The Instigator
Gabe1e
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Tupacisalive96
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Marijuana should not be legalized.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Gabe1e
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,001 times Debate No: 72296
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Gabe1e

Pro

This is a debate involving the legalization of cannabis/marijuana.

I wish to challenge this person to a debate.

7,000 characters
72 hours to argue
3 rounds (short debate)

DEFINITIONS:

Cannabis:
any of the preparations (as marijuana or hashish) or chemicals (as THC) that are derived from the hemp and are psychoactive. [1]

Legalization:
to make (something) legal : to allow (something) by law [2]

Good luck.


Cites:

[1]- http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2]- http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Tupacisalive96

Con

It is a common fact that Marijuana has less harmful effects than alcohol, cigarettes, and guns.

Although Marijuana is illegal, people continue to sell it as well as smoke it through the black market, and regardless of it becoming legal or not, people will continue to smoke it no matter what the government says. If Marijuana becomes legal, the cops will have less petty things to worry about and may concentrate more on crimes as well as drugs that are actually harmful. Contrary to popular belief, there is an enormous amount of money associated with the taxing of Marijuana.

Marijuana is NOT addictive, yet it is completely and utterly legal to smoke cigarettes that ARE in fact, addictive and cause cancer among other side-effects. Not only do cigarettes kill you, they kill the people around you as well. Marijuana is not only a natural herb, it is ten times safer than any other Illegal substance known to man.

Marijuana is one of many controversial issues facing America today. It should not be a crime to smoke something natural, and less harmful than products that do indeed harm people that are legal.

The number of crimes in the state of West Virginia increase more and more each day, and an estimated half of those crimes are due to selling and possession of the substance.

Marijuana is NOT illegal to smoke, it is however, illegal to be in your possession. It's a complete contradiction that shouldn't even exist. There are millions of American's that smoke Marijuana and are not classified as criminals or "bad" people.

According to Dr. Melanie Dreher, a famous Reefer researcher who has done countless studies on the effects of Marijuana on the human body and the use of consumption during pregnancy, proves with her countless studies that children being born to a Marijuana consuming mother, has found no link to any form of birth defects and that the children tend to be smarter than children born of non-using mothers. Thus proving, Marijuana has far more advantages than disadvantages.

It is fact that there has never been any form of studies done in The United States proving or disproving whether or not Marijuana is harmful or not. However, there have been numerous studies in other countries PROVING that Marijuana does not harm you. In fact, there are several benefits of medical marijuana.

It's also true that Marijuana can also benefit someone who's facing a mental illness. It's a proven fact that the use of Marijuana during a woman's pregnancy can decrease nausea and excessive vomiting and can actually help maintain a healthy appetite, and improves the child's birth weight.

With all of this being said, America is one of the very few countries that has yet to legalize Marijuana without even considering the scientific resources.
Debate Round No. 1
Gabe1e

Pro

Thank you, Con.

REBUTTALS:

"It is a common fact that Marijuana has less harmful effects than alcohol, cigarettes, and guns."

This statement has been proven false. Marijuana can affect your lungs just as much as tobacco. In fact, Marijuana can cause lung cancer and can blacken the lungs just like tobacco. In fact, Marijuana causes even more health risks to the lungs than tobacco. So saying it is tobacco are more harmful is false, and it can been proven by the picture below.



You can see the difference between the two.

My opponent also states that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but alcohol and marijuana do basically the same things in different ways. They make you sometimes hallucinate, but one makes you "high" and the other does it in a "drunk" form that both affect the brain. My opponent states that guns are less deadly than Marijuana, but there's a difference, they aren't used for the same purpose. You don't use a gun to get "high." In fact, shooting yourself in the chest would kill you faster than over dosing on Marijuana.

My opponent then goes on to say how people will still smoke it if it is illegal. Same thing happened with alcohol, and deaths from alcohol have gotten worse since it was legalized, so if they both are legalized, Marijuana will do the same, most likely.

"Marijuana is NOT addictive."

This statement is bewildering. Not only is this false, it has facts to prove it is. About 9% of users who try Marijuana the first time will be dependent on it. [1] This raises to 17% among teens, and for daily users they will become dependent 25-50%. These rates are not only shocking but they prove this statement is false.

Crime has increased with Marijuana, yes, but however only 12% of crime in the USA is linked to drug possession, so it is not that bad.

