The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Marijuana should be legal, and tobacco should be illegal.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,484 times Debate No: 17708
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




First round- Acceptance
Second round- Argument/Points
Third-Final thoughts

This is a common topic, nothing too heavy. Lets debate:)


I enjoyed our debate last time and this is a very good topic. There will be no forfeiting on my part I can assure you! So, as this round is not for arguments, I'll only state that my position is that no grow-able substances should be regulated or illegal. And from this point I will argue against your point. Good luck
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my challenge, and I enjoyed our debate last time as well. I believe it was a topic that not many people really want to touch on, but you stood your ground and you did so very well. This debate, I was simply bored and though it up, but I will go through it as planned .
So marijuana should be legal and tobacco should be illegal. I say this simply because tobacco is more harmful to those who smoke it, as well as those who don't smoke it (second hand smoke), and if people are going to smoke marijuana is a healthier choice. Lets start off with the health factors.
According to sources,, nicotine is highly addictive and is the active chemical in tobacco. The government does not want people to be addicted to drugs, especially those which are dangerous and harmful, therefore why does the government continue to allow tobacco products to be sold?
Tobacco is the second leading cause of death in the world. People can not really escape being effected by tobacco. Even if one doesn't smoke it, they could become ill from second hand smoke. If you walk past people smoking outside, that effects you. If you walk past an area in a restaurant that is for smokers only, that effects you. If your family member, friends, or associate enjoys smoking and they do so around you, that effects you. Both of you could become ill, and it quite unfair to the person who has never smoked a day in his/her life.
Now I know that I can not point the finger directly at tobacco for having health risks. Yes marijuana has health risks as well which include, impairment of thinking, heart problems, respiratory problems, and potential hallucinations.
This health risks increase when the marijuana is not pure due to it being illegal, and drugs dealers change the natural state of the product. Natural marijuana has great health benefits, and is used in certain areas of the United States for health purposes. One could argue that tobacco was once used for health benefits with breathing problems and such in older times, but tobacco has also been altered by society itself in its legal state which has caused much harm to society in return.
If the government wants to make money , and is afraid to lose money from tobacco products marijuana would be a good replacement. It could be smoked, and many people if not more like it more than cigarettes. Marijuana could also be used for others things such as baking lol. It would also cut down on the crime rate because people would no longer have to worry about smuggling marijuana.
Like I said, Im sorry for being lazy with this argument lol. I don't think it's a very strong one but I tried to put a lil effort into it instead of being lazy and forfeited. Go ahead buddy, your turn ;)


Your argument has two contentions: tobacco should be illegal and marijuana should be legal. I disagree with half of it. Marijuana should be legal as well as tobacco because one can grow these naturally, and it not being interstate commerce, the federal government has no right to prohibit what one can ingest.

You stated that tobacco is the second leading cause of death in the world (this isn't completely true, and it's mainly in the developed world- where people live long enough to die of cancer or respiratory disease), but what is the number one killer? In the US, it's heart disease! And this is caused in large part by the morbid (pun intended) obesity in America, and the unhealthy dietary habits caused by high-fructose corn syrup, saturated fats, and processing foods. Before I go to work (I work in a disgusting food establishment), I'll smoke a cigar to relax. And at work, I will serve 400 pound creatures food that will only increase their odds of heart failure. But food should be no more illegal than the cigar or cigarette I smoke on the way to work.

If the government decided to regulate every industry that did harm, we'd likely have no industry. Now, the government should be able to regulate the tobacco industry because they are participating in commerce, which requires regulation. But as far as me growing a tobacco plant on my property, or a marijuana plant for that matter, they have no business doing so.

As for your argument about second hand smoking, I understand your contention, and to an extent agree- but again, only the businesses where smoking takes place can be restricted. What someone does on their own property is beyond the government. And for your argument about the government making money, I don't care. They are corrupt and I have no sympathy for them losing money over the industry. Tax the CEOs higher than 18% capital gains.

As for marijuana, I basically agree with you. But the government shouldn't sell it, and should only regulate the "industry" if one developed.
Debate Round No. 2


Lightbright forfeited this round.


Because of forfeit, I cannot refute unresolved arguments. Pleasure debating
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Lightbright 7 years ago
Sorry about that, i forgot to get on yesterday. You get my vote though Waylon, very well argued ;)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 7 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con managed to refute Lightbright's argument with his second round argument, which was not addressed by Pro, because of her forfeit. Con also earns a conduct point for that selfsame forfeit.