Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes.
I challenge jamccartney to a debate about medical marijuana. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. My opponent will be argue that marijuana should not be legal for medical purposes. My opponent and I already agree on the issue of recreational marijuana. Before we begin, I would like to state the debate structure:
Round One: Acceptance and stating your stance
Round Two: Main Arguments
Round Three: Rebuttals and Conclusion
Both jamccartney and I share nearly identical views and I will therefore not list the debate rules. They are obvious to both of us.
I would like to thank WilliamsP for challenging me to this debate. I will be taking the stance of 'Marijuana should not be legal for medical purposes' while he shall be taking the stance of 'Marijuana should be legal for medial purposes.
As he has already stated the rules and procedures, I see no reason to say any more in round 1. I patiently await his first argument in round 2.
Forgive me for posting this argument close to the deadline. The internet at the motel is absolutely horrible and I have limited time to be online anyway. I will have to make this argument shorter than I wished it to the be and I would appreciate the opportunity to expand on my points later.
I do not believe you have seen CNN's documentaries Weed and Weed 2: Cannabis Madness. I am going to recap the basics for you: Cannabis can be bred in order to have certain traits. Marijuana has two main components: THC and CBD. CBD (cannabidiol) will reduce brain activity and will lower the occurances of seizures. Weed as a drug will be destruction. Weed as a medicine can be the last hope. There is the risk of addiction, of course, but when taken in moderation, it can be beneficial. You cannot deny this. Also, in the second CNN documentary, they told how cannabis can be more beneficial than other epilepsy medicines. This cannot be denied. I have a challenge for you: Deny it.
Due to limited time to be online, I could not cite the sources in the proper format. Please forgive me.
I would like to thank Pro for responding and would like to say that I understand his problem with the internet. It will not be an issue.
Secondly, I would like to begin with stating my arguments and reasons. Because this is not the round for rebuttals, I will not talk about Pro's main argument until round 3.
Facts about medical marijuana: Medical marijuana can be used to reduce nausea and vomiting, treating HIV/AIDS, and reducing muscle pain (Wikipedia). It can also prevent epilepsy. However, it works "by binding to specific sites in the brain and on the nerves (WEBMD)." All chemicals that bind to the brain are dangerous. Here are it's uses:
Why it should not be used: According to webmd.com, "cannabinoids in marijuana can weaken the immune system", "long-term use of marijuana can make lung problems worse", "marijuana might make seizure disorders worse in some people [(in other people it might help to control seizures)]", and "it might slow the central nervous system too much when combined with anesthesia and other medications during and after surgery (WEBMD)." Here are some other common side effects of using marijuana for medicinal purposes:
Drowsiness, dry mouth, giddiness, hunger, insomnia, red eyes, respiratory issues, short-term memory loss, and uneasiness or anxiety (Southwest Medical Evaluation Center).
As you can see, it can be used to help people, but the effects are not always the same. For some people, medical marijuana can cure seizures, while it may make the disorder worse for other people. Currently, marijuana has not been fully tested, which means it should not be used. Unstable drugs should not be used in people. One could argue that it is human experimentation, which is not legal.
Other treatments: Anyone who knows as much as I do about biology knows that there are plenty of other ways to cure illnesses. I am sure Pro is aware of this as well. For certain diseases, such as diabetes, people need insulin. Getting insulin used to be difficult. Now, however, we genetically altered a certain bacteria to generate it. Using that knowledge, one can assume that there are other cures to epilepsy, glaucoma, and sclerosis.
In this round, I have stated the pros and cons to medical marijuana. As Pro, as well as the viewers can see, there are more downsides to it that upsides. The list of cons is longer and the alternative cures are obvious. Here is my conclusion: Using marijuana for medicinal use is unnecessary and should not be done.
I patiently await Pro's rebuttals. Thank you.
"Medical Cannabis." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 Dec. 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org...;.
"MARIJUANA: Uses, Side Effects, Interactions and Warnings - WebMD." WebMD. WebMD. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <http://www.webmd.com...;.
"Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana." Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. <http://www.evaluationtoday.com...;.
I have now returned home, a place with great Wi-Fi and proper internet. I can now make a sophisticated argument unlike the first. I appreciate your quick response and I await your future rebuttals. Now, however, it is time for me to expand on my argument and to make some rebuttals. I will then write a conclusion paragraph. I greatly appreciate your patience.