"Marijuana is NOT illegal to smoke."

I'm pretty sure it is.

"It's also true that Marijuana can also benefit someone who's facing a mental illness." Now, I never said I was against medical Marijuana, so this argument does not matter. Marijuana can be used for medical purposes. This doesn't mean it is necessarily legal, however.

ARGUMENTS:

Marijuana can affect your mental health immensely

According to the American Medical Association: "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 thought disorders."

It causes you to lose focus on what you are doing, and can raise any other thoughts besides schoolwork. In fact, cigarettes don't do this as much as cannabis does.

According to WebMD it can cause a number of other symptoms when smoked like [2]:
-Random thinking
-A distorted sense of time
-Paranoia
-Anxiety
-Forgetfulness
-DEPRESSION

Many Marijuana legalists believe it does not cause depression, in fact, it does. Marijuana does lower depression WHEN SMOKED. After smoked, however, withdraw can cause serious side-effects that can make the user crave it so much that they will actually commit to suicide. [3]

Marijuana can affect your physical health immensely

Marijuana has been proven to affect your nerve system critically to the point where it could be shattered. [4] Your heart rate will go up two times than before. It can affect your blood pressure and blood sugar, which can lead to heart-attacks, which can lead to death. Marijuana can irritate your lungs to the point where they blacken, like the picture above, and cause bronchitis and coughing.

According to WebMD it can cause a number of other physical symptoms like:
-Dizziness
-Shallow breathing
-Red eyes
-Drymouth
-Increased appetite (munchies)
-Slow reaction time (can lead to numbers of accidents)

In fact, your chance of have a car accident doubles when you smoke Marijuana.

Marijuana can affect your fetus baby

A study has been shown that the brain of a pregnant women's baby can be affected from smoking Marijuana. The study highlights that consuming Marijuana during pregnancy clearly results in defective development of nerve cells of the cerebral cortex, the part of the brain that orchestrates higher cognitive functions and drives memory formation. It can also cut off key protein supplements to the baby, which can affect the baby hugely. It will eventually affect the body if the mother overdoses, or uses too much.

Conclusion

I believe I have proven that Marijuana should not be legalized, there should be no exception due to the physical and mental affects that it does to the human body. Not only this, but it can actually affect the fetus of a baby, shown by a study. Next I will cover economics, in the next round. I believe I have rebutted Con very well.

Your turn, Con.



Cites:

[1]- http://www.drugabuse.gov...

[2]- http://www.webmd.com...

[3]- http://adai.uw.edu...

[4]- http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Tupacisalive96

Con

Defending Liberties
Making Economic Sense
Global Reform
News.
Events.
Publications & Resources.
Store.
Drug policy in my stateUS

I am...
an Advocate.
View all resources.

Marijuana Legalization and Regulation
OverviewResourcesActivist Toolkit
Share:
The Basics
Voters in Alaska, Oregon and Washington, D.C., all voted to legalize marijuana for adults in the 2014 election. They joined Colorado and Washington, which legalized marijuana in 2012.
Marijuana should be removed from the criminal justice system and regulated in a manner similar to alcohol and tobacco. There are five jurisdictions in the Unites State that have rejected the failed prohibition of marijuana and changed their laws to legalize small amount of marijuana: Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Washington, D.C. Four states will license and regulate production and sale of marijuana. Marijuana legalization won on the ballot in Colorado and Washington in the 2012 election, and in Alaska, Oregon and Washington, D.C., in the 2014 election.

Legalizing and regulating marijuana will bring the nation's largest cash crop under the rule of law, creating jobs and economic opportunities in the formal economy instead of the illicit market. Scarce law enforcement resources that could be better used to protect public safety would be preserved while reducing corrections and court costs. State and local governments would acquire significant new sources of tax revenue from regulating marijuana sales.

The criminalization of marijuana use disproportionately harms young people and people of color, sponsors massive levels of violence and corruption, and fails to curb youth access.
Fill in the blank and share! #NoMoreDrugWar #mmot pic.twitter.com/kypNw2u9wj
" Drug Policy Alliance (@DrugPolicyNews) October 2, 2014
Our Commitment to Legalizing Marijuana for Adults

The Drug Policy Alliance is a leader in the movement to legalize and regulate marijuana. DPA played a pivotal role in funding and managing ballot initiative and legislative campaigns in many of the states that adopted medical marijuana laws from 1996 to 2014. Those campaigns included drafting and passing New Mexico"s 2007 law that made it the first state to license and regulate the production and distribution of marijuana through a state agency. This model served as the foundation for all medical marijuana laws that followed, as well as the successful legalization initiatives in Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and Alaska.

