The Instigator
ccstate4peat
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Lightkeeper
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Marijuana Should be Legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
ccstate4peat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,559 times Debate No: 8422
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

ccstate4peat

Pro

Marijuana should be legalized. People who really feel strongly about this will not back down. Prohibition is based on lies and disinformation. Justification of marijuana's illegality increasingly requires distortions and selective uses of the scientific record, causing harm to the credibility of teachers, law enforcement officials, and scientists throughout the country. The dangers of marijuana use have been exaggerated for almost a century and the modern scientific record does not support the reefer madness predictions of the past and present. Many claims of marijuana's danger are based on old 20th century prejudices that originated in a time when science was uncertain how marijuana produced its characteristic effects. Since the cannabinoid receptor system was discovered in the late 1980s these hysterical concerns about marijuana's dangerousness have not been confirmed with modern research. Everyone agrees that marijuana, or any other drug use such as alcohol or tobacco use, is not for children. Nonetheless, adults have demonstrated over the last several decades that marijuana can be used moderately without harmful impacts to the individual or society.
Marijuana is not a lethal drug and is safer than alcohol. It is established scientific fact that marijuana is not toxic to humans; marijuana overdoses are nearly impossible, and marijuana is not nearly as addictive as alcohol or tobacco. It is unfair and unjust to treat marijuana users more harshly under the law than the users of alcohol or tobacco.
Marijuana is too expensive for our justice system and should instead be taxed to support beneficial government programs. Law enforcement has more important responsibilities than arresting 750,000 individuals a year for marijuana possession, especially given the additional justice costs of disposing of each of these cases. Marijuana arrests make justice more expensive and less efficient in the United States, wasting jail space, clogging up court systems, and diverting time of police, attorneys, judges, and corrections officials away from violent crime, the sexual abuse of children, and terrorism. Furthermore, taxation of marijuana can provide needed and generous funding of many important criminal justice and social programs.
Marijuana use has positive attributes, such as its medical value and use as a recreational drug with relatively mild side effects. Many people use marijuana because they have made an informed decision that it is good for them, especially Americans suffering from a variety of serious ailments. Marijuana provides relief from pain, nausea, spasticity, and other symptoms for many individuals who have not been treated successfully with conventional medications. Many American adults prefer marijuana to the use of alcohol as a mild and moderate way to relax. Americans use marijuana because they choose to, and one of the reasons for that choice is their personal observation that the drug has a relatively low dependence liability and easy-to-manage side effects. Most marijuana users develop tolerance to many of marijuana's side effects, and those who do not, choose to stop using the drug. Marijuana use is the result of informed consent in which individuals have decided that the benefits of use outweigh the risks, especially since, for most Americans, the greatest risk of using marijuana is the relatively low risk of arrest. I have a feeling I will lose votes for saying this, but it is from "High Times" magazine http://www.alternet.org...
Lightkeeper

Con

Let me begin by thanking my opponent for posting this debate.

This is an interesting and somewhat contentious topic. I would like to point out at this early stage that I have taken this position because this was the only position that was being offered and not because it's a personal view that I hold. This is a debate.

In a debate, unless an agreement or stipulation is made to the contrary, the instigator bears the burden of proof. That means that I don't have to prove anything at all. Rather, it's my opponent who has to prove the resolution.

Before making up your mind who to vote for, I urge you to read our closing arguments. Whatever you do, do not make up your mind at this early stage. You have to read the entire debate first.

My case:

Marijuana is deadly. It's responsible for 100,000 deaths per year in Europe alone.
Using marijuana leads to use of hardcore drugs. One in every 10 marijuana users ends up using heroin within 5 months. One in every 2 heroin users ends up dead within 3 years. One in 25 heroin users is convicted of a felony within 3 months of beginning to use heroin.
Marijuana use leads to schizophernia. 13.3 percent of the time, schizophrenia is contracted after the first or second use of marijuana.
Last, but not least, the use of marijuana increases the incidence of UFO abductions. It has been found that a marijuana user is 30% more likely to be abducted and tortured by aliens than a person who does not use marijuana.

I now pass the batton to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
ccstate4peat

Pro

First of all, why alien abductions? There is no way you can prove that and don't have any credible sources for it. Marijuana should not have been made illegal Contrary to popular belief, marijuana was not made illegal in the US because it was considered a dangerous drug. Marijuana was made illegal in the United States for population control of Mexican and Black minorities in the 1930.

With a mix of racism, irrational fear and ignorance, legislators between the decades of 1910's-1930's sought ways to control minorities, afraid that they would one day overthrow the white government. According to Harry J. Asslinger, the first director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, marijuana should be outlawed because of "...its effect on the degenerate races." and because "[marijuana] makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
Finally, after a series of congressional hearings in the 1930's, irrational fear won over science and marijuana was made illegal in 1937.

Fast forward to 2007, and marijuana is still very much illegal. Scientific evidence is mounting showing marijuana is not only harmless, but even beneficial. However, the US government is still going strong with its expensive "War on Drugs".

Putting that aside, I have more reasons. Dealing illegal drugs is very lucrative. Drug dealers form empires around illegal drugs, and they will stop at nothing to keep their money making empires. Legalize the drugs, prices drop, and drug empires hurt. Medical studies of THC and Cannabinol (here's a good example) show marijuana can be used from nausea prevention and pain relief in chemotherapy patients to glaucoma. Legalization would most certainly lead to further scientific investigation. http://thinkthick.blogspot.com...
Alcohol is proven to be more dangerous than marijuana. You can drink yourself to death but no one has ever died because of smoking marijuana.
Lightkeeper

Con

Thank you for replying.

