The Instigator
IronCurx
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
wxyz2000
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Marijuana should be legalized in Canada

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,722 times Debate No: 62423
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

IronCurx

Pro

This debate is about the legalization of marijuana in Canada, Bop is on the side of Pro, Pro needs to provide significant arguments that marijuana should be legalized in Canada, and if Con fails to refute those than Pro wins. Legalization will be defined as ONLY pharmacies will be able to sell marijuana.

Round 1 is acceptance.
Round 2 is opening argument for Pro and rebuttals for Con
Round 3 and 4 are for rebuttals

This is a civil debate, everyone is free to discuss their own opinions, there will be no cussing.
wxyz2000

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
IronCurx

Pro

Thank you Con for accepting my debate

Argument 1: Marijuana is the best treatment for insomnia

Today over 2.2 million people have a doctor recommending marijuana. Why? Marijuana is a great cure for insomnia, as a matter of fact Cannabis has been used for the treatment of both pain and sleep disorders since ancient times. According to researcher Feinberg in Clinical Pharmacology, "The effect on sleep of cannabis admiration closely resembles those induced by lithium." [1] Again according to lead author Karen I. Bolla for the Journal Sleep, "Marijuana users report negligible use of alcohol, sleeping pills, or other medicines to induce sleep.

Argument 2: Marijuana is used to alleviate a lot of medical aliments

According to International Business Times Cannabis is used as an medical treatment for a lot of different diseases, it helps with Alzheimer"s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, arthritis, depression, anxiety, hepatitis C, morning sickness, cancer, HIV/AIDS and chemo [2], all of these screams out the legalization of Marijuana, since it helps with so many diseases doctor can just put cannabis into their storage rooms, instead of adding a variety of medicines that helps with all of the for mentioned diseases. According to Dr. Tod Mikuriya, a former national administrator of the U.S. government's marijuana research programs, "There is no product out there today - anything - that has as many benefits as medical marijuana, "It's unlimited," Hornby said of marijuana. "Grow more, get more medicine.

Additionally unlike over the counter drugs which causes more than 100,000 people in the world each year, there has been no death from cannabis use anywhere [3] According to Dr. Paul Hornby, a biochemist and human pathologist who is one of the leading authorities on cannabis research: "I've heard you have to smoke something like 15,000 joints in 20 minutes to get a toxic amount of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, I challenge anybody to do that."

Sources:
[1] http://blog.sfgate.com...
[2] http://www.ibtimes.com...
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
wxyz2000

Con



Thanks to Pro for initiating this debate.







First of all, I would like to enumerate the reasons why marijuana should not be legalized.







The Amsterdam marijuana experiment did not succeed.







Marijuana is widely available in the Netherlands. However, citizens in Amsterdam are now alarmed that their children are increasingly exposed to it. Amsterdam became the first city in the Netherlands to ban students from smoking marijuana at school. School administrators actually complained about pupils turning up to classes high after rollin up outside the grounds. Contrary to the claims that legalizing marijuana will reduce crime, Amsterdam is also finding that crime is now centring around the coffeehouses where marijuana is sold. Coalition are now advancing the idea of prohibiting the sale of cannabis to non-Dutch residents. Crime and legal sex trade has become more and more visible and numerous around these marijuana coffee houses.







http://www.rightwingnews.com...




http://www.dailymail.co.uk...










Long-term marijuana is addictive.







An estimated 9% of people who use marijuana will become addicted to it, and the ratio increases to 1 in 6 for people who start young.







http://www.drugabuse.gov...










Marijuana alters your brain structure







According the a recent North-western University study, marijuana users have abnormal brain structures and poor memory. Chronic marijuana abuse may lead to brain changes resembling schizophrenia.







The American Medical Association filed a report against marijuana legalization, stating “Heavy cannabis use in adolescence causes persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and IQ, and use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood and psychotic though disorders.”







Marijuana Smokers Faces more Rapid Lung Destruction than Cigarette Smokers







Recent studies show that the development of bullous lung disease occurs in marijuana smokers approximately 20 years earlier than tobacco smoke. This disease leads to the eventual destruction of the lungs.







http://www.sciencedaily.com...










Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels of Certain Toxins than Tobacco Smoke




Researchers in Canada have shown that marijuana contains significantly higher levels of toxic compounds than cigarettes. Among these are ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.







http://www.sciencedaily.com...