Rebuttals & New Arguments
I will make rebuttals and new arguments in this section. I would like to begin by talking about your first paragraph, which was titled "Facts about medical marijuana." The paragraph is short, but I would like to point out the things we disagree on. You listed facts that are undeniable. However, it is the question of how you interpret these facts. I interpret them in a different way than you do. Also, there are some facts you did not list. Marijuana can be used in order to treat epileptic seizures and other similar conditions. Glaucoma and Multiple Sclerosis are only the tip of the iceberg. You also wrote, "it works by binding to specific sites in the brain and on the nerves... all chemicals that bind to the brain are dangerous..." I must agree with you that the facts are undeniable. However, I do disagree with one aspect of that specific post. Chemicals that bind to the brain can be dangerous, but - as I stated before - medical marijuana, when taken in moderation and with caution, can be beneficial for those who desperately need it. In the previous argument, I referred to it as the "last hope" for some people. Addiction can be an issue, but with the proper legislation enacted and regulations put in place, I don't believe there will be too many issues with the usage of marijuana for medical purposes. Also, marijuana does not always need to be smoked.Previous cases - such as the ones in CNN's two Weed documentaries - have utilized cannabis mixed into food or as a drinkable oil. In your second paragraph (titled "Why it should not be used"), you wrote undeniable facts about medical marijuana. Again, it is the question of how you interpret these facts. It specifically says that "long-term use of marijuana can make lung problems worse." The key word is "long-term". Also, as I have stated before, marijuana when taken in moderation and with caution can and most likely will be beneficial for the patient. In your paragraph titled "Other treatments", there are both truths and unfounded opinions present. You wrote "...there are plenty of other ways to cure illnesses." For illnesses related to anything other than the brain, that is mostly true. However, medical marijuana is the only known medicine today that can successfully diagnose epilepsy. As I have stated before, modern epilepsy medicines often fail and cannabis is often the better choice. It is virtually unheard of that there is a thing such as a marijuana overdose. It does not simply occur. However, overdoses can easily occur when taking pills, tablets, or serums. You should definately watch the two CNN Weed documentaries. Before I watched them, I had no opinion of medical marijuana. After I watched them, I changed. I decided that medical marijuana should be legal, but only when it is regulated. You say that there are other cures for these diseases. Tell me, what are they? Are they necessarily safer than cannabis? I say they are not. You referred to "alternative cures." For many illnesses, there are NO alternative cures. Until we can find safer, more reliable medicine, cannabis must be utilized.
You have a thorough knowledge of the facts, yet you misinterpret them. I hope I have convinced you. Also, I did not write at my fullest capacity. It is late and I had to rush this argument. Please forgive me. If you require more arguments from me, I will post them in the comment section.
As you can see, I have not cited my sources. That is because:
1. I do not need sources at the moment. I am using logic and common sense.
2. It is 11:50 PM.
Once the debate is over and the voting period begins, I urge the voters to give my opponent the "reliable sources" points. He deserves the credit.
I await your response patiently.
I would like to start by thanking my opponent for responding. As he has stated that he is back home and can write more sophisticated arguments. I will now begin with mine:
Pro has stated that he cannot deny the fact I have kindly placed before him. However, he has also stated that it is a matter of how one interprets the facts. I mostly beg to differ. It is true that you can interpret facts your own way, but only to a certain extent. There happens to be more cons than pros to medicinal marijuana, which stands to prove that I am correct. Pro stated that "[marijuana], when taken in moderation and with caution, can be beneficial for those who desperately need it." It is true, but doctors cannot always know if a patient will have a positive or negative reaction to it.
Pro has assumed that I am not aware of the fact that medical marijuana does not have to be smoked. I am indeed aware of this. Moving on, I will talk about how Pro has continued to refer to the fact that these facts all have to do with how you interpret them. Again, this is true, but facts are facts. My opponent has admitted that the facts I gave are undeniable, however has continued to refer to interpretation.
Lastly, I will refer to Pro's reference to what I stated about there being different cures to illnesses. He has said that "[f]or many illnesses, there are NO alternative cures." That happens to be false. We just have to find those cures.
As the viewers can see, I have given plenty of facts towards why it should not be legal to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. My opponent has accepted those facts, however slightly denies them. I will say one thing: Facts are facts and they cannot be denied. This debate is now in the hands of the voters. I have enjoyed this debate and hope to win.
|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:||3||0|