything, and even if such lows did exist the feeling of well-being would mean the effect is balanced out. Also, my opponents claims of paranoia is false. While some Marijuana users may suffer feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia, this is only temporary and when the user is not exposed to such experiences beforehand.

"This is a ridiculous claim. Just because a drug only affects the user directly, does it actually make it a victimless crime...Cannabis can cause an individual to push away previously close figures."

--> To start, the fact Marijuana may make the user unsociable does not refute at is a victimless crime. It is not a crime to be unsociable, at least not in the US. Indeed, there is no obligation to the Marijuana user to be sociable and remain in contact with friends and family. Furthermore, its effect of making people unsociable is still not enough to warrant a ban of it.

"Here my opponent admits to the negative influence marijuana use can have on an abusers working life."

--> Which I said was detriment to the user, and no-one else. A minor inconvenience to the employer, but they can of course test potential employees for Marijuana us, which many do. There is really no issue for society that Marijuana may make its user less productive.

"His quote from his source [4] does not deny marijuana as a gateway drug......if my opponent meant to make a relevant point, then I ask him to clarify this."

--> The source cites the flaw in saying Marijuana is a gateway drug. Most drug users use Marijuana before they use "hard" drugs, but the majority don't. Indeed, evidence shows most Marijuana users use nicotine and alcohol fore they use Marijuana, so Nicotine and Alcohol are the true gateway drugs [2].

"In his source [5] I am yet to find a gateway reference."

--> O rly? "There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping stone on the basis of its particular physiological effect. One might argue that marijuana is generally used before other illicit mood-altering drugs, in part, because its effects are milder; in that case, marijuana is a stepping stone only in the same sense as taking a small dose of a particular drug and then increasing that dose over time is a stepping stone to increased drug use." [2]. That's the exact same source

As for Con's criticism of my 6th source, his quote explicitly states Marijuana is not a gateway drug insofar as that alcohol and nicotine use typically precede it. Furthermore, the first sentence from the source is "Recent research suggests that recreationally used cannabis does not act as a gateway drug to harder drugs such as alcohol, cocaine and heroine." Ergo, my 6th source does not support the gateway theory.

The 7th source explicitly states "But the authors say their study should raise questions about the legitimacy of basing national drug policy decisions on the assumption that one of the harmful effects of marijuana use is the increased risk of using more dangerous drugs". It casts doubt on the use of the Gateway theory as a legitimate argument in favour of the prohibition of Marijuana.

My opponents criticism of my Gateway theory sources no longer stand. All of my 4 sources do not support the Gateway theory and show varied evidence against it.

"I myself never claimed it was without doubt a gateway drug, but only claimed it might be."

--> My opponent is contradicting himself, as he blatantly claimed in the first round "marijuana is a gateway drug.". There's no room for plausibility here,my opponent was resolute in his stance that Marijuana is a gateway.

"It is irrefutable that some abusers of harder drugs may have made the transition through the use of cannabis."

--> And as shown, most of these users use nicotine and alcohol as the real gateway drugs. The criminalisation of Marijuana isn't cutting out the starting point, it's cutting out one of the many stepping stones. Furthermore, the ban of Marijuana has not been effective in stopping Marijuana as a gateway drug as my opponent claims it is.

"Which is exactly my point. These drug lords will no longer have to do their "fundraising" behind the scenes. Under the proposed laws they can perform their work wherever they want to without fear of arrest."

--> And my opponents issue with these men turning to legitimate business men is? Indeed, my opponent admits this is likely, as by doing these were removing drug lords from criminal activity to legitimate business activity. My proponent may state "drug lords" will use these as a source of revenue, but many forms of business are already used by criminals as a source of revenue. By saying furniture shops are used by drug lords as a form of revenue does not mean all furniture shops should be shut down. Shut down the ones with proven criminal owners, yes.

As for my opponents points on drug dealers advantages, he's first contention may be true, but Marijuana will have quality controls. Indeed, a lot of Marijuana is home grown [3], so individual farmers and cultivators may sell their product. Indeed, many legitimate companies such as HortaPharm, which develops medical Marijuana, have developed in the Netherlands [4]. so there is an opportunity for legitimate companies to be founded in the Marijuana market or pre-existing companies adapting to sell Marijuana.

As for his second point, these drug lords are no longer in a criminal business. Drugs is their business, they commit cries to eliminate the competition or get funding. And neither of the latter will no longer be necessary in a legitimate market. As for his 3rd point, roughly half of drug producer are Americans, and the rest are mostly poor farmers in South America [3] who will benefit from being able to sell their product legally.

"Of course these are only assumptions and I do not present this as evidence"

--> And unless my opponent can show evidence to help prove these assumptions then they hold no weight in this debate.