Marijuana can kill (in other ways):







In Australia, a study found that cannabis intoxication was responsible for 4.3% of driver fatalities. This is because marijuana can cause impairment. You wouldn’t want pilots, engineers, manufacturers, doctors, day care providers to be consuming marijuana.







Marijuana is more harmful than it is helpful:







The consensus of available scientific research does not support “medical marijuana claim”.




http://www.iowa.gov...







Marijuana is not good for long-term economic growth







Because Marijuana causes impairment and stunts learning ability (persistent marijuana use starting in adolescence can lead to an 8-point drop in IQ), it is detrimental to a society which is more and more dependent on knowledge workers. Worker marijuana is also related to absences, tardiness, accidents, workers’ comp claims and turnover.







http://www.iowa.gov...







Pro's arguments basically sums that marijuana can be used to alleviate many medical ailments. However, since the majority of the scientific community has concluded that marijuana (overall) is harmful (stating that “there is currently sound evidence that smoked marijuana is harmful”), Pro's position is essentially untenable.

Debate Round No. 2
IronCurx

Pro

Thank you Con for your argument

Con states that:

“The Amsterdam marijuana experiment did not succeed…, citizens in Amsterdam are now alarmed that their children are increasingly exposed to it.” However I would like to point out that Con assume that coffee shops and other medical buildings will be able to sell this drug as stated by his sources and in his argument , however as stated in round one, I stated that “Legalization will be defined as ONLY pharmacies will be able to sell marijuana.” Thus as Con did not read the definitions pointed out in Round One and this argument is considered useless.

Con also states that marijuana is more harmful than cigarettes, however I would like to quickly point out that since its introduction to mankind, cannabis has most yet killed a single person. [1] According to Doctor Paul Hornby, a biochemist and human pathologist who also happens to be one of the leading authorities on cannabis research: "You have to smoke something like 15,000 joints in 20 minutes to get a toxic amount of delta-9 tetrahydrocannibinol," [2] Which of course is impossible. Moreover Con again did not read my first post when I stated that only pharmacies will be able to sell marijuana, which is unlike cigars in the fact that you can buy it at a multitude of places.

Con states again and again how marijuana is harmful however this graph below shuts down all of his/her arguments

Harm Caused By Drugs

Con states that marijuana is more harmful than it is helpful, however this is not the case, a) as stated by the graph above and according to Dr. Tod Mikuriya: "After dealing with about 10,000 patents in the last 15 years, I'd say about 200 different medical conditions respond favorably to cannabis," [2] Although cannabis is addictive, the strict measures the government can take to prevent the use of medical marijuana and that amount of benefits it has clearly shows that the pros of legalizing marijuana far outweighs the cons.

Con states that legalizing marijuana hurts the economy do to impairs intellectual abilities, you can say the same thing for over the counter drugs and painkillers, who are still legal today even though they kill over 100,000 people each year [2]. Since marijuana only impairs intellectual capacities, you can say that over the counter drugs hurts the economy more than marijuana. Marijuana can replace the prescription drugs, and less people would die and the economy would thrive.

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

[2]http://www.ibtimes.com...

wxyz2000

Con


Sorry for the previous round (for the distorted rich text). I will recap my arguments quickly for the reader.



Long-term marijuana is addictive.


Marijuana alters your brain structure.


Marijuana Smokers Faces more Rapid Lung Destruction than Cigarette Smokers.


Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels of Certain Toxins than Tobacco Smoke.


Marijuana can cause impairment.


Marijuana is not good for long-term economic growth.


Most scientific research today agrees that marijuana is more detrimental to our health than it is harmful.



I also pointed out that the Amsterdam marijuana experiment was a failure.



Pro tries nullify that the Amsterdam experiment is irrelevant as it is centred around coffee shops. However, my point was to prove that the presence of marijuana corresponds to increased crime rates and “misfits” from teens. Pro would be correct in negating my point if he/she could maintain that pharmacies could keep a strict control over the drug. However, this would not be the case. As the following source suggest, Canada is currently experiencing a “crisis” in prescription drug abuse. Opioids such as morphine is commonly abused.



http://www.ccsa.ca...