Marijuana also causes breast cancer, lung cancer and stupidity. Marijuana is the most common reason for corporate failure. It's also the main cause of roadrage. Did you know that 12.1% of marijuana users end up being seriously injured in car accidents? 3% die.

Marijuna has been found to be responsible for 85% of child pornography, percent of mass murder, 11% of paraplegia, 55% of witchcraft, 2% of statanism.

The 9/11 terrorist were found to be under the influence of marijuana at the time of the attack.

Hitler was found to be under the influence of marijuana when ordering the Final Solution.

And last but not least 25% of impotent men were caused to be impotent by having a single joint of marijuana.

As for scientific investigation, it can be achieved without legalising marijuana for popural use. States (and countries) can legalise the use for cannabis for scientific experimentation of any kind without allowing popular use.

I now return the spotlight to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
ccstate4peat

Pro

Where are your sources? I think you are making all of this up. Stupidity is not an effect of using Marijuana. What percent of mass murder is caused by marijuana? There are plenty of people who are satanists and use witchcraft that don't use marijuana. There was more than one terrorist involved in 9/11 and if you were about to kill a ton of people wouldn't you want to calm down? UFO abductions are fake, if you honestly think that people get abducted by aliens, go find a credible source and put it and the end of your argument.
Lightkeeper

Con

I thank Pro for this debate.

Now, the obvious question is this: WHERE THE HELL DO I GET SUPPORT FOR ALL THOSE RIDICULOUS CLAIMS OF MINE?

The answer is: NOWHERE. I PULLED THOSE "FACT AND FIGURES" out of thin air. I made them up.

And Pro is quite right in saying "Where are your sources? I think you are making all of this up." (Pro's last post).

But so am I! I'm just as right in saying "where are Pro's sources?"

You see, Pro has done nothing (NOTHING) to support his/her claims. Pro's opening argument looked impressive, sure. But it contained NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE. For all we know, Pro might have made all that up. Just like I may have made up all my claims about marijuana killing people in road accidents and about marijuana increasing the incidence of UFO abductions.

Folks, this is a debate. This is not about deciding whether marijuana should be legalised. Hell no. This is about whether the Instigator has proven their point. The Contender (that's me) doesn't have to prove anything.

In a debate we rely on evidence, not on unsupported arbitrary claims. I suggest that Pro has given us nothing BUT unsupported and arbitrary claims.

Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest that Pro has not proven a thing. Pro's claims are just as valid as my claims are. They are just as unsupported as my claims are.

I have made it clear from my very first argument in this debate: the burden falls on Pro (Instigator). I don't have to prove a thing. Pro had plenty of opportunities to provide us with evidence. And yet Pro didn't.

So what do we end up with?

1. Pro making unsupported claims.

2. Me making unsupported claims.

Seems equal. But it's not. Why? Because the burden of proof falls on Pro.

Vote Con folks. And then we can all have a bong together.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lightkeeper 7 years ago
Lightkeeper
"I have links to my sources, just click them and you will see that I did not make anything up."

I didn't say that you didn't post a link. I said that you presented no evidence. You have effectively copied the claims of an editor from an editorial. That's not evidence. That's only evidence that someone has a similar view to yours. Sure, many people have similar views. But appealing to those views is a fallacy called "appeal to popularity. What you need to do is provide actual evidence for each of those claims. Credible statistical data in the fields of medicine, chemistry, criminal statistics etc etc etc. Without that, all you're left with is your own personal opinion which happens to coinside with the personal opinion of an editor.
Posted by Lightkeeper 7 years ago
Lightkeeper
Correct, he did it so I can do it too :)
But the burden is on him. That's all I was illustrating :)
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
well, that's kind of like saying "well he did it so I can do it too" :)
Posted by ccstate4peat 7 years ago
ccstate4peat
I have links to my sources, just click them and you will see that I did not make anything up.
Posted by Lightkeeper 7 years ago
Lightkeeper
"Con made a logical fallacy - Proof by Verbosity."

Not really. Just read the overwhelming number of unsupported claims in Pro's Opening Argument. All I did was to return the favour.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Argument points must go to Con. There was simply no excuse for Pro's round 2 performance. Marijuana is responsible for 10,000 deaths anually? That didn't warrant a response? Con made a logical fallacy - Proof by Verbosity. He overwhelmed Pro with BS statistics. Pro had an easy win if he simply addressed that. Instead, he mostly ignored it and tried hammering home his points that didn't need to be reinforced. In round 3 he finally acknowledged the fact that Con was BSing him, but that was WAY too late in my opinion... all other categories are a tie.
Posted by Lightkeeper 7 years ago
Lightkeeper
Well I (being the ambitious idiot that I am) gave it a shot. It's all about the burden.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Jay, here is 2 that I have lost trying to promote the subject:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

Honestly, man, I wouldn't argue with your point. But winning debates isn't as important as getting your views across. And picking debates with good "odds" isn't any way to do it; the people that would judge you on here are going to judge you on your debating style, not your statistics.

The ability to put your own feelings aside and vote on who did a better job is difficult, and I can't vouch for anyone to be able to do it!
Posted by heyitsjay 7 years ago
heyitsjay
I honestly would accept but too many people will vote pro. I already did debate this and am afraid to lose another debate. Excuse me but damn public opinion sometimes!
Posted by Me100 7 years ago
Me100
Ahhh!! cant go pro! lemme think of some way though ill accept later
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by conoscenza 7 years ago
conoscenza
ccstate4peatLightkeeperTied
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 Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
ccstate4peatLightkeeperTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Lightkeeper 7 years ago
Lightkeeper
ccstate4peatLightkeeperTied
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 Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
ccstate4peatLightkeeperTied
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:03