The Instigator
FREEDO
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
1stLordofTheVenerability
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

Marijuana Legalization

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 12 votes the winner is...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,164 times Debate No: 12021
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (12)

 

FREEDO

Pro

This debate will be on whether the legalization of marijuana (also known as pot, weed and cannabis) for consenting adults would be over-all more beneficial to society than other-wise having it illegal.

I will be arguing the pro side while my opponent will be arguing against it. Debating will begin without hesitation. I thank my opponent for agreeing to this debate.

===ARGUMENTS===

1.

Use is not as bad a thing as you may think:

Alcohol and tobacco are both more addictive and detrimental to one's health than pot. Yet they are legal.

There is no record of anyone ever over-dosing on marijuana.

It creates a state of relaxation for the user and has many legitimate medical uses.

It doesn't have to be smoked, it can be inhaled from a pot-vaporizer or spread as a lotion on the skin, thus causing no harm to the lungs.

Many medical professionals agree that pot causing death of brain-cells is just a myth. A good example of this is famous astronomer and intellectual Carl Sagan who reported that he smokes pot every day. Other large and successful figures who have smoked pot include many of the founding fathers, Barrack Obama, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Paul McCartney.

There has actually been surprising research into the beneficial effects of marijuana like it's ability at disrupting the abnormal clumping of malformed proteins in the brain which has been used for the prevention of Alzheimer's and treat Seizures. [1]

It is true that there is notable debate in the medical community on whether there is any harm in it or not but there is absolutely no confusion on the fact that it is definitely better for you than either tobacco or Alcohol and not nearly as addictive.

If you are going to be against pot you must also have the intellectual honesty to extend your logic to it's rational ends so to also be a prohibitionist to tobacco and alcohol.

It is widely known that tobacco smoke greatly increases risk of lung cancer and similar diseases but there is no evidence to support that is the same case with those who smoke pot. Studies have actually shown there is no increase of risk for such things in pot-smokers as opposed to the general population. [2]

People have claimed that pot makes you lazy. This is obviously not a lingering effect. It is only the relaxation felt during the time of high. Should we ban video games? Vacations? Follow your logic to it's own ends.

2.

Legalizing marijuana would lower the rate of violent crime dramatically:

It is called the black-market effect; whenever you ban something which has a high consumer demand, such as guns or many drugs, the product will not simply disappear but will be moved to the black-market where it will be used as revenue for fueling other criminal activity, most notably the amount of violence. It is no little known fact that the main driving force behind violent gangs is the profit they bring in from illegal drugs.

3.

It would free-up the jails:

The American prison system is currently busting at the seems with inmates. We are loosing room, things are becoming very inefficient and hard to maintain. Why? Because currently between 60 and 70% of inmates are behind bars for drug possession. [3]

Just within year 2000 over 2,000,000 people had been incarcerated for drug possession. [3]

If marijuana was legalized it would solve a huge amount of tension in this growing prison problem.

4.

It will help fix the budget problem:

It costs over 7,000,000,000 dollars annually to fund marijuana prohibition in the United States.[3]

We just don't have the resources to be spending that kind of money right now especially on such a confounded, unjust and pointless cause.

Instead of spending money on marijuana we could actually be making money off of it. Marijuana is currently the single largest cash-crop in America. Even larger than corn. [4, 5] Imagine what could be generated from letting the industry be and taxing it. Legalizing and taxing pot would be one huge and welcomed step towards fixing the budget crisis.

5.

It will directly aid the economy:

Legalizing pot means many more jobs, much more business, much more tax revenue, much less spent on oppressing it and many very happy costumers. You'd have to be out of your mind to be against it!

====

I could go on and on about what the benefits of legalizing pot would have on society above any comprehensible ill effects it could possibly have.

But I'll save a little for later and give my opponent a chance.

Con now has the floor.

===SOURCES===

[1]http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com...

[2]http://www.foxnews.com...

[3] http://www.changetheclimate.org...

[4]http://www.drugscience.org...

[5]http://abcnews.go.com...
1stLordofTheVenerability

Con

Greetings! Have fun, good luck!

There are a variety of reasons to keep cannabis at its illegal status; both moral and practical reasons. I am going to argue them as the 'contender' in this debate.

In this round, I shall outline the basics of my offense.

Also, I ask that readers not be biased toward the subject if they vote. I realize that there are a great many of you out there whom merely wish that marijuana is legal just so that one could smoke it and receive a 'buzz' (also, the people supporting my side are likely outnumbered). Hence, if you don't vote on the merits of debate but rather on your personal favourite, I ask that you don't vote at all.

