The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Mary Jane should be Legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,176 times Debate No: 22051
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (4)




I am for.

Please accept the challenage and start with your arguments for the Negation grounds if you would like.

This round's winner should be determined by whoes arguments outweigh in regards to the implications of both possible worlds.

p.s. Mary Jane = Marijuana


Challenge accepted.
I'd like to point out two things to onlookers:
1. The BOP is on my opponent to prove why "Mary Jane" should be legal.
2. Regardless of his definition, I will run semantics on "Mary Jane" just for the hell of it.

With that, I turn the floor over to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


I'd like to thank Zaradi for accepting the challenge, and hope people enjoy the following discourse. Some of the following arguments are brief, more elaboration will be given in the next round where needed.

Scratch Much?
A) This argument is true and simple, so it does not require a detailed explanation: Marijuana is the least addictive substance (including alcohol.)

1) Hemp cultivation and its production do not harm the environment. It does not require herbicides nor pesticides. It converts CO2 to oxygen much more efficiently than trees, and it controls erosion of the topsoil. It also replenishes the soil with nutrients and nitrogen, making it quite ideal. As a sign of its benefit to earth, industrial hemp was used to remove contaminants from the soil after the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant incident in April of 1986.

2) Production. It produces more oil than any other crop, which can be used for many products. It also produces bio-fuel and ethanol, and it does so more efficiently than corn. And it can, very importantly, it can be cropped more than once a year.
So what do we know with these facts: Its safe, incredibly efficient, breaks the monopoly of the corn industry, and would, subsequently, increase the exports of the United States.

In the status-quo, there is a prohibition of marijuana. This argument seeks to show that not only does the status-quo not fix the "problems" of this substance, but it actually creates problems that would not exist otherwise.
Huffington Posts writes, "In, fact, it [the prohibition] is getting worse, as the Obama administration is continuing a crackdown on anyone who is approaching the problem in any sort of sane or rational manner -- including local and state government officials...the much-longer insanity of marijuana prohibition that doesn't just continue to this day, but is actually getting worse."

1) Criminalization of marijuana consumes significant fiscal resources and organizational resources beginning primarily with local law enforcements. There is no good evidence linking criminalization and decreased distribution, price, and use. This lack of a link shows the efforts of prohibition are futile. We spend 600 million a year on holding people in prison for Mary Jane offenses. Jeff Miron, an economist from Harvard, estimates that government would save an annual amount of 7.7 billion dollars in expenses. These resources can be allocated for many superior reasons, for at least something that without doubt shows a result, as 85% of high school seniors consider it "very easy" to access. Go prohibition! You waste our tax dollars to stop the least addictive substance from being sold!...But wait we waste all this money for only 15% to find it difficult to find the substance...?

2) Prohibition creates disrespect for the law. As a significant number of people have tried marijuana, it clearly depreciates the seriousness of laws. They begin to be seen as whimsical, unimportant, and rather irrelevant. It is not seen as protective and good and important. This sets a perceptual barrier that leads to a decrease in obedience to the constructs of U.S. law.

3) Prohibition causes gangsters not only to be well paid, but well liked. Since in many regions of the United States gangsters have a monopoly of distribution, they, in the status-quo, have an opportunity to gain support of the community since they supply. This support is only unique to the status-quo, as the alternative world takes the major supply power away from gangs. No Capone if no alcohol prohibition, type reasoning.
"the neighborhoods which are overrun with black market drug activity inevitably become recruitment camps for young people to become involved in the drug trade."

4) "Marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could" the southern border gang wars have cost more lives than marijuana has (which is 0 of itself.) Prohibition puts power in the hands of dangerous criminals, particularly in southern Texas, Arizona, and California. Gang wars = death, injury, psychological trauma for the victims and their friends and family members.

5) State legislations often allow police departs to keep a portion of their seized assets. Research has shown that asset forfeiture provisions leads law enforcement agencies to shift their priorities from preventing and solving property and violent crime to "asset hunting." A recent study done in the state of New York found that a rising number of marijuana arrests lead to a significant increase in assaults, robberies, and larcenies. But lets not stop there, as the prohibition know no ends to its genius, for every 10 marijuana convictions in the state of Florida there were an additional 7 property and violent crimes.

6) So how do we get this glorious business done???? We use constitutionally controversial police tactics, challenge civil liberties, we over-crowd the courts, and the diversion of treatment dollars.

7) In 2009 no deaths-by-cause were related to marijuana. In fact marijuana is one of the only substances that you can not over dose off of. Alcohol--23,199. Pharm. drug induced--37,485. When I look at these numbers, and think about what legal and what's not...well it's just frustrating.