DPA works closely with local and national allies, including organized labor, civil rights groups, parents, and law enforcement to draft initiatives, build coalitions and raise funds to advance marijuana law reform. DPA was involved financially and conceptually in each of the campaigns to legalize and regulate marijuana on the state level, starting with Prop 19 in California in 2010, which paved the way for the 2012 victories in Washington and Colorado and the 2014 victories in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, D.C. DPA plans to play a similar role as this movement advances in 2016 and beyond.

DPA also works for reform on the federal level to end federal marijuana prohibition and to protect state level reforms. Internationally, in the last several years DPA advised governments at the highest level in Mexico, Guatemala and Colombia on reforming their drug policies, and advised Uruguay in its effort to establish the world"s first national system to legally regulate marijuana.
Marijuana Product Standardization and Testing

Marijuana product testing is becoming a standard requirement for legalized marijuana markets. This allows consumers to become better informed about the cannabinoid profile and potency of marijuana they consume. While universally accepted standards have not been established for testing, consumers should consider requesting information on any pesticides, fungicides, fertilizers, or any other residual solvents that could remain on flowers after the cultivation process.

Testing for mold, fungus, bacteria, and other microbial organisms should be required to ensure safety and quality, as the effects of consuming some of these chemicals, especially in the immunocompromised, could be significant. Flowers and other cannabis products sold to consumers should include cannabinoid profiles, including the content of THC, CBD and other major cannabinoids, and the number and concentration of doses in a product. This is especially important for edible products, which can contain widely varying doses of cannabis. Consumers should be sure to inquire about the potency and dosage of an edible product, especially if they are a novice consumer or if the package is not clearly labeled.
Debate Round No. 2
Gabe1e

Pro

My opponent copied the whole article in without changing anything or even citing. I refuse to rebut such a thing.

I extend all arguments and expect rebuttal next round.

CONCLUSION:

My opponent has failed to prove that Marijuana should be legalized due to the fact that he copied and pasted his article in the second round, and most likely in the first. I have proven it should not be legal due to the health risks and how it can really effect you in the long run. Doing so, I believe I have won this debate.

Vote Pro.
Tupacisalive96

Con

Jeffrey Miron is senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies in the economics department at Harvard University. He is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of "Libertarianism, from A to Z." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
(CNN) -- Following the liberal footsteps of Colorado and Washington, Alaska, Oregon and the District of Columbia passed ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana this month. Florida's medical marijuana law failed, but only because as a constitutional amendment it needed 60% support; 58% voted in favor of it.
In 2016, another five to 10 states will likely consider legalization -- possibly Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. It's not surprising. Opinion polls show that marijuana legalization now commands majority support across the country.
Do these developments mean that full legalization is inevitable?
Jeffrey Miron
Jeffrey Miron
Not necessarily, but one would hope so. Marijuana legalization is a policy no-brainer. Any society that professes to value liberty should leave adults free to consume marijuana.
Moreover, the evidence from states and countries that have decriminalized or medicalized marijuana suggests that policy plays a modest role in limiting use. And while marijuana can harm the user or others when consumed inappropriately, the same applies to many legal goods such as alcohol, tobacco, excessive eating or driving a car.
Recent evidence from Colorado confirms that marijuana's legal status has minimal impact on marijuana use or the harms allegedly caused by use. Since commercialization of medical marijuana in 2009, and since legalization in 2012, marijuana use, crime, traffic accidents, education and health outcomes have all followed their pre-existing trends rather than increasing or decreasing after policy liberalized.
Ricki Lake: Pot can treat cancer in kids Investors betting on marijuana in U.S. This is your body on weed
The strong claims made by legalization critics are not borne out in the data. Likewise, some strong claims by legalization advocates -- e.g., that marijuana tourism would be a major boom to the economy -- have also not materialized.
The main impact of Colorado's legalization has been that marijuana users can now purchase and use with less worry about harsh legal ramifications.
Yet despite the compelling case for legalization, and progress toward legalization at the state level, ultimate success is not assured.
Federal law still prohibits marijuana, and existing jurisprudence (Gonzales v. Raich 2005) holds that federal law trumps state law when it comes to marijuana prohibition. So far, the federal government has mostly taken a hands-off approach to state medicalizations and legalizations, but in January 2017, the country will have a new president. That person could order the attorney general to enforce federal prohibition regardless of state law.
Whether that will happen is hard to forecast.
If more states legalize marijuana and public opinion continues its support, Washington may hesitate to push back. But federal prohibition creates problems even if enforcement is nominal: Marijuana business cannot easily use standard financial institutions and transactions technologies such as credit cards; physicians may still hesitate to prescribe marijuana; and medical researchers will still face difficulty in studying marijuana.