1. My opponent argues that alcohol and tobacco are more addictive than cannabis. This is obviously a folly. "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." *

"Laboratory studies have shown that animals exhibit symptoms of drug withdrawal after cessation of prolonged marijuana administration. Some human studies have also demonstrated withdrawal symptoms such as irritability, stomach pain, aggression, and anxiety after cessation of oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana's principal psychoactive component. Now, NIDA-supported researchers at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, and Columbia University in New York City have shown that individuals who regularly smoke marijuana experience withdrawal symptoms after they stop smoking the drug." **

"These "burned-out" users are sometimes so unaware of their surroundings that they do not respond when friends speak to them, and they do not realize they have a problem." **

Now, alcohol and tobacco are obviously addictive; this is true. Due to the fact that tobacco was legalized over two hundred years ago, it is well implanted into society. It is legal and it is commonly utilized, even though the carcinogens do cause cancer. However, do cigarette smokers experience 'burnout'? Do they experience the kind of withdrawal that the medical professors discuss with marijuana? Does smoking cause inattention and consume life? No! Alcohol can consume and mould the life of a person. It has even caused suicide. Yet, this is most often in the case of those whom abuse it. In countries where fresh water is scarce, a diluted beer is/was served to children in moderation. "This was known as 'small beer' and was drunk instead of water which, unboiled, was prone to carrying disease." *** (Intoxication was viewed as a 'sin'). Beer is/was, in moderation, a generally harmless substance that does not necessarily cause intoxication (until the limit is surpassed) or addiction. In Germany it is stated that a person can drink four pints and the effects hardly can be seen, unlike the American metabolism where one pint becomes clearly visible. "Germans are able to consume large quantities of beer in one evening, but public drunkenness is not acceptable.... in Bavaria two liters of beer is an ordinary evening." **** There is no such thing as moderation with marijuana. One marijuana smoke, and the buzz caused by THC is present - the harmful effects penetrate immediately and at a far more accelerated rate than cigarettes. "Scientists believe that marijuana can be especially harmful to the lungs because users often inhale the unfiltered smoke deeply and hold it in their lungs as long as possible. Therefore, the smoke is in contact with lung tissues for long periods of time, which irritates the lungs and damages the way they work."

Hence, I've proved that alcohol and tobacco, though addictive, are not "MORE addictive and detrimental to one's health" **

Also, my opponent is absurd in his claim that the founding fathers actually smoked marijuana. There is no indication whatsoever that any of them did so. It is true that George Washington and grew Hemp on their farms, as they lived in Virginia. But hemp was, at the time, utilized for a variety of practical purposes (such as weaving strong rope and ship sails - and paper) - none of them was smoking or swallowing it. Benjamin Franklin constructed the first American paper mill - the paper made of hemp. There is NO PROOF whatsoever for the ludicrous claim that the 'founding fathers' smoked anything other than tobacco. They had full possession of their faculties. I will negate the proclamation that " Many medical professionals agree that pot causing death of brain-cells is just a myth."

My opponent reasons that marijuana would lower the rate of violent crime. He rules that the drug war would decline. This is obviously untrue. The drug war is being fought between criminal cartels and the Government/s. IF the Government/s legalize marijuana, they lose the power to fight the cartels and arrest serious offenders who are clever at hiding their various other crimes (murder, sex slavery, human trafficking and other drug trading among them). Yet the current cartels will just gain more power and continue fighting with eachother. furthermore, with no Government opposition, they could reign with unopposed terror in countries such as Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras and Afghanistan. Many governments are able to pin crime lords with petty theft and marijuana possession and trafficking. While these are small crimes, at least the crime lord is knocked out of commission temporarily and time gained to consolidate a better case against the criminal. Would you appreciate Mafia and Hells Angels gaining a monopoly on marijuana? More people would die than ever.

Also:

1. Marijuana is a 'stepping stone' drug. Once the effects of people whom have become addicted to marijuana wear off (which, incidentally, marijuana, since it's 'harmless' would probably have become an experiment - similar to cough medicine), people will then believe that they hadn't come to harm with marijuana and then "Experiment" on a dangerous drug - meth, cocaine, heroin or even LSD.

2. Driving drugged would become just an active threat as alcoholic driving, but worse.

3. Many religions and moral codes prohibit the use of intoxicating substances. Marijuana is generally considered to fit into this category.

