The Instigator
SebUK
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
jamccartney
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Marijuana should be legal

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 2 votes the winner is...
jamccartney
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,305 times Debate No: 48318
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

SebUK

Pro

Round 1 is stricly for acceptance and please no rebuttal in Round 2 , Round 2 is for explaining your views, Don't accept if you joined a day or a few days ago because than i cannot be sure that you don't forget about this debate.
jamccartney

Con

I have accepted this debate and shall be arguing the con side, saying that recreational marijuana, as I assume we are talking about recreational and not medical, should not be legal. My opponent will be arguing that recreational marijuana should indeed be legal.

Because my opponent has neglected to lay out some rules, I feel obligated to do so.
  1. Proper grammar and spelling should be used at all time.
  2. All sources, if any, must be cited.
  3. All arguments must be sophisticated.

Because that is all I wish to say, I await Pro's arguments for the legalization of recreational marijuana.
Debate Round No. 1
SebUK

Pro

Before talking about my views i would like to say sorry but my computer prevents me to space the paragraphs ... Right lets get this thing going on i will explain my main arguments for legalization and i hope my opponent will do so aswell in his turn . 1.Prohibition failed For over 75 years the government has used criminal penalties to stop people from using cannabis yet cannabis is currently the largest cash crop in the United States, and marijuana is grown all over the planet , millions of people smoke it and never have any serious health problems because of it even the thought that cannabis prohibition is a good way to stop people from smoking it is as radicilous as the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion and is un-supported by facts and statistics which have shown that since the war on drugs started more and more people use drugs. My possible explanation is that it gives the people who use it a certain buzz or a thrill because they are doing something that society condems it's like a teenager sneaking out so he can try a cigeratte with his friends. 2.Better Quality and Possibly less use If cannabis was legalized the black cannabis market would mostly collapse because people would start buying from companies that compete against each other , No longer would people have to buy from someone in a dark alley who has no knowledge about business managament and puts stuff into his cannabis to make more profit . Marijuana is illegal therefore this is providing opportunities for teenagers to make easy money selling it to their friends most experts agree if cannabis would be legalized prices would drop down . 3. Hemp We need to change our energy policy we must embrace and promote the development of bio-fuels as an alternative to oil dependency and a way to reduce carbon emissions, it is all the more important to develop industrial hemp as a bio-fuel source . 4.It is not as harmful as legal drugs The propaganda is unbelivable Cannabis no matter what most people say is in fact much less harmful than legal drugs like alcohol and tobbaco the two most popular arguments are that Cannabis causes mental illnesses which is in fact true but quite rare and you would need to use it A LOT to actually get a mental illness from using cannabis oh and of course it is only if you have really bad genes or a family history of mental illneses and Two that Cannabis destroys brain cells which is a total lie, the idea that cannabis can cause brain damage comes from the Heath/Tulane Study of 1974 this study was done on monkies Not only were the monkeys given 63 columbian strength joints in 5 minutes, the smoke was administered through a facial mask with no additional oxygen. As you will find in any CPR or first aid manual 3 to 5 minutes of oxygen depravation will cause brain damage. The monkeys were suffocating. It was not Cannabis but the Lack of oxygen that caused brain damage no recent study shows that Cannabis has any link to brain damage. No-one has ever died out of Cannabis overdose this makes it one of the safest drugs out there . 5.Prison and Tax money In many places around the world prisons are extremely over crowded, Marijuana arrests make justice more expensive and less efficient we are wasting jail space for serious criminals and we are wasting the time of the police force , If Cannabis was legalized the government would make Millions or even possible Millions from taxing cannabis and hemp companies 6.Cannabis can be benefitual Cannabis is known to help people get through depression and anorexia it is also a way for people to socialize and meet people with similar interests , every day people are suffering from a variety of serious ailments. Marijuana provides relief from pain, nausea, spasticity, and other symptoms for many individuals who have not been treated successfully with conventional medications. What makes it even better is that it has a relatively low dependence liability and easy-to-manage side effects for most people the greatest risk of using marijuana is the relatively low risk of arrest. I now wish my opponent good luck and i await his main arguments against legalization.
jamccartney

Con

I would like to thank Pro for responding so quickly and giving me an opportunity to write my argument against the legalization of recreational marijuana, as I assume that is what we are talking about here.

Evidently, I will begin by asserting the facts that explain why I believe it should not be legalized.

