The Instigator
Paradox_7
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Marijuana should be legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,046 times Debate No: 23249
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (3)

 

Paradox_7

Pro

In many states, they have begun to drop the noose that restricts medical marijuana use. In my state of CA you will find more dispensaries then star bucks.. however I think everyone should have this choice, and that it shouldn't be only ok for the terminally ill.

I want to argue that this should be the federal standard(legal), and that marijuana has been taboo for so long, based on ignorance and denial.

I am (pro) so will be defending and asserting this motion.

(con) will argue marijuana should remain and/or be permanently illegal.




The way it goes...
1st round - Acceptance - establish argument

2nd round - Opening statements / arguments

3rd round - Arguments

4th round - Conclusion


lets do it!...
THEBOMB

Con

I accept this challenge and I await my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Paradox_7

Pro

Paradox_7 forfeited this round.
THEBOMB

Con

wow....my opponent seemed so eager to debate yet has refused to post an argument. I shall wait...
Debate Round No. 2
Paradox_7

Pro

I suppose, as a bud smoker, my being so late to post an argument doesn't exactly shine on my support of the topic! lol


The Gate Way

Marijuana is the substance subject to either a lot of love or a lot of hate. I personally can't figure out why such a thing would even draw so much negative attention when it is less harmful then your average American diet.

Before I submerge into the more juicy topics, I want to set in place a new perspective on marijuana, and attempt to sway most of my opponents and audiences predetermined moral difference with marijuana use and distribution.

One of the most common objections to marijuana's legal and social acceptance, is that it leads to other more serious drugs. This may seem plausible at first glance, and is almost completely accepted by the majority of US citizens who've never had the substance in or around their lives. Unfortunately, this is isn't even statistically relevant or proved.

1999 - The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences wrote:

Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana — usually before they are of legal age.

In the sense that marijuana use typically precedes rather than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a “gateway” drug. But because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is rarely the first, “gateway” to illicit drug use. There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.



Read more: http://healthland.time.com...


As we can see in this very plain and apparent summary of the studies performed, there is no real reason to believe that because X is likely to precede Y, that X is the cause of Y.

A similar correlation would be to say: since kissing will almost always precede a person becoming a serial rapist, so kissing is a gateway to being a rapist!


Health hazard or Miracle medicine!?

I say neither. You can ask a million different people, and they will most likely give you very different descriptions of there uses of marijuana, and how the feeling contributes to they symptoms.

The studies show that marijuana will ultimately alleviate most pain, and in some cases, reduce the growth of tumors and activity of certain diseases[1]. This is tried, tested, and is almost certainly proved. There have never been any terminal, or chronic(no pun intended) health issues, ever attributed to marijuana use; Daily or social. I will not argue that marijuana is harmless, because there is almost nothing in this world that is not to some extent. However, the problem one encounters when trying to present that argument, is that the health risks are so minimal and in most cases the overall negative effects merely last the duration of it's primary effects.[2][3][4] Smoking marijuana is a choice, any and all people, of age, should be able to make for themselves, without having to acquire a prescription, and without government involvement. When was the last time you needed a doctors note to buy a 6-pack of beer or a pack of cigarettes?


This is obvious proof of the most important benefits of marijuana use, but I am still dissatisfied with the terminally ill being the only persons qualified! The list of potential uses is limitless, and exceed far beyond medicinal use. There is no need to justify substances like alcohol and tobacco when health is ever mentioned, and it is almost always portrayed as a luxury or past-time which will kill you eventually! Instead of being subject to the same standard marijuana is unjustly held too, both are given a pass by the state and federal governments!


This debate is not about whether alcohol or tobacco is moral or ought to be banned, so I hope my opponent will stay away from making that a point of his argument. Since the 2 are legal, sold, and taxed they can only serve as a reference of likeness to marijuana use, and my argument.


Why do I need a prescription?


As I mentioned a bit before, marijuana is far to common and relevantly harmless, to only be granted when you have a very serious or terminal sickness. Though people suffering from such illnesses undoubtedly gain relief from it's usage, they should not be the only ones allowed to consume it!

Marijuana is a very safe and subtle way to become more social. That's not to say I believe anyone should rely on marijuana as a way to make friends, or overcome every dull aspect of their life, BUT, I believe and assert, that marijuana simply needs to have an age and tax requirement.

To make this a little lighter of a discussion I'd like to describe a few things about marijuana, bud, weed, dodi, sensi, kush, pot(hate that name), that bring me to such a strong resolve.