4. Legalization does increase the chance of marijuana being utilized by children. think about it; adults can gain it cheaply and easily. Hence the consumers turn and become retailers, not caring about their market. Or parents give it to children once they become stoned and listless on the couch, unaware of the world.

5. As aforementioned, major criminals are sometimes only initially pegged by marijuana use.

6. "Although some studies have been disputed, marijuana abuse has been tied to brain damage, cancer, lung damage, depression, amotivational syndrome, and even death. The brain damage has been shown to cause memory loss and difficulty in problem solving. It is the governments duty to protect the public from such dangerous drugs. After all, that's why the FDA was created."

7. Secondhand smoke.

8. THC is detrimental to the body and filled with carcinogens and other cancer causing substances. Furthermore, marijuana is crude and the amount of THC varies - a person who smokes a weak cigarette will not be affected as much as one who smokes one filled with THC - thus being 'stoned' and listless for veritable hours.

9. MArijuana can be laced with Angel Dust - a potent and highly dangerous substance.

* http://www.well.com...

** http://www.narconon.ca...

*** http://en.wikipedia.org...

**** http://www.cyborlink.com...

***** http://www.balancedpolitics.org...
Debate Round No. 1
FREEDO

Pro

1.

More addressing why pot is not as bad as tobacco or alcohol:

You can clearly see here on this graph the level of dependence and physical harm of certain drugs, pot ranks as one of the best:

[I will attempt to provide the link in the comments section, for some reason it isn't working here]

Cannabis is ranked one of the least harmful drugs by the UK medical journal, The Lancet.

The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is one of the world's best known, oldest, and most respected general medical journals. [1]

Marijuana is by far a better choice than tobacco or alcohol.

2.

On my assertion that the founding fathers smoked pot:

" President George Washington wrote a letter that contained an oblique reference to what may have been hashish. "The artificial preparation of hemp, from Silesia, is really a curiosity." Washington made specific written references to Indian hemp, or cannabis indica, and hoped to "have disseminated the seed to others. " His August 7, 1765 diary entry, "began to separate the male from the female (hemp) plants," describes a harvesting technique favored to enhance the potency of smoking cannabis. Hemp farmer Thomas Jefferson and paper maker Ben Franklin were ambassadors to France during the initial surge of the hashish vogue. Their celebrity status and progressive revolutionary image afforded them ample opportunities to try new experiences. "

" Did the Founding Fathers of the United States of America smoke cannabis? Some researchers think so. Dr. Burke, president of the American Historical Reference Society and a consultant for the Smithsonian Institute, counted seven early presidents as cannabis smokers: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce. "Early letters from our founding fathers refer to the pleasures of hemp smoking," said Burke. Pierce, Taylor and Jackson, all military men, smoked it with their troops. Cannabis was twice as popular among American soldiers in the Mexican War as in Vietnam: Pierce wrote to his family that it was "about the only good thing" about that war." [2]

3.

More on the effect to crime rates from legalization:

Con completely failed to see how the process works.

He stated that if pot was legalized the cartels would go unchallenged. This is rubbish.

The very reason the cartels have such control over pot is because it's illegal.

The pressure from the government forces the industry to move from the hands of normal law-abiding citizens into the black-market where it becomes a fuel for other criminal activity.

No wonder why cops say legalize it. [see first two videos]

4.

Economics:

I would argue that this is much more an economic issue than a social one.

Con completely failed to address what I had to say about that.

The truth is we just can't afford the war on drugs.

The spending of money, which we don't have, to suppress the use of this substance that shouldn't be suppressed in the first place is insanity when we could actually be creating wealth from it's legalization.

5.

Morality:

"Many religions and moral codes prohibit the use of intoxicating substances. Marijuana is generally considered to fit into this category."

You've got to be kidding me. If your justification of such massive government initiated force is religious than that, my friend, is the very definition of theocracy.

The bottom-line; governments should not and can not force us to be moral people. The detachment of the American people from this sentiment is precisely why America, the land of the free, no longer exists.

What's next? Force everyone go on a diet? Force them to exercise? Force them to use their please and thank yous?

Let people be. It's none of your business.

6.

Quotes:

Just thought it would be interesting to throw these quotes of famous individuals about pot in with all this:

"Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica."
- Abraham Lincoln

"Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere."
- George Washington

"We shall, by and by, want a world of hemp more for our own consumption."
- John Adams

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."
- Albert Einstein

"Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could."
- William F. Buckley

"When a private enterprise fails, it is closed down; when a government enterprise fails, it is expanded. Isn't that exactly what's been happening with drugs?"
- Milton Friedman

The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world."
- Carl Sagan

"Why use up the forests which were centuries in the making and the mines which required ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forest and mineral products in the annual growth of the hemp fields?"
- Henry Ford

7.