The sources Pro uses are biased. Hypotheses on the effects of marihuana vary greatly between scientists. For instance, certain scientists claim that cannabis can kill up to 30 000 a year (John Henry of the Imperial London College). While this number may be exaggerated, it shows the inconsistency of research (in regards to people killed) with marijuana. Pro also shows a graph that would “shut down my arguments”. However, this is not the case, as he/she simply selected a biased source. As I pointed out in my previous argument, the consensus of available scientific research does not support “medical marijuana claim”, and that marijuana is more detrimental for the health then it helps it.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk...



Marijuana does not only “impair intellectual abilities”, it also causes many accidents due to impairment of the senses. Approximately ten percent of the fatal car accidents in America have been related to marijuana.



http://www.drug-overdose.com...



“…legalizing marijuana hurts the economy do to impairs intellectual abilities, you can say the same thing for over the counter drugs and painkillers, who are still legal today even though they kill over 100,000 people each year.”



Con, I’m not sure if your sources state this. Could you please double-check?





Con also seems to contradict his/her statement by stating that “the strict measures the government can take to prevent the use of medical marijuana and that amount of benefit”. It seems that Pro is also intent on preventing the use of medical marijuana.



Additionally, marijuana has been used increasingly among young people in the United States since 2007. For the most part, these young people do not need marijuana for medical purposes, but for “coping mechanisms”. Legalizing marijuana will send the wrong message to teens and most likely increase the drug use.



http://www.drugabuse.gov...


http://www.medic8.com...



The process of legalizing marijuana is easy, but the process of banning it is difficult. Once it is legalized, and it does prove to be extremely harmful, the damage will be done. The null hypothesis is that marijuana is harmful, and the alternate hypothesis is that marijuana is not. To reject the null hypothesis, we need powerful evidence.



However, most of the research today do point that marijuana is more damaging than it is helpful. Most of the research agree that marijuana is addictive, causes psychological damage, impairs senses, alters brain structure and contains higher amount of ammonia and hydrogen cyanate than tobacco smoke. The potential damage that may be caused by marijuana is incredibly high as it contains hundreds of chemical compounds.



http://www.drugabuse.gov...



Therefore, there is not sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis and legalize marijuana.


Debate Round No. 3
IronCurx

Pro

I do not want this to be a battle of sources.

Con stated that my website is a biased source, however Con failed to provide an argument to convince the voters why my source is biased. According to Newstrust the Huffington post is credible as in 2006 it was the 5th most popular weblog overall as measured by web links. [3] Also according to sources [1] and [2] marijuana doesn't kill anyone.

Additionally Con may have used a bias sources in DrugAbuse. The name of the website shows that it is more or less an "against drugs" kind of website.

I also believe that since marijuana is helpful for 200 plus disease, and since many doctors are recommending it I believe that the alternate hypothesis overrides the null hypothesis.

Marijuana is also less addictive than coffee [4], and it doesn't kill people and it's helpful for insomnia and a lot of doctors are recommending it I urge you to vote Pro.

Sources:
[1] http://norml.org...
[2] http://www.newhealthguide.org...
[3] http://newstrust.net...
[4] http://www.drugsense.org...
wxyz2000

Con

First of all, I would like to thank Pro for challenging me to this debate. This is the first time I debated this topic and I learned many things from my opponent.

Before I begin my arguments, I will summarize the contentions used on each side.

Pro believes that marijuana should be legalized for two main reasons:

Marijuana is not a very harmful substance.
Marijuana can be potentially used to treat many different ailments
Marijuana can replace prescription drugs which are more harmful

The series of arguments I have used so far are:

Long-term marijuana is addictive.
Marijuana alters your brain structure.
Marijuana Smokers Faces more Rapid Lung Destruction than Cigarette Smokers.
Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels of Certain Toxins than Tobacco Smoke.
Marijuana can cause impairment of the senses, which can then lead to accidents.
Marijuana is not good for long-term economic growth.
Most scientific research today agrees that marijuana is more detrimental to our health than it is harmful.
Marijuana will lead to higher crime rates (as proven by the Amsterdam experiment)
"Legalizing" marijuana will send the wrong message to teens, many of whom are not using marijuana for medical purposes, but for "coping mechanisms" or to appear "cool"
Most scientists agree that further studies on marijuana are necessary to resolve the debate. Legalizing marijuana is easy, but banning it is difficult. If marijuana does prove to be detrimental to the health, and it does damage health, it would be costly for the lives of many individuals.

