Debate Rounds (3)
I was unable to accept blackwidow-1's challenge in time. I've decided to re-challenge him to a debate on the topic.
Because he originally challenged me, and I was unable to accept, he may present his arguments first.
Me and Con had a small debate on Facebook and in the private messages. This is just to clear that up, incase Pros argument didn't make sense, or seemed random to someone.
Why I'm against legalization:
1 - It's a harmful drug: Marijuana is not harmless, as many believe. Some studies suggest that smoking 1 joint of Marijuana a day, is equivalent to smoking 20 cigarettes . Another study reports that smoking 1 joint of Marijuana a year increases the users risk of lung cancer by 8%, versus 7% for a pack of cigarettes .
Other health risks include
2 - It's addictive: Many legalization proponents claim Marijuana is not addictive. It, however, is addictive. The addiction rate is thought to be 9% . I would argue that if something is harmful, and addictive, it should not be legal.
3 - Legalization increases use: The current legal status of Marijuana as a schedule 1 drug has caused prices to stay high. Legalization would cause the prices to plummet  Legalizing Marijuana in Colorado has had consequences. The Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area published a report, highlighting some of the consequences. "The majority of DUI drug arrests were marijuana related and 25 to 40 percent were marijuana alone... the percent of hospitalizations related to marijuana have increased 82% since 2008… In 2012, 10.47 percent of youth ages 12 to 17 were considered current marijuana users compared to 7.55 percent nationally." . If Marijuana were to be legalized, the prices of Marijuana would drop . A decrease in the price of Marijuana encourages more people to use the drug. More users means more abusers. Cigarettes and Alcohol both cost the U.S. 100x more in damages than they will ever generate in tax revenue. With 1 joint of Marijuana equalling 7 cigarettes, the cost of Marijuana abuse would likely have the same effect (if not, worse) as cigarettes on the economy.
"I believe in freedom for all."
I also believe in freedom for all, but your rights end, where other peoples rights begin. If you were to smoke Marijuana in a public area, it could affect other people. Second hand smoke from cigarettes kills 45,000 non-smokers a year, and as I've shown above, Marijuana may be more harmful. We can assume the effects of Marijuana second hand smoke would be the same, if not more deadly than cigarettes second hand smoke.
"If you really are afraid of getting addicted to marijuana from others second hand smoke"
Here, Pro is referring to something I said in a private message. Unfortunately, he misunderstood me. I made the argument that because the second hand smoke can effect other people without their consent, your right is use the drug is outweighed by their right not to not be effected by Marijuana's second hand smoke.
I also made the argument, that if you become addicted, you lose the right to say no. Your right to say no, is more important than your right to say yes, in my opinion. If you become addicted to Marijuana, you lose your right to say no, otherwise you are forced to go through withdrawal.
"my advice is to avoid such places"
Why should I have to give up my freedom to move? If I have to stay away from places, in fear of second hand smoke, that is infringing on my right to move. This is another reason you do not have the "right" to use the drug.
"I don't think your medieval thinking would go over that well."
That's a bit rude. Since I didn't post any rules for this debate, I guess it's okay, but I would like to ask Pro to stop being hostile towards me. I would like a civil debate.
Blackwidow-1 forfeited this round.
Blackwidow-1 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dtien400 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.