Marijuana is comparable to tobacco, which we all know has downsides.[1] Studies have shows that marijuana smokers are exposed to more smoke than cigarette smokers. This exposes them to an larger amount of carbon dioxide and tar, which increases the risks of a range of health problems including respiratory tract infections, bronchitis and lung cancer.[1] Not only that, according to drugfree.org, "{s}moking a single marijuana joint is equivalent to smoking 2.5 to 5 cigarettes in terms of damage to the lungs, largely due to differences in how pot and cigarette users smoke."[2]
"The Guardian {also} reported July 31 that researchers at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand found that the deep drags taken by marijuana users, along with their penchant for holding smoke in before exhaling, can cause problems like obstructed airways and hyperinflation of the lungs. The lack of filters on marijuana joints also contributes to lung problems."[2]

As this is only round two, I shall await round three to give the rest of my reasoning to not legalizing recreational marijuana and my rebuttals against your arguments. I look forward to seeing your reasoning and arguments for why you believe recreational marijuana should be made legal.

[1]http://learnaboutmarijuanawa.org......
[2]http://www.drugfree.org......
Debate Round No. 2
SebUK

Pro

'Marijuana is comparable to tobacco, which we all know has downsides.[1] Studies have shows that marijuana smokers are exposed to more smoke than cigarette smokers. This exposes them to an larger amount of carbon dioxide and tar, which increases the risks of a range of health problems including respiratory tract infections, bronchitis and lung cancer.' However Marijuana is much less addictive than tobbaco . Also the link between cannabis and lung cancer is significantly lower than tobbaco's link to lunk cancer also i would like to add that I don't care how bad it is the person doing it chooses to do it is his body he damages by taking any relatively strong drug. My Opponent didn't give me any more issues to address .
jamccartney

Con

Introduction

I would like to thank Pro for responding. Though his argument and rebuttals may have been short, he was attempting to disprove my arguments. I will respond to that before I move on to the facts he stated about why recreational marijuana should be be legal.

Pro's Rebuttals

Pro stated that "the person doing it chooses to do it is his body he damages by taking any relatively strong drug." This is true, but as citizens of this country, we want there to be more people who are not ill or dead. We want people to have good jobs so they will pay taxes. People are less likely to be hired for a job if the interviewer can tell they have been smoking, which is a hard smell and behavior to cover up.

Pro has not given any more arguments against mine, so I shall move on to his facts about marijuana in round 2.

Pro's Arguments Towards Marijuana

1. "Prohibition failed"

Indeed it did, but that is because the government did not have as much control as it does today. If that happened again today, there would still be illegal uses, but not as many because more people would be caught. What needs to happen is greater funding of the DEA and police.

is un-supported by facts and statistics which have shown that since the war on drugs started more and more people use drugs[sic]

That is not true. There is plenty of evidence for health issues and statistics. I will mention some evidence in a moment.

2. "Better Quality and Possibly less use"

There's no such thing as 'better quality' marijuana. It's a plant. It is not synthesized. And it will only be used more, not less. If it is legalized, it will be easier to find, which will lead to more people using it. It's simple logic and statistics.

3. "Hemp"

I do not really know what to say about this energy thing. I personally think we need to move on to electric cars instead of bio-fuel or oil power cars.

4. "It is not as harmful as legal drugs"

Actually, it is. It turns down brain activity until it is very low. When it gets to that point, it is barely capable of complex thought. Alcohol is better for the brain than marijuana because it doesn't shut it down as quick or as much. Cigarettes destroy the mouth, lungs, and throat, so I guess you could say that's worse.

5. "Prison and Tax money"

Yeah, more people paying taxes sounds pretty good to me. That is what I was talking about earlier: we want less people dying from drugs so we can have more taxpayers to pay their taxes.

I patiently await Pro's arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
SebUK