Another Simple Truth
D) Marijuana is incredibly beneficial for cancer patients and patients with various painful diseases. Access becomes much more easy for these suffering people. Marijuana should always be favored over Pharm. drugs, as it has little to no side-effects.

---Zaradi states, "The BOP is on my opponent to prove why "Mary Jane" should be legal."---
There is one problem with this statement, the parameters of the challenge for this debate were stated as such, "This round's winner should be determined by who's arguments outweigh in regards to the implications of both possible worlds." Meaning each debater weighs the impacts of the side they're on. Therein the burden of proof is on both debaters to prove why their side is better. And you accepted said challenge. Viewers should favor this paradigm more, as it leads to the most informed/educational conclusion for people to draw their own opinions from.

1. Marijuana is addictive to a very small amount of people.
2. Hemp WOULD be invaluable to this country.
3. The Prohibition causes way more devastation than marijuana can ever have the potential to do.
4. Marijuana is a great medicine.
5. BOP is on both as that is the best way for on-lookers to determine their own mind on the topic.



First off, I'd like to begin with an explanation of what a burden of proof is, since he is misconstruing it. The burden of proof falls on debaters whose plans and policy require a change in the status quo. Legalizing marijuana would definetely cause a change in the status quo. Thus, by definition of what the burden of proof is, it falls squarely onto my opponent to prove why his plan is better than the current status quo. Thusly, it is just on him, not on both of us. By trying to change the definition of what a burden of proof is, he is actually lessening the educational value we can get from discussing the burden of proof. My paradigm is the only one which preserves the educational value and definition of the burden of proof, thus mine should be preferred.

Next, I will provide an armada of sources proving that, because of the adverse affects that smoking marijuana can have, it should not be legalized (sources may end up in the comments, depending on how many character I have left).

There are a lot of harmful emotional and psychological side-effects to using marijuana, such as paranoia, emotional disorders, increased risk of schizophrenia and other neuropsychiatric disorders, memory loss, increased tolerance to intoxication, addiction to marijuana and other drugs (especially with its increasing potency), and loss of ability to concentrate and loss of inhibition.[1]

Marijuana is an addictive substance to both adults and teenagers.[2][3][4][5] People getting addicted to smoking marijuana and developing dependence is increasing.[6] If we allow marijuana to be a legal substance, we only increase the rate at which people get addicted to it.

In men, marijuana causes decreased serum testosterone levels, sperm count, and sperm motility.[7]

Suddenly stopping smoking marijuana causes withdrawl[8] and causes symptoms like irritability, agitation, depression, insomnia, nausea, anorexia, and tremors. Symptoms tends to peak in 48 hours and can last for weeks.[9][10]

Marijuana has a number of harmful carcinogens and other chemicals that cause slow reaction itme, alters brain processing, degrades decision making, and a number of other harmful side effects,[11][12][13] and is a leading cause of lung cancer.[14]

Marijuana also causes people to be less successful.[15] People who smoke marijuana tend to have lower levels of income.[16]

Marijuana smoke is shown to be bad for the body.[17]

Marijuana affects our blood flow.[18]

Marijuana causes negative personality afflictions.[19]

Marijuana impairs memory later in life.[20]

Marijuana negatively affects how the brain functions.[21]

Even the second-hand smoke from marijuana smoke has negative effects.[22]

The chemicals in marijuana cause decreased coordination.[23]

For the above health reasons, I wager that legalizing marijuana is a generally bad idea. While making access to marijuana illegal does not solve everything, I will concede to that, it does minimize the amount of harm. Legalizing it only makes more people use marijuana, which would only increase the health harms.

Now, let's go and respond to some of the points raised by my opponent.

A: Marijuana is least addictive

1. Just because it's the least addictive, it doesn't make it NOT addictive.
2. He gives no warrant as for why it's true, just asserts that it is true. So if I can assert things to be truth and they would actually be truth, let's list a few things that I would say is truth.
- Solipsism is true, and my opponent doesn't exist.
- Marijuana doesn't exist, thus there's no reason to legalize something that doesn't exist.
- In my backyard is a jacuzzi full of strippers in bikinis getting wasted off of champagne and vodka.

None of these things are truth (although I do wish the third one was truth, it would certainly make things interesting), but I can assert that they are true.

B: Hemp is good

Just because growing hemp has it's benefits, it doesn't outweigh the obvious negative attributes of smoking marijuana has on the health.