History:

Pot is stooped in a rich heritage and has made a defining and positive mark on history.

[See last two videos for history of marijuana]

===SOURCES===

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2]http://www.marijuanalibrary.org...
1stLordofTheVenerability

Con

I can see that before we continue we are going to have to define "Drugs".

There are four scientific divisions: Narcotics, hallucinogens, stimulants and depressants. There are two modes of dependencies - psychoactive drugs and physical dependency drugs (many are both).

Marijuana is officially classed as a "Psychoactive hallucinogen," though Wiki proclaims, "...cannabis exhibits a mix of all properties."

Alcohol, on the other hand, does not fall under any of these classifications because it is NOT a drug. Tobacco also is NOT a drug. Hence, neither of these can be compared to marijuana because they do not apply. Hence, it is ludicrous to compare the two, since one is basically comparing a potent substance of a different class to both alcohol and tobacco (I am referring to tobacco in the essence, without nicotine or other additives).

Does either alcohol or tobacco cause hallucinations? Of course not! Though an abuse of alcohol will alter brain functions, one will never hallucinate - though an image will become distorted. It would be most accurate to compare Opium to marijuana. Opium has been utilized longer and more frequently than marijuana - it was even children's medication under labels such as, "Mother's Helper" in the 1800s. When comparing, opium is found to be a less harmful substance - why not legalize opium and maintain marijuana at its illegal status? Because everybody wants marijuana. Why does everybody want marijuana? they want to feel only the unsteadiness and hallucinations of marijuana - because they're addicted.

Why do people want to legalize it? To become high. Why do they want to become high? Because they're addicted. Why not choose something legal? Because only marijuana can satisfy the addiction. What happens when marijuana does not entice any longer? Move onto meth or cocaine.

Let us ask one more question - Will legalizing marijuana better or benefit society as a whole? The only possible debate is that it will eliminate one small segment of the drug war (but not the rest of it). And I've already given reasonable debate that the drug wars will not cease but rather increase. Does marijuana benefit any healthy individual? No!

One other point: note the two images at the beginning of the videos in the "history of weed". Do either of those two look like productive citizens? No, they both look like they're mentally dead, as does the woman in the first video who adamantly advocates marijuana (Looks like she's an abuser). The guy in history video one is obese, shaggy and high -likely also a vagrant. That is an accurate description of many marijuana abusers.

I have been reading extensively about child soldiers, and there are two substances that are integral to the effectiveness of these children - marijuana and "Brown Brown". Once the children are dulled to the reality and pain, they become ruthless soldiers. But worse, when they are being rehabilitated, they endure tense withdrawal - they crave marijuana and will desperately attempt anything for a smoke - even rolling regular paper and imagining it, "I craved marijuana so badly that I would roll a plain sheet of paper and smoke it." (Beah, 139)

Furthermore, it is ludicrous that any correlation be drawn between hemp farms and the practical reasons hemp is used for and smoking the harmful substance. Yes, Virginia etc etc etc. authorized hemp farms, but hemp has had and still does have dozens of practical uses that are not related to smoking whatsoever. In World War II, hemp was utilized for equipment and rope - it made camouflaged gear quite easily.

Also, it is absurd to state, "So and so used it, so it must be okay." This is a folly that everybody should realize. This does not mean that marijuana does not have potent negative affects. Mark McGuire and Jose Canceco utilized steroids. does that make steroids acceptable and legal? Stephen King sniffed cocaine, Dr. Timothy Leary risked LSD. I suppose we should be legalizing the psychedelic mushrooms, then, eh?

Dr. Burke can proclaim that he suspects George Washington, Andrew Jackson or President Reagan were users, but nowhere is there definitive proof of any of these people doing so. George Washington is primarily speculative - gained by two tidbits of information drudged up by hopefuls in an effort to advocate legalization. All of these are allegations are merely theories and hopes unless an account has been drudged up. Lincoln and Adam were definitely two who smoked "Sweet hemp", in their pipe, which would also mean that the amount of THC would be about 60% less than it is now. Furthermore, supposing that Washington and several of his other colleagues did smoke hemp on a regular basis (I am firmly convinced that he, Jefferson, Jackson and Madison, at least, did not. Or, if they did it was for "medicinal purposes". Washington complained of back pains and marijuana is likely to numb the feeling.), is it not wondrous that the other 31 did not compromise their morals and smoke hemp at all in their livelihoods?

