The Instigator
Ncube_Thubelihle_w
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Marijuana abuse will never be stopped. the governments just need to legalise it.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 582 times Debate No: 72344
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Ncube_Thubelihle_w

Pro

the aim to actually remove the drug(marijuana) by the ruling governments such as those of America, Brazil and Zimbabwe among others have failed as this drug continues to actually circulate and instead of its consumption reducing, it is increasing. therefore it is of paramount importance to note that instead of wasting a lot of resources trying to remove the drug from the market, let it be legalized and this may actually have an impact in the countries' GDP growth.
donald.keller

Con

Premise I: "People are going to do what they want."

Most of Pro's claim is based in the premise that people will do what they want. His argument is that people will continue to abuse Marijuana, and therefore we must legalize it. This is a common fallacy used by many. In reality, murder, rape, and tax fraud can't be completely stopped, but they shouldn't be legal. In fact, between 1994 and 2007, deaths from drunk driving stayed around the same (1). Should we have than made drunk driving legal because people would do it either way? Leading into our second Premise...

[1] http://responsibility.org...
[]

Premise II: False Dichotomy.

Pro's whole case is based on mixing the "People do what they want" fallacy with the False Dichotomy. Basically, Pro says that because marijuana use isn't going down, we should legalize it. In other words, we either win, or give up. Clearly, Pro doesn't see the third option... Switch tactics. To move on, I have shown that Pro's case does't hold up his end o the BOP. But I will continue, and give an Argument.

Argument I: Health Risks:

Studies claim that it only takes 3 joints a day to have the same health risk of 20 cigarettes (2). This makes smoking Marijuana a major health concern. Consider that giving someone a prescription of just 1 joint a day is the equivalent of having them smoke 7 cigarettes a day.

Other studies associate it with the spread and start of numerous other cancers. One study from the European Respiratory Journal reports that one joint a year increases the odds of lung cancer by 8%... Compared to only 7% for an entire pack of cigarettes a year (3). Cannabis, unlike most forms of treatment, is a smoking product, meaning it will produce secondhand smoke.

Other issues Marijuana is associated with includes schizophrenia, as is supported by over 30 independent studies (4). Another site also links the drug to paranoia (5). These side effects are critical issues that make medical use of the drug highly irresponsible. The only benefit the drug truly has is ensuring a larger range of customers for doctors, and nothing else.

The secondhand smoke from this drug alone would be disastrous, and would be an immediate threat to everyone around it. Even for recreational use, the threat to innocent people who have never touched marijuana would be extreme. Secondhand Smoke from cigarettes alone kills nearly 42,000 with heart disease and 3400 with lung cancer each year. Each year, it also causes asthma and asthma-related issues in an astounding 1,000,000+ children, or to be put it into perspective, 12.2% of all children within a whole generation (assuming the total number of unique children within an 18 year generation is 140 million [73 million current children + 4 million additions each year for 18 years.) Cigarettes also lead to between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in babies each year. ALL of these are among non-smokers a lone. The costs of managing secondhand smoke is up to $10 bn a year (6). This is only for smoking Cigarettes... At 7 cigarettes worth per joint, Marijuana legalization for recreational use could likely be insanely dangerous to people who don't even smoke the product.

Addiction is also an issue. With an addiction rate of 10 - 30%, and a severe addiction rate of 9% (10). A lot of people will claim it's okay since it's not as addictive as Cigarettes. This is faulty logic, as determining if something is bad isn't based on how bad other things are.

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[3] http://erj.ersjournals.com...
[4] http://www.schizophrenia.com...
[5] http://www.cancer.org...
[6] https://www.psychologytoday.com...
[]

Conclusion: Marijuana is a dangerous product, and should remain illegal. Pro's case does not Affirm the Resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
Ncube_Thubelihle_w

Pro

Ncube_Thubelihle_w forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Con

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 2
Ncube_Thubelihle_w

Pro

Ncube_Thubelihle_w forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Con

I hate when they do this...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by geauxpelicans5 2 years ago
geauxpelicans5
Con absolutely demolished pro.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
An important thing to note on this type of debate, is that it doesn't matter if either side is right or wrong, within the scope of the debate is what is graded. Currently (only R1 posted), sources have a significant lead for con. Pro can bring sources to at least the tied level, by either refuting cons, or providing his own. Arguments, well that is far more subjective territory, which I will make no comment on at this time.

I will however comment on the resolution itself being a hard one to uphold, as it is two separate ones, each needing to be proven.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Ncube_Thubelihle_wdonald.kellerTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited two of the final rounds in this debate, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Con. Pro had several spelling and grammatical errors including failure to practice proper capitalization and lack of proper punctuation. Normally, this wouldn't be too major, but I saw no such errors from Con, hence he wins these points. Arguments - Con. Pro's case was essentially demolished by Con. This can be seen in his premise regarding the false dichotomy, as well as his arguments which went on to remain standing unchallenged for the rest of the debate. Due to Pro's clear failure to maintain his BOP, as well as him leaving Con to stand unchallenged, Con wins arguments. Sources - Con. Pro did not utilize sources within this debate, whereas Con utilized several, all of which were of satisfactory quality and application.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
Ncube_Thubelihle_wdonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited. Con gave strong arguments backed up with sources on why he thinks it shouldn't be legalized.