Marijuana should be legalized

I accept this challenge and I await my opponent's arguments.

wow....my opponent seemed so eager to debate yet has refused to post an argument. I shall wait...

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...