My opponent fails to assert why the cartels' expansion would be 'rubbish'. Do any of you actually believe that the cartels are going to give up the trade if it is legalized? Of course not! Chances are that they will forcibly assault or threaten legal dealers in order to maintain a monopoly. They would not allow "Regulated" marijuana to consume their market. This is a preposterous assertion. Rather, the cartels will just expand their war to include government dealers and legislators. Or, of course, the "regulation" will soon become corrupt as the Government agencies are infiltrated and "Legal" marijuana funnelled into black market sources.

"The spending of money, which we don't have, to suppress the use of this substance that shouldn't be suppressed in the first place is insanity when we could actually be creating wealth from it's legalization."

My opponent is hereby suggesting that we compromise our morals and create vast amounts of revenue by ruining lives. How many people will thence be applying for welfare, as they can't motivate themselves to work. How many people will be clogging the hospitals and clinics with the problems that marijuana will cause? How much harm will it do economically when quality decreases because nobody cares due to the fact that they're all "Stoned"? Furthermore, how many innocent or impressionable people will be purchasing this? How many families and relationships will be ruined? Alcohol already devastates families - lets not let marijuana do the same. Armies will easily gain marijuana and will brutally shoot civilians due to the fact that they know no morals while they're drugged. Child soldiers will be employed evermore because the marijuana supply to sustain them will be easier. Would you personally like to "aid the economy" by selling marijuana to a rebel group in Uganda?

The Government already forces us to adhere to moral behaviour and decency. It is due to the proven fact that if people are left to their own devices, anarchy rules, murder and crime prevail. This is proven. Hence we need laws to remain a civilized society. These laws dictate careful behaviour, drug limitations, legal and illegal activities etc. In fact, the law is even beginning to interfere regarding obesity and health relevance due to the fact that people are too lazy to monitor themselves and their families - or care. The Government forces such proclamations such as "Peanuts added" into peanut butter jars, or "Hot" onto coffee cups because people find loopholes in the law and exploit it. Marijuana infringes the law and morality, and it is up to the government to prevent people from causing more harm to themselves, as they are too irresponsible or addicted to do it themselves.

* http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier" by Ishmael Beah.

http://www.cbc.ca...
Debate Round No. 2
FREEDO

Pro

"Alcohol, on the other hand, does not fall under any of these classifications because it is NOT a drug."

This is irrelevant. One could make the same kind of arguments you're using against pot here in support of banning junk food or other unhealthy behavior. This is not a debate about drug legalization but specifically marijuana legalization.

"Tobacco also is NOT a drug."

Nicotine is. But it doesn't really matter.

"Hence, neither of these can be compared to marijuana because they do not apply."

They absolutely apply. We are talking about the prohibition of a substance.

"Hence, it is ludicrous to compare the two, since one is basically comparing a potent substance of a different class to both alcohol and tobacco."

All the facts point to the conclusion that tobacco and alcohol are both much more "potent" than pot.

"When comparing, opium is found to be a less harmful substance - why not legalize opium and maintain marijuana at its illegal status? Because everybody wants marijuana. Why does everybody want marijuana? they want to feel only the unsteadiness and hallucinations of marijuana - because they're addicted."

Besides those statements being presented entirely baseless, they aren't even relevant to the debate. To say that people are addicted to something or not(pot having very low dependency by the way) says nothing about whether it is right to outlaw it or not. Should we ban anything at the slightest whiff of someone being dependent on it? Not only is that wrong and purely authoritarian in nature but it makes the problem worse by having that person simply buy it from the black-market instead, thus fueling violence.

"Why do they want to become high? Because they're addicted."

That simply does not follow.

"Why not choose something legal?"

Gee, maybe because it has the best average between safety, effect and price by discretion of the consumer.

"What happens when marijuana does not entice any longer? Move onto meth or cocaine."

You post an argument without backing it up with any facts; your argument is dismissed.

"The only possible debate is that it will eliminate one small segment of the drug war (but not the rest of it)."

Are you kidding me? What part of pot being the #1 crop in America don't you understand. The drug war is so primarily a war on pot that it can almost exclusively be called such.

"And I've already given reasonable debate that the drug wars will not cease but rather increase."

I must have lost consciousness while viewing that part of your post.

"Does marijuana benefit any healthy individual? No!"