I am a frequent marijuana user(daily), and i function absolutely fine. I will grant, most important things, that require a lot of concentration, or explanation, cannot usually be accomplished when you are 2-3 bowls deep at 10 AM... But I almost always enjoy a few rips from my sneak-a-toke on the way to work or on lunch during the day. I work 9-10 hrs a day (bust my a$$) and come home to relax and play with my kids, so what if i wanna enjoy a blunt?

Nothing to irregular about that, right?

I have my medical license here in CA, I've had it for a few years, and it's awesome! I can walk into a dispensary, check out a menu while i wait, and inspect all of their selection. I get it in a sealed bag marked with a compliance sticker, and I am good to go.

Smoking before eating(the munchies) is the probably the most popular effect people will describe when talking about weed smoke, however that really varies person to person. i, for example, don't feel any more hungry before or after i smoke. I can carry on any conversation, play BF:3, or help my daughter with her homework.

Why do people care if I choose to smoke it in the comfort of my own home or designated location?


Wrapping it up

I expect to have to go into further detail next round in regards to the specific benefits of marijuana use vs. the negative effects, and i am prepared to do so, but i have soundly explained my position and why i believe it to be so.

1) Marijuana does not have serious side-effects
2) Marijuana has proved health benefits
3) Marijuana is less harmful then the correct substances fully legal
4) Marijuana is nothing more then a preference and luxury


Thank you for your patience CON, and i await your argument.

Sources:

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

[2] http://alcoholism.about.com...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...








THEBOMB

Con

I thank my opponent for their rather late response. I shall begin with my own case and then move on to my opponent's case. I also would like to point out that I am not even going to mention the Gateway drug theory in my case, so that entire point has no standing

Contention 1. The dangers of marijuana

Let's be completely blunt. My opponent is asking the American Government to sanction a drug which has many adverse side effects. My opponent references alcohol and tobacco in their case. But, if you have 3 things, all of which have dangerous side effects, two are legal, one is illegal, why should the government legalize the third? How can my opponent logically justify legalizing another dangerous substance?

Marijuana is an extremely potent drug. According to Microbiologist Tom Klein of the University of South Florida, "it's [marijuana smoke] so toxic, you just get it near the immune system and [the immune system] dies." (1) The killing off of one's immune system is never good. It opens a person up to disease and other harmful side effects. A study in the "American Review of Respiratory Diseases found that marijuana smoke is as irritating as tobacco smoke"…furthermore…"mothers who smoke contribute to low birth weight and developmental problems for their children and increase the risk of abnormalities similar to those caused by fetal alcohol syndrome by as much as 500 percent." (2) The facts show marijuana is bad. Since "the 1970s there have been more than 10,500 scientific studies which demonstrate the adverse consequences of marijuana use" (2). Marijuana has tremendous adverse side effects. Why should the government sanction such a drug? In fact, according to drug czar Lee Brown drugs are more potent today than they were in the 1990s (2). There is more potential for danger.

Legalizing drugs increases drug use. Between 1979 and 1992, drug use was dropping exponentially. When Bill Clinton was elected president he slashed to office of Drug Control Policy by 80%, dropped the war on drugs from 3rd priority to 29th out of 29, and cut the number of ships and aircraft responsible for drug interdiction 50%. As a direct result, drug use by children ages 12-17 increased 106%. Prohibition, in the past, has been a complete success, at least in the field of public health. Look at the years between 1911 and 1929, alcohol use declined 30-50%, deaths from cirrhosis fell, between 1911 and 1929, from 29.5 deaths per 100,000 to 10.7 deaths per 100,000, alcohol psychosis fell from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 per 100,000, suicides decreased 50%, and alcohol related arrests DROPPED 50%. When it comes to public health, prohibition is a complete success. It successfully deters people from using harmful substances.

Contention 2. Legalizing marijuana violates international law

In 1961, the United States was present at the Single Convention on Narcotics. This was an international treaty to PROHIBIT the production and supply of drugs. The United States signed this treaty along with 180 other countries. (4) Later, the United States signed another treaty known as the Convention on Psychotropic Substances; this prohibits the production of drugs such as LSD and Ecstasy. (5) The United States cannot simply legalize drugs because doing so violates several treaties with foreign powers. The United States cannot simply violate any treaty it feels like. Should the United States violate international law for nothing but detrimental effects? No.

Contention 3. Increases crime.