As for my opponents closing comments, I have shown consuming cannabis is a victimless crime and the fact it may make some users unsociable is not itself a crime, nor is it enough to warrant a ban of Cannabis. As for his comment on the economy, I have shown the Marijuana industry has the potential to bring the US more than $14 billion in revenue. As for my opponent final comment about dependency on the abuser, the people depend on the user by choice of using Marijuana, however, it is extremely unlikely someone can be addicted to Marijuana and become dependent, and this is limited to long term, daily Marijuana users [5], and if my opponent states Marijuana users will increase with legalisation, there is little evidence for that either [6].

To conclude, Marijuana is a victimless crime, has beneficial economic effects, has curative abilities, and minimal health risks. In relation to the resolution, I have proven its medical purpose and why it should be legalised for recreational use. Resolution affirmed.

[1] = http://tinyurl.com...
[2] = http://tinyurl.com...
[3] = http://tinyurl.com...
[4] = http://tinyurl.com...
[5] = http://tinyurl.com...
[6] = http://tinyurl.com...
wush

Con

I thank my opponent for this excellent debate which just happens to be my first debate.
1)A FEELING OF WELLBEING ISN'T NECESSARILY HAVING GOOD WELLBEING
"Firstly, the feeling of well being is a positive thing."
-Clearly my opponent can not distinguish the difference between feeling good and actually being "good"
In most cases, feeling healthy means you are healthy, however this is not true in all scenarios.
An example of this are sufferer from a group of diseases collectively known as "congenital insensitivity to pain"
Sufferers have an inability to feel pain, so you could say they feel healthy(or have a feeling of wellbeing). Unfortunately, many sufferers die young or are prone to hurting themselves unwittingly, so they are not actually healthy.
This is comparable to marijuana users. After abusing, they have a feeling of wellbeing. However this is only a feeling and it covers the true horror of whats happening to the abusers body. And during this feeling of wellbeing, one is more likely to indulge in risk taking and other dangerous activities that under ones normal state of mind, one would have steered well clear of.
-It is quite fair to assume that the anxiety and nausea can be called symptoms of a "low"
-and i stated paranoia as a short term effect which means my opponent is agreeing with me
2)MARIJUANA IS A CRIME WITH VICTIMS
"To start, the fact Marijuana may make the user unsociable does not refute at is a victimless crime. It is not a crime to be unsociable, at least not in the US. Indeed, there is no obligation to the Marijuana user to be sociable and remain in contact with friends and family. Furthermore, its effect of making people unsociable is still not enough to warrant a ban of it."
If you look at it from that angle, then the person who is caught in the grip of marijuana is the victim. Unable to get out of an addiction that is ruining there life. Marijuana is stealing their money along with their life. It is kidnapping a child from someones family.

"Which I said was detriment to the user, and no-one else. A minor inconvenience to the employer, but they can of course test potential employees for Marijuana us, which many do. There is really no issue for society that Marijuana may make its user less productive."
Not all people work in big businesses that can afford job losses. Not all people hold insignificant jobs. What happens if that abuser is the owner of a business? What if the abuser is in a job that few others can do? You can not legislate a law with complete disregard for individuals.

3)GATEWAY DRUG
For every source my opponent can put forward claiming that cannabis is not a gate way drug, I have put one forward claiming it is. So i think it is fair to say that while cannabis may not be a gateway drug for all users, it is a gateway drug for SOME users. Even if only a small percent of the population is affected, that still equates to a lot of people and a lot of revenue for drug lords.
"these drug lords are no longer in a criminal business. Drugs is their business, they commit cries to eliminate the competition or get funding. And neither of the latter will no longer be necessary in a legitimate market."
Many of these drug lords will sell drugs other than cannabis.

"And unless my opponent can show evidence to help prove these assumptions then they hold no weight in this debate."
I made the statements in rebuttal to a post made by my opponent. My opponent did not present any evidence either, so it is reasonable to say both arguments are void.

"As for my opponent final comment about dependency on the abuser, the people depend on the user by choice of using Marijuana, however, it is extremely unlikely someone can be addicted to Marijuana and become dependent, and this is limited to long term, daily Marijuana users [5], and if my opponent states Marijuana users will increase with legalisation, there is little evidence for that either [6]."
I don't believe my opponent understood what i said. I said that other people may be dependent on the cannabis taker.

As for my opponents evidence for his previous post. I find it interesting that it is all from one website. So i take the liberty to question the accuracy of his sources. If my opponent was unable to find any other sources to prove his accuracy then it brings into question whether the website is a legitimate source. I have not included any sources in this post as i did not introduce any new material as it would be unfair to bring in new material that could not be scrutinised by my opponent.

In conclusion
I have shown that cannabis is indeed a crime with victims, both legally and morally.
The relatively minor economic benefits of cannabis legalisation is by no means compensation for all the other effects of cannabis legalisation.
it may contain curative benefits, but that is irrelevant as this debate is not about legalising medical marijuana but legalising all marijuana.
As for the resolution, I have shown you multiple reason why cannabis should not be legalised, while my opponent has put forward a single valid reason for legalisation. Even this reason is minor in comparison to the other issues discussed in the debate.
I have hopefully convinced you beyond all reasonable doubt that cannabis should not be legalised.