You clearly didn't think through that statement very well. Besides the obvious medical purposes, it is also a means of generating income through business. Many families actually survive off of the income they generate from selling pot, but that's very hard to do with the government breathing down their neck.

"One other point: note the two images at the beginning of the videos in the "history of weed". Do either of those two look like productive citizens? No, they both look like they're mentally dead, as does the woman in the first video who adamantly advocates marijuana (Looks like she's an abuser). The guy in history video one is obese, shaggy and high -likely also a vagrant. That is an accurate description of many marijuana abusers."

Seeing as I have points to make from having good conduct, I need to refrain from insults so I will simply say that that may be one of the most unintelligent sentiments I've ever seen in these debates on debate.org. But the voter will be the judge.

"the other 31 did not compromise their morals and smoke hemp at all in their livelihoods?"

Smoking pot is not immoral. If it is than you have the burden to provide why.

"Do any of you actually believe that the cartels are going to give up the trade if it is legalized? Of course not!"

You don't know economics. Outlawing pot doesn't get rid of pot, it is simply forcing it into the hands of the cartels. The government is basically granting them a monopoly on the product with no competition from the legitimate business world.

"They would not allow "Regulated" marijuana to consume their market."

If pot is legalized the cartels would no longer have exclusive power over it. It would be apart of the public domain and under control by the markets and public will.

"Rather, the cartels will just expand their war to include government dealers and legislators. Or, of course, the "regulation" will soon become corrupt as the Government agencies are infiltrated and "Legal" marijuana funnelled into black market sources."

When did I ever say that the pot was issued by the government? No, I'm suggesting it be moved into the free private sector to be utilized by business owners but having some public over-sight.

"My opponent is hereby suggesting that we compromise our morals and create vast amounts of revenue by ruining lives."

You have the burden of proof, sir.

"How much harm will it do economically when quality decreases because nobody cares due to the fact that they're all "Stoned"?"

You think everyone is going to be a stoner just because pot gets legalized? Pot is legal in Amsterdam, Netherlands yet about 20% less people in the Netherlands have smoked pot than in the US.[see video]

"Armies will easily gain marijuana and will brutally shoot civilians due to the fact that they know no morals while they're drugged."

Oh please. The effects of smoking pot make you much more inclined to being peaceful, passive, empathetic, relaxed and friendly with others than otherwise; this is common knowledge, ask anyone who uses it, seriously.

"The Government already forces us to adhere to moral behaviour and decency. It is due to the proven fact that if people are left to their own devices, anarchy rules, murder and crime prevail. This is proven."

Haha, I'm not even going to go there right now. But you do know I'm an Anarchist?

"In fact, the law is even beginning to interfere regarding obesity and health relevance due to the fact that people are too lazy to monitor themselves and their families - or care."

That is regulation, not prohibition. To outlaw junk food would cause a huge problem. Just like the huge drug-war problem.

"and it is up to the government to prevent people from causing more harm to themselves"

It most certainly is not. Who are you to tell me what I do with my body?

=== ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT===

Isn't it a wonder that the great majority of debates done on this subject is a win for my side? Seen here:

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

===Notes===

.This was all my own research, I did not copypasta from other debates.

.I personally do not smoke pot nor have taken any intoxicating drugs.

.This has been a wonderful debate. I thank my opponent for his time.
1stLordofTheVenerability

Con

I noted that nicotine is a drug in Round 2. Readers can affirm. Furthermore, the "facts" drudged up by my opponent regarding addictiveness vs tobacco cigarettes are flimsy or biased, as I have demonstrated previously. Marijuana abusers require rehabilitation; nicotine abusers only require the general deprivation of nicotine from the body.

I will quickly take a moment to review:

"It is widely known that tobacco smoke greatly increases risk of lung cancer and similar diseases but there is no evidence to support that is the same case with those who smoke pot. Studies have actually shown there is no increase of risk for such things in pot-smokers as opposed to the general population." [2]

False. Research demonstrates that marijuana smoke contains more tar and more carcinogens and other cancer-causing chemicals than tobacco smoke. THC damages the heart and lungs. There are over four hundred chemicals to harm the body in marijuana. (1,2,3). "For example, the BLF's review of previous research highlights that just three marijuana joints a day causes the same damage to the lung's airways as 20 cigarettes, mainly because of the way joints are smoked." [2] As aforementioned, marijuana smokers inhale deeply and hold the chemicals in their lungs for extended periods of time. "To get the maximum effect, people who smoke marijuana often inhale more deeply and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers do. This increases the risk of cancer." [1] Also, THC lingers in the body for weeks, causing structural damage, "If you smoke marijuana, the effects last for several hours. But the THC (the main active ingredient) is stored in your fat cells and can stay in your body for days or weeks!" [1] Furthermore, my opponent's round 1 proclamation regarding the various ways of applying marijuana is irrelevant; most addicts prefer smoking for faster and more potent affects. Once marijuana is legalized, it will stay legalized and smoking will be irrelevant.