How can this be true? Let's look at history. Between 1919 and 1922, government-sponsored clinics within in the United States handed out free drugs to addicts. This was an attempt to control behavior. It failed. Why? 1) society revolted against it. They did not want this. 2) crime went up. (2) Let's fast-forward a few years. In 1976, California decriminalized marijuana. After 6 months, "arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles." (2). Plain statistics. Legalizing marijuana leads to more people driving under the influence. Imagine what would happen on a National scale. Imagine how many more drivers, and pedestrians, are at risk because a minority want to smoke freely. In 1970, when the same experiment was attempted in Alaska and Oregon, marijuana use doubled. (2) Its simple math legalizing marijuana leads to more people using marijuana. Why should the government sanction the use of another harmful substance? According to Patrick Murphy "more than 80 percent of the cases of physical and sexual abuse of children now involve drugs. There is NO evidence that legalizing drugs will reduce these crimes, and there is evidence that suggests it would worsen the problem." (2) So legalizing marijuana leads to increase physical and sexual abuse of young children. Once again, why should the government sanction this?

Contention 4. Prison population

According to "Princeton University Professor John Dilulio […] only 2 percent of those in federal prisons were convicted of pure drug possession. They generally committed other and violent crimes to earn a sentence." Furthermore, "70 percent of current inmates were on illegal drugs when arrested and, if drugs become cheaper, violent crime could reasonably be expected to increase" (2). So you want to INCREASE prison populations. How can this be a good thing? There already is a severe problem with prison overcrowding in the United States. My opponent proposes to increase these already crowded prisons.

Attacks on my opponent's case.

Attack 1. The gateway

Seeing how this is doing nothing more than tearing down a theory which I never presented it is irrelevant.

Attack 2. Health Hazard

First of all, my opponent's source is quite obviously biased. Second, I would just like to point out several of the effect's my opponents about.com source has:

"short-term effects of marijuana include: Distorted perception, problems with memory and learning, loss of coordination, trouble with thinking and problem-solving, Increased heart rate, reduced blood pressure" not to bad of effects, let us continue, "the active ingredient in marijuana…THC, acts on cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells…When high doses of marijuana are used… users can experience the following symptoms: Hallucinations, Delusions, Impaired memory, Disorientation" Okay, that's not good. Let's keep going "Because of the lower blood pressure and higher heart rate, researchers found that users' risk for a heart attack is four times higher within the first hour after smoking marijuana" Heart attacks are bad. "Smoking marijuana…can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, and cause heavy coughing…regular marijuana smokers can experience the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers do… Most marijuana smokers consume a lot less cannabis than cigarette smokers consume tobacco…Marijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke…marijuana smokers typically inhale deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers…when smoking." So marijuana is evidently many times more dangerous than tobacco. My opponent's other unbiased sources show nothing but detrimental effects from the use of marijuana. My opponent believes that because two dangerous substances are legal that justifies the legalization of the third. How is this logical?

Attack 3. Why a prescription?

This is like asking why you need a doctor's approval to have chemotherapy. It's dangerous. My opponent attempts to use personal experiences which cannot be confirmed to support their case. If he wants to do that, what stops me from saying I had a heart attack when I smoked marijuana? It is a completely unconfirmed story. Why should we take my opponent at his word?

1. Daniel P. Ray, "Marijuana Use Linked to Cancer," The Miami Herald 8 February 1994.
2. http://www.sarnia.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Paradox_7

Pro

Paradox_7 forfeited this round.
THEBOMB

Con

well this sucked.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
haha yup :P

And statistics is an important part of mathematics...I don't understand it really though..
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
The trends show no back and forth trends. And my flip flops are consistent though :P Same issues always

How do they even guess margin of error anyway?
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
and that's a pretty good poll for only a 4% margin
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
it'll probably go back and forth :P

just like you 16k with your political views :P
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
The margin of error is 4% though, so its essentially tied. Well assuming its faulty.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Yeah its weird
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
Interesting, did not know that.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
grr...don't tell me another FF...
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
Portugal decriminalized marijuana. It did not legalize marijuana. Decriminalization means it is still technically a crime, they just do not throw people in jail. Portugal prefers rehabilitation centers.

And most of american is not pro drug legalization....
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Paradox_7THEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: FF
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
Paradox_7THEBOMBTied
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: Pro forfeited twice in the debate. Con also presented stronger arguments on why marijuana should not be legal, which negated the resolution.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
Paradox_7THEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: FF