I would like to thank my opponent for raising this very interesting and controversial subject. On a personal note, I want to mention that I am a religious Christian and I strongly don't support marijuana consumption in principal. But as an avid supporter for the separation of Church and State, I believe that it should be legalized. I look forward for an exciting debate.
To continue my stance,
The rate of use has gone up in Colorado since its legalization.
Also, as far as religious oppression of Rastafarians goes, there is already a court precedent that would prevent outlawing marijuana use to be considered as religious infringement. As long as the law applies to everyone, it is legal to ban the use of marijuana. In Employment Division v. Smith (1990) it was ruled by the US Supreme Court that because Oregon's drug laws applied to everyone, they were acceptable; which applies to all state drug laws.
Also, the legalization would be a significant economic opportunity for drug dealers. As possession would not be illegal, it would be more convenient to purchase marijuana from a drug dealer untaxed than it would be to buy it for extra at the store. To continue that thought, the easy access given by the state would make it easier for it to get into the hands of minors.
Lastly, the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal shouldn't determine whether marijuana should be. I do not deny that alcohol and tobacco can be harmful, but releasing another harmful substance to the public will in no way change that nor have a positive effect. It is simply adding another harmful substance into the mix. Marijuana is more intoxicating than alcohol and tobacco. Upon having a drink, the vast majority of humans will be under the legal limit and be able to drive. Upon "smoking a bowl" of marijuana, one will be intoxicated, or "high". Tobacco does not have intoxicating factors like alcohol or marijuana. It does not take a single drink to get drunk, yet it takes one joint or bowl to get high. Giving the public access to this would increase the number of intoxicated drivers because it is adding another variable to the equation. For example, if X is drinkers and Y is intoxicated drivers, we have X=Y. If we legalize marijuana, then we would have X Z=Y. It would be dangerous and unfair to the American people to legalize marijuana.
I want to thank my opponent for his rebuttal.
In my opening argument, I've highlighted at least six reasons to contend that marijuana should be legalized.
1. Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco
My opponent didn't disagree that alcohol or tobacco can be harmful (in fact more harmful that marijuana), but he claims that we shouldn't be "releasing another harmful substance to the public". The point that I was making is to argue that just because something is unhealthy or harmful, this isn't sufficient justification to make it illegal. Yet, health reasons were the main reasons he used in his opening argument to justify prohibiting it. My opponent has to demonstrate that marijuana is very dangerous and very addicting to warrant prohibiting it. Marijuana fits neither of those claims.
My opponent also claimed that driving under the influence of marijuana is more dangerous. This argument is similar to saying that people shouldn't drink altogether because they can end up driving under the influence… or people should be banned from texting altogether because they could potentially text and drive… I don't disagree that driving while being "high" is a crime, but that doesn't justify banning marijuana altogether. The only way this claim would be reasonable if you can show that the marijuana causes people to drive! I think you can agree that this is unreasonable.
2. Prohibition ruins innocent lives unnecessarily
My opponent didn't argue my claim. This is a significant point that shouldn't be ignored.
3. Prohibition wastes a staggering amount of resources and tax payers' money
My opponent again didn't argue my claim. I ask the reader to consider if the blunder of all this money is worth it.
4. Prohibition doesn't help reduce use
My opponent argued that the rate of use has gone up. The good news is that the trend has gone down among teens . Even if my opponent was able to refute this argument, he has to justify that the increase is so significant that it warrants banning marijuana altogether.
Since you mentioned Colorado, let's see what happened in Colorado since legalizations: 
5. Legalizing marijuana would cut cartel profits
My opponent argued that legalization "would be a significant economic opportunity for drug dealers". I've provided evidence to the contrary. I challenge my opponent to provide any evidence for his claim.
6. Prohibition infringes on the religious freedom of Rastafaris
My opponent stated that "there is already a court precedent that would prevent outlawing marijuana use to be considered as religious infringement". While the source he mentioned refers to peyote, not marijuana, that doesn't change the fact that certain religions are being oppressed. So the question I ask my opponent would be "Is it all worth it?"
I concede that Prohibition needs reform, but legalizing marijuana is not justified. A first time or even second time offender shouldn't receive jail time for simple possession, they should receive a fine and it should go on their record. If the fine is high yet not too high that people won't be able to pay, that would be reasonable and a money earning alternative to jail time. To say it "ruins innocent lives unnecessarily" however is an exagerration of its current reality. It is known that marijuana is illegal and by choosing not to follow a law is on them, tainting their innocence. A person who willingly commits a crime is not innocent.
Prohibition should be reformed so that it doesn't waste taxpayer money. It is increasingly difficult to pay for all of the US' incarcerated citizens. This is why we should impose a high fine for those caught with possession so they are giving money into the system while not going to jail.
Prohibition has not reduced use and I provided evidence which I will include again to show the increase. My opponent states that the use among teens has gone down which is true, yet still gave misleading information in his previous argument. The use has gone up. My opponent requested that I justify that the increase is so large that it warrants prohibition which seems odd. If the use were so large, it would be legal everywhere already. It is too dangerous to society to legalize it and the increased amount of users is contributing to that.
Marijuana legalization would actually affect cartels more than you think. Though many say it takes the market away, it opens up more. 
"DEA spokesman Lawrence Payne told NPR last year that 'Sinaloa operatives in the United States are reportedly buying high-potency American marijuana in Colorado and smuggling it back into Mexico for sale to high-paying customers.'"
Sinaloa is a region in Mexico infamous for cartel activity.
"'Between 2013 and 2014, U.S. Customs and Border Protection saw an increase in seizures of heroin, up 5.2 percent, and methamphetamine, up 9.8 percent,' U.S. Customs and Border Protection media spokesman Carlos Lazo told Fusion."
"Cartels have a competitive advantage. They specialize in violence, and they will not hesitate to use it in order to enforce their product above better quality and other factors."- Javier Osorio
Cartels might not simply give up. You may want to look up their history before claiming that legalizing marijuana will stop the violence.
"The 2014 UN World Drug Reportfound a "large increase" in the number of methamphetamine laboratories seized in Mexico and the United States."
Even if business hits a rough patch, cartels are diversifying the drugs they produce and export to the US because like you and I, they are aware that marijuana legalization has taken place in a couple states and possibly will in a couple more. The cartels have been directly linked to violence and drug use along the US border. They are a severely violent criminal organization which will not simply stop because the US wants to take their business away. Even if their marijuana profits go down, they still make it cheaper and produce numerous other drugs on top of that that they will push.
The decision was not based on an explicitly stated peyote law. The decision determined that if drug laws apply to everyone and do not single out a religous group then they are permissible laws and should be enforced. My opponent argues that this is religious infringement, even though no religuous group is mentioned in the law, but he must also keep in mind that animal cruelty laws may include sacrifices. Isn't that religious infringment as well?
I want to thank my opponent for a good discussion and a good debate.
|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||3|