I thank my opponent 1-am-a-panda for this wonderful debate and you the reader who took the effort to read through this. I hope you vote on this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mowglisingh 4 years ago
mowglisingh
check this link to know why cannabis should be legalized
http://www.bubblews.com...
Posted by System113 6 years ago
System113
http://www.druglibrary.org...
Official government report Nixon ignored before beginning the failed war on drugs.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Nah, people around here are rational.
Posted by ARCADEGHOST 6 years ago
ARCADEGHOST
I expected the majority of people to vote for the con,since cannabis is called a "bad" drug and everyday they tell us in school to be "drug-free".
Posted by ARCADEGHOST 6 years ago
ARCADEGHOST
I expected the majority of people to vote for the con,since cannabis is called a "bad" drug and everyday they tell us in school to be "drug-free".
Posted by chriscody333 6 years ago
chriscody333
Even though I think that marijuana should be legalized, I'm sort of happy that prop 19 didn't pass. I have a feeling that the demographic that doesn't smoke primarily "because it's illegal" is going to start experimenting with it, and we're constantly going to have a bunch of old a-holes crashing their cars because they don't know how much they can smoke/can't handle being high. I'd probably say only 10% of the people I know that smoke can drive normally while high, and those people have been smoking for god knows how long. I realize that even if marijuana was legalized that it'd still be illegal to drive high, but there'd still be a percentage of cars on the road that would be driven by these newbs who don't yet understand the technicalities of driving while being stoned out of your mind. For instance, a car ran over my mail box about 2 years ago. My security camera at my home recorded it so I got their license plate, and it turns out that the driver was high and claimed that it was their first time trying to drive on it (you can even see in the video that he's smoking a joint while he's driving. I even saved a picture… home security cam marijuana idiot). I'm sure over time that the demographic of "new" smokers will eventually know their limits and when they are not able to drive, but at the moment, I'm glad prop 19 failed because I wasn't looking forward to buying a new mailbox.
Posted by cedermark 6 years ago
cedermark
legalize cannabis - join the forces against evil
Posted by Ogan 7 years ago
Ogan
We only hate what we fear, and fear what we hate. Laws are no substitute for Love. The more laws there are the more robbers will abound. Error is not evil, its a learning process. As fear emanates from hate, so does Courage emanate from Love. No Love, then no Courage. No hate. then no fear. I agree with Laissez Faire regarding freedom, even though he may be in error in certain areas of his life - just like the rest of us. There is a definite difference between harming yourself and harming others who did not request it. Yes, illegal to shoot someone, but why should it be illegal for me to eat certain plants or smoke them when its my free choice, however stupid, and in any case its no one else's business. When you make it your business by legislation you invite crime and place an extra burden upon the police and also a heavier burden upon the tax payer.
Its the same with good. If it was thought by the establishment that something was good for us, should it then prohibit individuals from NOT doing it on a regular basis? Education is one good point. But force feeding individuals with certain plants deemed to be good for us - whether they like them or not - would be ludicrous. Conversely, making the the same plant illegal because it is deemed bad for us is just as ludicrous, and leads to far more trouble than it is attempting to eradicate - BECAUSE IT CREATES IT!
I know my subject. Seeking 'enlightenment' in my youth, I smoked pot regularly and experimented on many other mind altering drugs, and came to me to the following simple conclusions.
a) Drugs steal our vital energy
b) Drugs injure the mind
c) Great insights were gained with some of them - but through a distorted glass only
d) Great insights gained were eradicated from the memory as the drug wore off
Therefore, I now seek to crystalize Great insights, or Foresight into a clear Intellect - which intellect is merely the receiving agent called hindsight - yet how very proud is hindsight!
Posted by LaissezFaire 7 years ago
LaissezFaire
It doesn't matter whether or not pot smoking is good or bad. It should be legal anyway, if we want to live in a free society. Without the freedom to make bad choices, there is no freedom.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Basic question: What wisdom is there in smoking pot to get high? If there is none, how can my argument be wrong. If one was going to be intellectually honest, an advocate of pot smoking would agree that smoking pot is bad but the negative consequences of doing so are a chances they are willing to take. I took those chances and paid the price. Some will suffer no consequences some will suffer dearly.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
I-am-a-pandawushTied
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:31 
Vote Placed by System113 6 years ago
System113
I-am-a-pandawushTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
I-am-a-pandawushTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by debatefreak22 6 years ago
debatefreak22
I-am-a-pandawushTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by pandatheamanda 6 years ago
pandatheamanda
I-am-a-pandawushTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by hogan2993 6 years ago
hogan2993
I-am-a-pandawushTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by jgkobza 7 years ago
jgkobza
I-am-a-pandawushTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by nonentity 7 years ago
nonentity
I-am-a-pandawushTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I-am-a-pandawushTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by zach12 7 years ago
zach12
I-am-a-pandawushTied
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:30