The Instigator
greatman777
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Jonbonbon
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Marijuana is addicting and a drug.

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 5 votes the winner is...
Jonbonbon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,222 times Debate No: 44917
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (5)

 

greatman777

Pro

Again i would prefer to go on the defensive. get at me... lol
Jonbonbon

Con

Here's an excerpt from Jonbonbon' Abridged Encyclopedia of Botany

"Cannabis Sativa, also known as Marijuana, is a plant commonly mistaken as a drug. While the scent of its burning creates a pleasurable reaction in the brain, the plant itself does not constitute as a drug... The rush of dopamine created when the smoke of marijuana is inhaled is often mistaken for the plant itself being a drug... The substance itself is not addictive, but as does any substance that creates any level of pleasure, the dopamine levels may become addictive when used to great and/or unusual extents..."

This clearly states that marijuana is both not a drug and not addictive.

Have a seat.
Debate Round No. 1
greatman777

Pro

First off any sort of dependacy is a sort of addiction. the fact that you are even willing to argue with me about this states that you obviously enjoy marijuana. and a drug is anything that causes a physiological or psychological reaction due to consumption, injection, inhalation, or snorting. Marijuana falls under that. And people do depend on Marijuana. the thought process of most marijuana users can be summed up like this; I'm bored... I know I'll smoke some weed!" or "I'm depressed, Weed will make me feel better." that is dependency and addiction. thank you very much. the fact that your username is used in your source tells me that you wrote that yourself....
Jonbonbon

Con

I'm actually going to take a little bit of this seriously.

"First off any sort of dependacy is a sort of addiction."

That's straw man as it has not been established that people are dependent on marijuana, and it was never in my argument.

"the fact that you are even willing to argue with me about this states that you obviously enjoy marijuana."

That's, first of all, a non sequitur logical fallacy due to the complete lack of a logical connection between the two parts of the sentence, and it's also an ad hominem logical fallacy as it is designed to personally attack me without addressing the issue.

"and a drug is anything that causes a physiological or psychological reaction due to consumption, injection, inhalation, or snorting."

I need some evidence on his part, as I used the encyclopedia to back up my argument that it's not a drug.

"And people do depend on Marijuana."

Thank you for the baseless assertion.

"the thought process of most marijuana users can be summed up like this; I'm bored... I know I'll smoke some weed!' or 'I'm depressed, Weed will make me feel better.' that is dependency and addiction."

First of all, that's not relevant to the resolution and is non sequitur due to the lack of logical connection to the statement it's supposed to support. Second of all, this does not nearly sum up the thought process behind smoking marijuana.

"thank you very much."

You're welcome.

"the fact that your username is used in your source tells me that you wrote that yourself...."

Jonbonbon's Abridged Encyclopedia is actually published in a store by my house, and although it was written by me, it's been approved by experts in the area that I wrote about. In this case, it's the field of Botany. Aside from all of that, you haven't even provided evidence. You can't complain if I wrote something.

Even further, getting addicted to your own dopamine, which is the chemical in your brain that creates pleasure, does not constitute addiction to whatever brought that about. It's just the thing you use to get there. Marijuana is not in itself an actual addictive substance.

Have a seat.
Debate Round No. 2
greatman777

Pro

A drug is a substance which may have medicinal, intoxicating, performance enhancing or other effects when taken or put into a human body or the body of another animal and is not considered a food or exclusively a food.- Wikipedia
Marijuana is "intoxicating".
Marijuana refers to the dried leaves, flowers, stems, and seeds from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, which contains the psychoactive (mind-altering) chemical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), as well as other related compounds. This plant material can also be concentrated in a resin called hashish or a sticky black liquid called hash oil.

Marijuana is the most common illicit drug used in the United States. -Drugfacts
Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction; that is, people have difficulty controlling their drug use and cannot stop even though it interferes with many aspects of their lives. It is estimated that 9 percent of people who use marijuana will become dependent on it.10 The number goes up to about 1 in 6 in those who start using young (in their teens) and to 25-50 percent among daily users.11,12 Moreover, a study of over 300 fraternal and identical twin pairs found that the twin who had used marijuana before the age of 17 had elevated rates of other drug use and drug problems later on, compared with their twin who did not use before age 17.13-National Institute of Drug abuse
"take a seat"
Jonbonbon

Con

Could you out some links? I'm not quite sure what's going with what and where exactly I can find these sources, as I'm sure the judges are wanting as well.