Other harmful effects:

(Addiction): "Can you get addicted to marijuana?
Yes, you can. Some people have a hard time quitting and have to find treatment." [1]
"Marijuana is one of the most difficult drugs to give up." [4]

Health:
"Smoking marijuana irritates your lungs and has been linked to chronic cough and bronchitis. It may also make asthma worse." [1]

"Large doses of marijuana can lead to "toxic psychosis." This can cause people to hallucinate (see or hear things that aren't really there), become paranoid (feel like people are out to get them) and believe things that aren't true. These symptoms usually disappear within a week after the person stops using marijuana." [1]

" Marijuana affects your co-ordination and makes it harder to concentrate and react. This makes it dangerous to do things like ride a bicycle, drive a car or operate machinery." [1]

"Marijuana users are 4 times more likely to develop depression." [4]

"Marijuana almost triples the chance of developing psychotic symptoms. " [4]

"There is a strong link between drug use and unsafe sex and the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS." [5]

"marijuana may cause the acceleration or aggravation of the very disorders it is being used to treat." [6]

"...damage the cells in the bronchial passages which protect the body against inhaled micro-organisms and decrease the ability of the immune cells in the lungs to fight off fungi, bacteria, and tumor cells." [6]

" The main respiratory consequences of smoking marijuana regularly (one joint a day) are pulmonary infections and respiratory cancer." [6]

"marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia." [6]

It also negatively affects the heart and its beating rate.

Next, let's utilize some facts, "Almost half (44%) of Canadians say they have used marijuana at least once in their lifetime. In 2005, just over one-quarter (26.5%) of Ontario students (grades 7–12) said they had used marijuana in the past year, and one-third (31%) reported trying it at least once in their lifetime. Three per cent of Grade 7 students have tried marijuana in the past year. By the time they have reached Grade 12, nearly half (46%) of Ontario students have used marijuana in the past year. About one in eight students (12%) who use marijuana use it every day. This is about three per cent of all grade 7 to 12 students in Ontario (about 33,200 students)." [1] This is most alarming, and at a time when marijuana is illegal. Imagine how easily children will access marijuana if it is legal? And twelve percent of students are addicted in Canada!

Now my opponent chose to use Amsterdam as an example of "Free drugs!" hip hip hoorah and we're still living. The real truth about Amsterdam and the Netherlands is that retailing marijuana in anything but a "coffee shop" is illegal. Furthermore, "Buying drugs on the street is about the biggest tourist trap in Amsterdam... From the first step out of the central station you will be offered drugs. Most of the time these offers will be in the form of a sort of whisper as you walk by a street dealer. They will say under their breath, "ecstasy - cocaine." Simply keep walking or shake you head from side to side... the stuff you get offered can contain anything from vitamin C to washing powder or rat poison. Also often the customer gets robbed or harassed. Again, don't buy drugs on the streets, there are other places where it's safer to buy." (8)

"In the Netherlands 9.7% of young adults (aged 15–24) consume soft drugs once a month." (7) This indicates that the Netherlands is not successful in keeping marijuana from the hands of the young or the criminals. We will be no more successful, and it would be follysome to assume so.
"Criminal investigations into more serious forms of organized crime mainly involve drugs (72%). Most of these are investigations of hard drug crime (specifically cocaine and synthetic drugs) although the number of soft drug cases is rising and currently accounts for 69% of criminal investigations." [7] Once again, even though there are legal vendors, The Netherlands experiences a great deal of crime revolving drugs - the criminals won't let it go.

"You post an argument without backing it up with any facts; your argument is dismissed."

I've already indicated that marijuana is a "stepping stone drug". (9,10)

My opponent proclaims that I'm jesting about my assertions on the drug war. Obviously he doesn't have a definitive grasp on the issue. Poppy fields are the prime export of Afghanistan. Remind me what poppy seeds are used for, will you readers? Remind me about the Heroin abundance in Columbia and Guatemala supplying nearly 75% of the USA's cocaine. (11)

My opponent asserts, "Obvious medical purposes" of which there aren't any that don't involve trivial symptoms.