C: Prohibition bad

1. Prohibition actually causes a benefit by preventing teens and adults from going to harder drugs, such as cocaine or heroin. Let's face it, most teenagers and some adults who smoke marijuana illegally do it because it's illegal and it gives them the thrill of breaking the law. If we legalize marijuana, it removes that rush of doing something illegal and forces them to move onto harder and more deadly drugs, which is a definite minus.
2. Even if prohibition is bad, it still minimizes the health downsides to smoking marijuana, which outweighs the harms of enforcing a prohibition.

D: Marijuana is a good medicine

Oh yeah. Because inhaling carcinogens and getting lung cancer is a great way to treat the common cold. Please.

So for those given refutations, I ask the voters disregard my opponent's case.

Now, this is all just one interpretation of the resolution. My opponent stated the resolution as "Mary Jane should be legal". How I interpreted this is "A chick named Mary Jane should be legal". If we apply this to the resolution in the context my opponent wishes to apply, would we really want to burn this chick alive, inhale her, then exhale her like yesterday's bad fish sticks?

Yeah, didn't think so.

The next way we could interpret it is if legal meant....well...-ahem- "legal to do" if you get my drift. In which case, Mary Jane could represent either this person;

Or this persons

Needless to say, neither should be legal to get the nasty on with.

For the above reasons, I content that we negate the resolution.

Sources will be in comments.
Debate Round No. 2


A) A Fixed Weight Scale

----Zaradi states,"It falls squarely onto my opponent to prove why his plan is better than the current status-quo."----
Lets extend this reasoning. This is like saying Hitler had no burden of proof for defending why his strategy for Jews was good, because it was the status-quo. So anything that is status-quo needs no burden of proof. Do we really want to accept this paradigm? We can create a much more wholesome discourse if everyone brings all their facts to the table on a even scale. Which not only increases education for the alternative world but of course the status-quo.

B) Marijuana and the Body....

1. The following is mix of refutations to what Zaradi states are bad effects of marijuana and also my own points of other things that marijuana is an excellent tool for:

2. Z states it affects blood flow (though he didn't say how, so lets concede that it does miraculous things for your blood),

3. Z states withdrawal causes depression, tremors, and anxiety. We are to understand this is part of the reason its illegal. Quitting smoking causes bipolar behavior, moodiness, feeling unrested, extreme fatigue. Its legal. Alcohol withdrawal symptoms are a state of confusion and hallucinations, black-outs, agitation, fever, convulsions. Its legal. And next round we'll talk about legal pharm. drug withdrawals!! Stay Tune.

4. Z says it limits the extent of success in life. This is definitely not a universal law. If anyone is in Speech and Debate in college they would know that this group of extremely ambitious students, well most of them do marijuana. E.G. I do it daily and I have a full-ride to law school.

5. Z says it impairs the Brain (just group all of his brain blips). Marijuana is one of the best documented medications for patients with glaucoma. DEA hasn't even tried to argue against this fact. Memory will be talked about 5 paragraphs down. Taking in Marijuana sends more blood and cleaner blood to the brain; giving more oxygen. "The heart swells through capillary enhancement and is fueled more by more fully oxygenated blood, while, at the same time, its contractions and expansions are greater, allowing for stronger pumping action to the rest of the body." Subsequently this increases mind and body coordination.

6. Z says it causes cancer. This is awkward: "American Association for Cancer Research has found the marijuana actually works to slow down tumor growth in the lungs, breasts, and brain considerably." According to the International Research for Cancer and the U.S. National Toxicology Program THC simply does not cause cancer. Can most things in life cause cancer? Yes. But they must be abused. Marijuana is abused very little since it is the least addictive substance. In moderation, however, it helps fight cancer.

7. Montel Williams has Multiple Sclerosis. He uses pot to battle it, as it stops the neurological effects and muscle spasms of the fatal disorder.

8. ADD and ADHD. A USC study showed that Marijuana is perfect alternative to Ritalin as it treats the disorder without all of the side-effects. This is exceptionally important to note. Ritalin and other drugs like it have terrible side-effects, but they're legal, and subsequently get patients to start taking other pharm. drugs to alleviate the side-effects of the original legal drug. Marijuana doesn't but is illegal. But since the status-quo requires no burden of proof to defend itself, we're not supposed to question this reasoning.