In the meantime, here's some counter-evidence:

"It is perfectly legal to abuse to any desirable degree - even to the point of death - the drugs Marlboro, Jack Daniels, and McDonald's, as well as base jumping, cave diving, and bull riding. It should come as no surprise that almost all of these highs are more addictive than marijuana, and cause more deaths per year (yes, even bull riding). What's more? Many of them do cause harm to innocent bystanders." [1]

I would recommend reading the whole article, but this is the part most relevant to the debate. Keep in mind you have to support it is a drug and addictive. If you lose one of those you lose the debate, as you have no upheld the entire resolution.

By accident, I actually found your "drugfacts" article which actually comes from drugpolicy.org

Interestingly enough, this website is actually for the legalization of marijuana. Upon opening the site, is was taken to a page to sign a petition for legalizing marijuana. That being said, let's take a look at what they say about it:

Fact #1: Most marijuana users never use any other illicit drug.

Fact #2: Most people who use marijuana do so occasionally. Increasing admissions for treatment do not reflect increasing rates of clinical dependence.

Fact #3: Claims about increases in marijuana potency are vastly overstated. In addition, potency is not related to risk of dependence or health impacts.

Fact #4: Marijuana has not been shown to cause mental illness.

Fact #5: Marijuana use has not been shown to increase risk of cancer.

Fact #6: Marijuana has been proven helpful for treating the symptoms of a variety of medical conditions.

Fact #7: Marijuana use rates in the Netherlands are similar to those in the U.S. despite very different policies.

Fact #8: Marijuana has not been shown to cause long-term cognitive impairment.

Fact #9: There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities.

Fact #10: Roughly three quarters of a million people are arrested for marijuana each year, the vast majority of them for simple possession.

I know some of these aren't relevant, but I wanted to show their stance on marijuana.

What's most significant is that they claim marijuana doesn't create dependency. My opponent obviously thinks this is a reliable source, as he himself used it, and his contention for addiction was dependency. That means he must agree that marijuana is not addictive, and based on that, he must lose the debate.

I believe that sums up everything I need to say quite nicely.

-----------------------

Sources:

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

[2] http://www.drug... policy.org/drug-facts/10-facts-about-marijuana
Debate Round No. 3
greatman777

Pro

http://www.drugabuse.gov...;[1]

http://www.drugfree.org...[2]

Marijuana also raises heart rate by 20-100 percent shortly after smoking; this effect can last up to 3 hours. In one study, it was estimated that marijuana users have a 4.8-fold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first hour after smoking the drug. This risk may be greater in older individuals or in those with cardiac vulnerabilities.

A number of studies have linked chronic marijuana use and mental illness. High doses of marijuana can produce a temporary psychotic reaction (involving hallucinations and paranoia) in some users, and using marijuana can worsen the course of illness in patients with schizophrenia. A series of large studies following users across time also showed a link between marijuana use and later development of psychosis. This relationship was influenced by genetic variables as well as the amount of drug used, drug potency, and the age at which it was first taken"those who start young are at increased risk for later problems.

Associations have also been found between marijuana use and other mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts among adolescents, and personality disturbances, including a lack of motivation to engage in typically rewarding activities. More research is still needed to confirm and better understand these linkages.

Marijuana use during pregnancy is associated with increased risk of neurobehavioral problems in babies. Because THC and other compounds in marijuana mimic the body"s own endocannabinoid chemicals, marijuana use by pregnant mothers may alter the developing endocannabinoid system in the brain of the fetus. Consequences for the child may include problems with attention, memory, and problem solving.

Additionally, because it seriously impairs judgment and motor coordination, marijuana contributes to risk of injury or death while driving a car. A recent analysis of data from several studies found that marijuana use more than doubles a driver"s risk of being in an accident. The combination of marijuana and alcohol is worse than either substance alone with respect to driving impairment[1]

What is Marijuana?
Marijuana, the most often used illegal drug in this country, is a product of the hemp plant, Cannabis sativa. The main active chemical in marijuana, also present in other forms of cannabis, is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol). Of the roughly 400 chemicals found in the cannabis plant, THC affects the brain the most.