Disclaimer: I was insulting nobody. Thanks

1. http://www.camh.net...
2. http://www.newscientist.com...
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk...
4. http://www.addictionsandrecovery.org...
5. alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/f/mjp_faq12.htm
6. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu...
7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
8. http://www.world66.com...
9. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...
10. http://www.druglibrary.org...
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 4 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
Gee whiz, Alice, the fellows in Video 2/3 are animated. I was merely making jest regarding the accurate depiction of these characters. Bloodshot eyes and lackadaisical or inattentive manner are known symptoms of marijuana addiction. Statistics show that such inattention or inability to concentrate means a poor effort in the work place or classroom. Apologies if my credibility is ruined by jest that hints of truthfulness. The simple fact of my point is that marijuana is harmful. Why should we legalize another harmful substance? So that society can deteriorate more?

But anyhow, I'm done here. Thanks, Freedo. Perhaps some day we shall have to have another.

Cheers
Posted by feverish 4 years ago
feverish
But it can affect spelling lol.

Edit of below: "always put marijuana below these two as well as other drugs, prescription or illicit."
Posted by feverish 4 years ago
feverish
Well done Freedo.

1stLord, you really ought to educate yourself on this subject. Alcohol and tobacco are most definitely drugs and are both far more physically addictive than cannabis.

Studies comparing the addictive qualities of different substances always put marijuana below thest other drugs, prescription or elicit. http://www.procon.org...

"The most common drug addictions are to legal substances such as:
* Nicotine in the form of tobacco, particularly cigarettes
* Alcohol
* Caffeine" http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by alicewood5 4 years ago
alicewood5
1stLord, "Or maybe it's due to the fact that most voters agree with you before the debate, and it didn't change/sway their opinions."
When I first saw the title of this debate, I was immediately against it. However, after reading these debates, specifically Freedo's I voted for the legalization. I agree completely with 'Atheism', Freedo's debates were brilliant, bravo!
1stLord, your comments about the people in the video was shallow and ignorant; that kind of irrational, simpleminded comments make me lose respect for you and your debate.
Overall, thank you for this; again, absolutely LOVED Freedo! Wonderful.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 4 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
Or maybe it's due to the fact that most voters agree with you before the debate, and it didn't change/sway their opinions. At least one was honest enough to admit that my arguments are completely factual and not sarcastic presumptions without knowledge.

For example, you denied that we would have a violence problem; I demonstrated that many soldiers in rebel or guerilla groups are drugged on marijuana and thus capable of committing horrible atrocities they would never otherwise consider. And I also demonstrated that many current criminals in organized gangs are "stoned" on marijuana or something more potent when carrying out a crime. Especially motorcycle gangs or street gangs; the Mafia is more refined.
Posted by FREEDO 4 years ago
FREEDO
I'd have to say as a tip to Con, the main reason he lost this debate is because he didn't give nearly enough attention to the economic issues, whereas I did. Con's main focus was almost entirely on health.
Posted by FREEDO 4 years ago
FREEDO
Sure thing.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 4 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
Thanks for a grand debate; very invigorating. I have a feeling that public sentiment is against me by the rapidity of the first vote...

Good luck! I ask that you not vote out of good sportsmanship as I cannot. thanks.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 4 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
"You think everyone is going to be a stoner just because pot gets legalized? Pot is legal in Amsterdam, Netherlands yet about 20% less people in the Netherlands have smoked pot than in the US."

You didn't do your research on that. Retailing marijuana in anyplace but the "Coffee shops" is illegal. For a small country with about 28 million less people, 20% is pretty good for the USA, I should say.
Posted by FREEDO 4 years ago
FREEDO
don't do that*
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 4 years ago
Atheism
FREEDO1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by mongo8001 4 years ago
mongo8001
FREEDO1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 pokemonboy102 4 years ago
pokemonboy102
FREEDO1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Vote Placed by musicgrl26 4 years ago
musicgrl26
FREEDO1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by MClaro725 4 years ago
MClaro725
FREEDO1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 twsurber 4 years ago
twsurber
FREEDO1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by CrimsonHermit 4 years ago
CrimsonHermit
FREEDO1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 rtony_a 4 years ago
rtony_a
FREEDO1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 Shestakov 4 years ago
Shestakov
FREEDO1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 stargateman 4 years ago
stargateman
FREEDO1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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:05