To realize the full potential of legalization, therefore, federal law must change. The best approach is to remove marijuana from the list of drugs regulated by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the federal law that governs prohibition.
Standard regulatory and tax policies would still apply to legalized marijuana, and states would probably adopt marijuana-specific regulations similar to those for alcohol (e.g., minimum purchase ages). State and federal governments might also impose "sin taxes," as for alcohol. But otherwise marijuana would be just another commodity, as it was before the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.
A more cautious approach would have Congress reschedule marijuana under the CSA.
Currently, marijuana is in Schedule I, which is reserved for drugs such as heroin and LSD that, according to the CSA, have "a high potential for abuse ... no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States ... [and] a lack of accepted safety for use." Hardly anyone believes these conditions apply to marijuana.
If marijuana were in Schedule II, which states it as "a high potential for abuse ... [but a] currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," doctors could legally prescribe it under federal law, as with other Schedule II drugs such as cocaine, methadone and morphine.
Given the broad range of conditions for which marijuana may be useful, including muscle spasms caused by multiple sclerosis, nausea from cancer chemotherapy, poor appetite and weight loss caused by chronic illness such as HIV, chronic pain, stress, seizure disorders and Crohn's disease, doctors would have wide reign to prescribe, making marijuana all but legal as occurs under the broadest state medical marijuana laws, such as California and Colorado.
Medical science would also face fewer regulatory hurdles to marijuana research. This "medicalization" approach, while perhaps politically more feasible than full legalization, has serious drawbacks.
Federal authorities such as the Drug Enforcement Administration could interfere with marijuana prescribing -- as sometimes occurs with opiate prescribing. Taxing medical marijuana may be harder than taxing recreational marijuana. And the medical approach risks a charge of hypocrisy, since it is backdoor legalization. But medicalization is still better than full prohibition, since it eliminates the black market.
For 77 years, the United States has outlawed marijuana, with tragic repercussions and unintended consequences. The public and their state governments are on track to rectify this terrible policy. Here's hoping Congress catches up.

Shut up Gabe
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
ClashnBoom
Vote pro because con plagiarized nearly all of his arguments.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by dexterbeagle 1 year ago
dexterbeagle
Gabe1eTupacisalive96Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Reason for point allocation: Pro made an effort to debate the issue and took it seriously and provided sources. Conduct does to Pro because of Con's "shut up Gabe" attack at the end.
Vote Placed by YoshiBoy13 1 year ago
YoshiBoy13
Gabe1eTupacisalive96Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro: Shut up. // Grammar to Pro: It is not illegal to grammar, but it is illegal to be in possession of grammar. // Arguments to Pro: Plagiarism. // Sources to Pro: Con used sources widely in his debate. Unfortunately, he used it so widely, it's plagiarism.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Gabe1eTupacisalive96Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to rebut ANY of @Gabe's arguments, instead arguing from a social perspective that failed to shed any light on the proper legalization of marijuana. Con failed to explain their arguments and copy-pasted them *completely* from a website without even citing it as a reference. Con also asked Pro to "shut up", losing Con conduct. Pro used the only sources in the debate, and illustrated anatomically and clearly the effects of marijuana on the lungs. Grammar to Pro because of various grammatical errors: I shall cite one - "Marijuana is NOT illegal to smoke, it is however, illegal to be in your possession." The punctuations make it a very grammatically awkward sentence. Pro's grammar was impeccable.
Vote Placed by Kozu 1 year ago
Kozu
Gabe1eTupacisalive96Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con plagiarized from a number of sources. Meanwhile, Pro demonstrated the possible risks of marijuana and why it should be illegal while adequately dismembering Con plagerized arguments. Con not only losses his conduct points for the plagiarism but also because of the blatant disrespect at the end.