Pro

'but as citizens of this country, we want there to be more people who are not ill or dead. ' And who are we to impose our own morality on an issue that doesn't even directly harm us , tell me how would someone smoking marijuana at his home will harm you?. 'People are less likely to be hired for a job if the interviewer can tell they have been smoking, which is a hard smell and behavior to cover up. ' Speaking of jobs and taxes http://www.bbc.co.uk... Colorado has just 'The US state of Colorado collected $2m ("1.2m) in taxes from newly legalised recreational marijuana businesses' and 'Overall, the state collected a total of $3.5m in marijuana taxes if medical marijuana firms are included.' Marijuana legalization would create thousands of new jobs and would benefit the economy , yes an interview is less likely to get that job in your scenario , and so what? he chose to smoke cannabis and prohibition is not going to stop him from doing so. 'Indeed it did, but that is because the government did not have as much control as it does today. ' (prohibition) since the 1970s drug use has risen ,Putting someone in jail/fining them/giving them community service for possession of a drug is unjust, it should be their choice and not the government's what they put in their body. They are not harming anyone by mere possession, and putting them in jail at huge cost to the taxpayer ruins their life and costs us all. Sending someone to jail for drug posession is a waste of money as well as being unjust. the big majority of drug arrests are indeed for drug possesion and not for dealing .'What needs to happen is greater funding of the DEA and police. ' like if spoiling people will automatically make them better . 'There's no such thing as 'better quality' marijuana. It's a plant. It is not synthesized. And it will only be used more, not less. If it is legalized, it will be easier to find, which will lead to more people using it. It's simple logic and statistics.'sings of low quality weed are : Lots of seeds and stems, lack of trichomes,and some brownish color all indicate bad quality , drugs can in fact be low quality since dealers might put stuff into it to make more money while businesses are regulated . Also it is not as simple as you think it is in Portugal when drugs have been de-criminalized it barely affected the numbers , in fact some experts claim that prohibition leads to more use because society condemns it and that attracts some. 'Actually, it is. It turns down brain activity until it is very low. When it gets to that point, it is barely capable of complex thought. Alcohol is better for the brain than marijuana because it doesn't shut it down as quick or as much.' Actually alcohol kills brain cells while cannabis doesn't there was only one study that have suggested so and it has already been proven wrong .
jamccartney

Con

Introduction



I would like to thank Pro again for responding and giving me his arguments towards legalizing marijuana. He has given me plenty of arguments to refute. I will start from the beginning.



Rebuttals



"And who are we to impose our own morality on an issue that doesn't even directly harm us , tell me how would someone smoking marijuana at his home will harm you?.[sic]"



I am not talking about morals. I am talking about taxpayers, which I see you noticed due to the other rebuttals you posted.



"Speaking of jobs and taxes http://www.bbc.co.uk...... Colorado has just 'The US state of Colorado collected $2m ("1.2m) in taxes from newly legalised recreational marijuana businesses' and 'Overall, the state collected a total of $3.5m in marijuana taxes if medical marijuana firms are included.'[sic]"



Indeed, however most of those are state taxes. I do not live in Colorado, which means it does not effect me. Furthermore, you are not getting my point about marijuana killing people. When it does this, marijuana sales will go down, hence rendering marijuana tax obsolete. Though it does not kill people like tobacco and alcohol does, it will cause people to do stupid things, which will essentially lead to death, suicide, et-cedra.



"yes an interview is less likely to get that job in your scenario[sic]"



Thank you for conceding my point.



"and so what?"



Here is why: They will not get the job, which will not create jobs, which will not benefit the economy. We want to benefit the economy, correct?



"Putting someone in jail/fining them/giving them community service for possession of a drug is unjust, it should be their choice and not the government's what they put in their body.[sic]"



I do not see how it is unjust. If someone has in their possession something that can harm, they should be punished. What would they be doing with it? Two things:


  • 1. Using it, which will harm them.

  • 2. Selling it to someone else, who will use it, harming them.



"like if spoiling people will automatically make them better[sic]"



How is it spoiling people? More people would be hired, which would benefit the economy. (Have you noticed that everything ties in with the economy somehow?)



"Actually alcohol kills brain cells while cannabis doesn't there was only one study that have suggested so and it has already been proven wrong[sic]"



Yes, it is true that alcohol kills brain cells. It is just as bad. However, it has been proven that marijuana slows down brain activity. Look at the link below:



http://www.thomashedlund.com...



Conclusion



Because that is all Pro has stated, there are no more rebuttals I can state. I await his next arguments and rebuttals. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 4
SebUK