What does it look like?
Marijuana is a green or gray mixture of dried, shredded flowers and leaves of the hemp plant (Cannabis sativa).

How is it used?
Most users roll loose marijuana into a cigarette called a "joint". Weed can be smoked in a water pipe, called a "bong", or mixed into food or brewed as tea. It has also appeared in cigars called "blunts".

What are its short-term effects?
Short-term effects of marijuana include problems with memory and learning, distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch), trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor coordination, increased heart rate, and anxiety. These effects are even greater when other drugs are mixed with weed. A user may also experience dry mouth and throat.

What are its long-term effects?
Marijuana smoke contains some of the same cancer-causing compounds as tobacco, sometimes in higher concentrations. Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.[2]

These articles state that marijuana is both a drug and addicting. the first one also mentions the harmful effects it has. if you click on the links you can see for yourself. and you got the previous site wrong. nice try though.
Jonbonbon

Con

Well, the first link is a dud (it goes to a page that says "page not found"), and the second says next to nothing my opponent said in the last post.

I would like to say that my opponents last post was focused on the effects not whether it was addictive or a drug.

--------------------------------------

Okay, as for sources, I'll provide some that agree that cannabis sativa is not addictive:

United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. DASIS Report Series, Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral. June 24 2005.

Benson, John A. and Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, eds. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Institute of Medicine, Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Health. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Johnson, L.D., et al. "National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1994, Volume II: College Students and Young Adults." Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.

Kandel, D.B., et al. "Prevalence and demographic correlates of symptoms of dependence on cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in the U.S. population." Drug and Alcohol Dependence 44 (1997):11-29.

Stephens, R.S., et al. "Adult marijuana users seeking treatment." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61 (1993): 1100-1104.

Fromberg, E. "The Case of the Netherlands: Contradictions and Values in Questioning Prohibition." 1994 International Report on Drugs, Brussels: International Antiprohibitionist League, 1994. 113-124.

Sandwijk, J.P., et al. Licit and Illicit Drug Use in Amsterdam II. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 1995.

Gunning, K.F. Crime Rate and Drug Use in Holland. Rotterdam: Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention. 1993.

ElSohly, et al., "Potency Trends of Delta9-THC and Other Cannabinoids in Confiscated Marijuana from 1980-1997," Journal of Forensic Sciences 45 (2000): 24-30.

Heishman SJ, Stitzer ML, Yingling JE, 1989. "Effects of tetrahydrocannabinol content on marijuana smoking behavior, subjective reports, and performance." Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

King LA, Carpentier C, Griffiths P. "Cannabis potency in Europe." Addiction. 2005 Jul; 100(7):884-6
Henneberger, Melinda. "Pot Surges Back, But It"s, Like, a Whole New World." New York Times 6 February 1994: E18.

Brown, Lee. "Interview with Lee Brown," Dallas Morning News 21 May 1995.

Drug Enforcement Administration. U.S. Drug Threat Assessment, 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1993.

Kleiman, Mark A.R. Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1989. 29.

Bennett, William. Director of National Drug Control Policy, remarks at Conference of Mayors. 23 April 1990.

--------------------------------------

Does that just about do it for sources? I would say so. In the last speech, my opponent didn't actually say marijuana was addictive, except for the baseless assertion, and I have provided a buttload of sources that say otherwise. My opponent doesn't win this debate at this point. This debate is not about the effects.
Debate Round No. 4
greatman777

Pro

By the definition of the word drug provided by wikipedia weed is indeed a drug. The studies i have shown earlier point towards the addicting and harmful effects. I would also like to point out that my oponents sources are biased and many are self made.
Jonbonbon

Con

My opponent has not adequately refuted my position that marijuana is not addictive. I have provided a numerous amount of sources, and only my personally written encyclopedia article was written by me. I've provided a number of sources that my opponent can't refute, and thus I have defeated the resolution. I ask for a vote in my favor. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
Lol, you caught that I was being intentionally bad XD
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
---VOTING RFD (extended)---
R1: Con opens with an Appeal to Authority Fallacy (herself), then uses it as an Argument by Assertion Fallacy.