Points 8 and 9 are built on the premise that prescription drug abuse is rampant, and that marijuana is currently used illegally. Regarding the second, legalizing marijuana would encourage more widespread use of the drug for "casual uses", as people would perceive the government to be stating that "marijuana is not harmful". Points 7 and 10 can exist together logically (for instance, if 51% of the research points against "medical marijuana).

Pro has so far refuted points number 3 (which I will concede), and has tried to refute points 6, 7, and 10. As of the last round, Pro has not refuted my other arguments or countered my defences, so I extend them.

I will now begin my arguments.

Opponent's First Contention

Marijuana is not a very harmful substance.

This is an argument stated repeatedly by my opponent. However, there is much uncertainty regarding this topic. For instance, all of the below sources (there are many more) agree that research on marijuana is inconclusive.

http://www.revisiondrugs.org...
http://archive.coloradoan.com...
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com...
http://www.medscape.com...

Dr. David M. Labiner, a neurologist with the university of Arizona, said that while there have been anecdotal evidence about the medical properties of marijuana,"there is limited high-quality evidence about the efficacy and virtually no data about the safety of using marijuana or cannabinoids".

Pro also claims that Huffington Post is a reliable source. While Huffington Post may or may not be a "reliable" source, the data they used is not. With such a wide variety of results of the effects of marijuana, we should consider the entirety of the scientific research regarding marijuana. Today, experts agree that that the debate on marijuana is inconclusive, though most of the research is against the claim of "medical marijuana". Pro has not refuted this contention as my opponent has only looked at a few studies for marijuana, and hasn"t looked at the studies as a whole. Consequently, we should not legalize marijuana, as the risk is too great (If the drug proves to be damaging, banning marijuana later would be very difficult and costly for the lives that had been exposed).

Marijuana also has higher levels of hydrogen cyanate and ammonia (and other toxins) than tobacco smoke. This is easily quantifiable and cannot be refuted. Marijuana contains hundreds of chemical compounds. The effects of these compounds cannot be easily determined.


Opponent's Second Contention: Marijuana can be potentially used to treat many different ailments

Again, my opponent"s position is uncertain as the benefits of marijuana are uncertain (shown above). Cocaine was the "miracle drug" prescribed a couple of decades earlier by doctors. Look how that has turned out today.


Opponent's Third Contention: Marijuana can replace prescription drugs which are more harmful

There are two arguments which speak against this. One of them being that marijuana can already be prescribed in Canada (Though it is not "legal" in the way that Pro described it). If you truly believe in medical marijuana, are willing to take the risk, and your health is in a state which require you to take the drug, you can take the lengthy process to acquire it. The process is listed below:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca...

Which means that Canadians can already use it to replace dangerous drugs such as morphine if they truly deem it necessary.

Second, marijuana may be harmful. If this is true, then we want to limit the effects of cannabis on society.

Maybe most importantly, cannabis is mostly used recreationally and to improve people's "quality of life", not as medicine. If that is the case, when government decides to legalize marijuana, it will send a message to citizens in Canada that marijuana is safe (when there isn't enough evidence), and drastically increase the rate of use.

For my concluding statement, I would like to point out that it was once legal for pharmacies to sell marijuana in Canada. However, the pharmacists themselves removed themselves from this law, stating that they were uncomfortable distributing products without enough research.

http://www.ctvnews.ca...

Until more conclusive evidence can be found regarding marijuana, we should maintain the status quo. The status quo does not equate the complete banning of marijuana, and only maintains a strict control over the distribution. This is ideal for the current imbalance of opinions surrounding marijuana.

As the burden of proof is on Pro and my opponent has not proved why we should extend the selling of marijuana to pharmacies, I urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Neoman 2 years ago
Neoman
then why not ban alcohol, cigarettes and even asprins??? We cant keep banning everything, thats just a primitive act. Yet, in every city of every country, we can build some "weed zones" or somethingelse just like bars. For sure you will have to be 21+ to enter. And only inside those places/zones smoking weed should be permitable.
Posted by wxyz2000 2 years ago
wxyz2000
Sorry. Rich text.
Posted by General_Grievous 2 years ago
General_Grievous
Mmmmmmm......... Weed
No votes have been placed for this debate.