Pro

' you are not getting my point about marijuana killing people. When it does this, marijuana sales will go down, hence rendering marijuana tax obsolete. Though it does not kill people like tobacco and alcohol does, it will cause people to do stupid things, which will essentially lead to death, suicide, et-cedra.' Death from marijuana is very rare , do you seriously think that people don't know that cannabis can be harmful for your body ? (although not highly) , humans have used marijuana for a long time . Why would anoyone think that it will magically change because 'marijuana killing people' marijuana sales will change over time maybe go down maybe go up maybe stay similar but i can gurantte that people will not stop smoking it because 'marijuana killing people' . Another thing i would like to adress is that even if magically marijuana didn't produce money so what? how will that negatively effect you? . 'Here is why: They will not get the job, which will not create jobs, which will not benefit the economy. We want to benefit the economy, correct?' I guess you are not very good at trying to cover something since if anyone is actually following this debate knows that i have rebutted your point about this on the last round . 'I do not see how it is unjust. If someone has in their possession something that can harm, they should be punished. What would they be doing with it? ' Oh than lets ban guns , knifes and anything that can harm people , the difference here is it only directly harms anyone who chooses to take it , if you see someone snorting cocaine does that harm you? '1. Using it, which will harm them.' Using that logic we should punish people for suicide attemps . '2. Selling it to someone else, who will use it, harming them.' *harming themselves by choice and not harming anyone else by doing so . 'How is it spoiling people? More people would be hired, which would benefit the economy. (Have you noticed that everything ties in with the economy somehow?)' First of all if anyone want's to be a policemen he can become so second of all I have already explained in the previous round how much cannabis would benefit the economy . 'Yes, it is true that alcohol kills brain cells. It is just as bad. However, it has been proven that marijuana slows down brain activity. Look at the link below:' Which is not the same as killing brain cells .... I await my opponents response
jamccartney

Con

Rebuttals



In the beginning of Pro's argument, he said, "[d]eath from marijuana is very rare , do you seriously think that people don't know that cannabis can be harmful for your body [sic]?" Now, I want to first point out that he did not give any proof of this, for he did not cite any sources. Secondly, according to CBS News, marijuana recently triggered the deaths of two men in Berlin (CBS News). Furthermore,



Next, Pro said this:



Why would anoyone think that it will magically change because 'marijuana killing people' marijuana sales will change over time maybe go down maybe go up maybe stay similar but i can gurantte that people will not stop smoking it because 'marijuana killing people' [sic].



I will begin by pointing out the major thing wrong this sentence: Grammar. If I recall from round 1, I said: "Proper grammar and spelling should be used at all time." Though Pro told me he is incapable of spacing his paragraphs, he said nothing about punctuation and run-on sentences. Because of that, I have to believe that he has defied my rules. The next thing I would like to point out is the validity of the statement. Pro wants to know why marijuana sales would go down. I will restate my reason from round 4: "Though it does not kill people like tobacco and alcohol does, it will cause people to do stupid things, which will essentially lead to death, suicide, et-cedra." When the customers die, they will be incapable of buying, hence lowering the sales.



"Another thing i would like to adress is that even if magically marijuana didn't produce money so what? how will that negatively effect you?[sic]"



Taxes. Economy. Must I say more?



"I guess you are not very good at trying to cover something since if anyone is actually following this debate knows that i have rebutted your point about this on the last round .[sic]"



Indeed, you refuted that point, but were wrong. I am correct in my statement while you are not.



"Oh than lets ban guns , knifes and anything that can harm people , the difference here is it only directly harms anyone who chooses to take it , if you see someone snorting cocaine does that harm you?"



I will allow you a win on that point.



After that, Pro quoted my statement about people being hired, which would benefit the economy. Then, he refuted it: "First of all if anyone want's to be a policemen he can become so second of all I have already explained in the previous round how much cannabis would benefit the economy .[sic]" No, if someone wants to be a policeman, but they smoke marijuana, they will not get hired. Secondly, I want to point out the grammar once again. It is in direct defiance of my rules.



Lastly, Pro refuted my brain activity photo with this: "Which is not the same as killing brain cells. [sic]" Indeed, it is not the same, but it is equally bad. It reduces brain activity, which can and will result in permanent damage.



Conclusion



In this debate, I have continuously refuted Pro's argument. I have shown that it is bad for health and that it can result in death. I have also shown that Pro is neither capable of providing good citations and sources, nor proper grammar and spelling. I thank Pro for debating this topic with me and I believe the results of this debate are clear to the viewers and I: Vote Con.



MLA Citations



"Marijuana Triggered Deaths of Two Men, Study Says." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. <http://www.cbsnews.com...;.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
SebUKjamccartneyTied
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: First of all, I will say that the "conduct" points are tied. Both candidates had great conduct. Secondly, I will say that the "spelling and grammar" points will be given to Con. One must simply scan through the debate and you can quickly realize that Con had much better grammar and spelling. The "convincing arguments" and "reliable sources" points go to Con. His arguments are generally longer and Con used actual sources, unlike Pro.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
SebUKjamccartneyTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that Pro made stronger arguments, and Con had better (and more) sources.