R2:
Pro opens with a couple Ad Hominem attacks, then rightly calls out the fail source.
Con counters with a Fallacy Fallacy, defends herself as the writer of "the encyclopedia," however does rightly call out that pro has not established that people are dependent on MJ.

R3:
Pro does a half citation of Wikipedia (I suggest a link with it next time). Same flaw with Drugfacts. ... NEXT TIME USE QUOTATION MARKS, italics too are useful for clarity (this is not a college paper, but an online debate).
Con accidentally concedes MJ is addictive (half the stated BoP) "It should come as no surprise that almost all of these highs are more addictive than marijuana," then mistakes http://www.drugabuse.gov... for a related cite which plagiarized some of the wording from it (as honest mistake, however NEXT TIME USE QUOTATION MARKS)

R4:
Pro again needs to work on his citations, to the point where I'm having to discount most of his quotes (also double check your links in the preview page, a "R06" got added on to one of them)... He does however call con out on the previous false source claims.
Con catches the link mistake, and then makes empty claims that a dozen or so books support her (linking those sources to argument would have earned the requested source point, mentioning that they exist does not).

R5:
Pro exits via pointing out wiki (which was not actually link) was unchallenged in calling MJ a drug.
Con exits by bragging about "I've provided a number of sources that my opponent can't refute." Given that the audience can't verify them, and they were not a part of the argument, I consider this a final strike against conduct.
Posted by greatman777 3 years ago
greatman777
God woman hurry up and argue already i want this to be over with!!
Posted by greatman777 3 years ago
greatman777
not really. i my point in saying it is a drug and addicting in the first place was to prove that is is harmful. i was just furthering my motive.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
Although it's not very easy to get entirely off topic, which you managed.
Posted by greatman777 3 years ago
greatman777
I know. easy mistake to make.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
It started off with the same exact thing and the title was "drug facts."
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
It started off with the same exact thing and the title was "drug facts."
Posted by greatman777 3 years ago
greatman777
that wasn't the site i used hahahahah
Posted by greatman777 3 years ago
greatman777
that wasn't the site i used hahahahah
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by CynicalDiogenes 3 years ago
CynicalDiogenes
greatman777JonbonbonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con totally overpowered Pro.The list of journals was really impressive.Con had way better arguments as well.Pro had absolutely nothing going for him, other than his own opinion. Congratulations to Con on this amazing win!
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
greatman777JonbonbonTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: Con opens and ends with strong fallacies. Pro had fallacies as well, but the intentional magnitude of con's sets her at a level above him. S&G: No Jar Jar speak present, as much as better punctuation would have been nice. ARGUMENT: Con conceded! "It should come as no surprise that almost all of these highs are more addictive than marijuana." and "scent of its burning creates a pleasurable reaction in the brain ... The rush of dopamine created when the smoke of marijuana is inhaled..." SOURCES: Tied in their weakness, while I consider con's behavior to be intentionally bad in this area (as opposed to pro who was very flawed; but not intentionally bad), such makes things discounted and extends to harm to conduct, but doesn't make pro's own sourcing good (or in this case acceptable) enough to take the point.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
greatman777JonbonbonTied
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 set up a debate that should have been easily winnable. The fact that marijuana is a drug is a tautology - of course it's a drug. Proving that it's addictive isn't all that hard. Sad part is, he couldn't do it. Con provides effective links, whereas Pro's tend to be either inaccessible or not support his claims. Con points out that Pro must prove that this is addictive on a level that goes above just a conscious desire, and I see no response from Pro. That means marijuana isn't addictive within the context of the round. As for conduct... Pro shouldn't be assuming things about his opponent, especially not drug usage. That was a blatant ad hominem attack.
Vote Placed by black_squirrel 3 years ago
black_squirrel
greatman777JonbonbonTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: CON argues that weed has medicinal effects. So it IS a drug. CON States that weed increases dopamine and that dopamine can be addictive. So weed can create a psychological dependency. So CON defeats her own arguments. CON cites herself and a blog. PROs links dont work. So nobody gets sources. Conduct also equally bad.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
greatman777JonbonbonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never did refute cons arguments of marijuana not being addictive. Also cons sources are clearly better.