9. Patients with chronic disease like to use Marijuana because it STOPS nausea, abnormal pains, and diarrhea

10. Z states "He gives no warrant as for why it's true, just asserts that it is true," regarding my comment on it being least addictive. Like I said before, I was going to give more explanation in this round of some of my brief points:

11. According to the Institute of Medicine, the highest regarded nongovernmental medical org. in the country the following are truths: no evidence of pot overdose, it impairs short-term memory but "only" during 2-4 hour intoxication, marijuana is not physically addictive, mentally it is the least addictive substance (9%) under alcohol (14%), and does not inhibit the activity of T-Lymphocytes in the blood (crossaply this last item on the list to the second point under Marijuana and the Body)

12. Marijuana stimulates production of prostaglandin called PGE2, which relates to its ability to stimulate melatonin production 4,000 percent higher than at baseline. This dramatic increase in melatonin levels accounts for its many benefits physiologically and mentally. The Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the hallucinogen is being used to counteract the toxicity of chemotherapy, treat migraines, reduce intramuscular pressure, minimize pain, treat menstrual cramps, and moderate wasting syndrome in AIDS patients.

C) Hemp

1. Z concedes, "Just because growing hemp has it's benefits." Therein my hemp analysis flows over and adds alot of weight to my side. Zaradi then says, "it doesn't outweigh the obvious negative attributes of smoking marijuana has on the health." But your "outweighing" on these "negative attributes" are highly questionable at best. Probability and Magnitude thus are in my favor.

D) Prohibition

1. Z states, "Lets face gives them the thrill of breaking the law." by your standard I'll reply with your own words, "He gives no warrant as for why it's true, just asserts that it is true. So if I can assert things to be truth and they would actually be truth, let's list a few things that I would say is truth.
- Solipsism is true, and my opponent doesn't exist."

2. Here's a warranted truth, marijuana serves as an alternative to dangerous drugs like cocaine, heroine, and many pharm. drugs, according to MensHealth.

3. You concede way too much on my Prohibition analysis, most of my points have been dropped, subsequently giving my advocacy even more magnitude in this debate.

E) Marijuana is a hell of a medicine

1. Crossaply my analysis as to why this is true, and you could easily cross-out his out sentence contention.

F) Ambiguous Words

1. Hilarious dude.

2. I did define Mary Jane as Marijuana to stop any breakdown of communication from occurring. The definition offered in the beginning should be favored as it is the most socially relevant, politically relevant, gives real-world education, and gives ground for an actual debate.

In Conclusion:

1. Examining the alternative and status-quo on equal ground leads to an informed decision for on-lookers.

2. Debating Marijuana and the body is highly complex. But this is what we know for sure: 1. Marijuana has mild side-effect 2. Has many benefits for patients and people in general and it can't cause overdose 3. Legal substances are very capable of causing overdose 4. Legal substances are more addictive 5. Legal substances have more severe withdrawal symptoms 6. Legal substances cause cancer conclusively 7. Therein it is impossible to use these arguments against the legalization of marijuana without contradicting your own status-quo, which you defend.

3. Hemp is beneficial to the earth, economy, and innovation, which has been conceded.

4. Prohibition, it has been conceded, hurts society in many forms.

5. Nearly every prominent health organization in the world has cited that marijuana is a very useful means of medication.

6. A favorable definition was offered in the beginning of the debate to clear ambiguity.

My sources are in the comments page.

Thank you for the continued participation, to my opponent, and continued views, to our on-lookers.

And with that I give the floor to Zaradi.


There's a lot of points my opponent misses on my last case, and his arguments are still flawed and misconstruing, and these flaws will be inevitably damming to his case. I'll go through his responses first while re-extending my arguments along the way.

Hitler didn't have the BOP! So why do I?

Why is the stand-by ridiculous argument always something to do with Hitler? That isn't what this debate is about (not even counting the fact that no one debated him on his policies, otherwise he WOULD'VE had the BOP). As you are advocating for a change in the status quo, it is your job to prove why your shift is for the betterment of us all. If I can disprove it, then why ought we change? If it's not going to make things better, there's no reason to change at all. Thus, it would fall upon you to prove why we ought to legalize "Mary Jane". If you can't do that, then you lose.

He doesn't explain how it affects the blood, so it must be good!

Oh boy, someone obviously didn't read the article. The article is (specifically the part I mentioned) is talking about how marijuana negatively affects the blood. To quote specifically from the article, "Increases of up to 50% in heart rate and increases of up to 16 points in diastolic blood pressure have been reported. These effects could be quite serious in individuals with diabetes or heart disease." Because we all know that increasing possibility of getting a heart attack is such a swell thing. Easily extend this point as an uncontested point, proving why marijuana ought not be legalized.

Smoking cigarettes and drinking have bad withdrawl stuff, so we should keep marijuana around too! Right?

Wrong. Alcohol and cigarettes are an entirely seperate debate. Nothing to do with the harms of marijuana, which this point clearly illustrates. Easy extension of this point showing why marijuana ought not be legalized.

There are people who smoke pot who are successful. So he has to be wrong!

On average, as the two articles clearly talk about, people who smoke marijuana are a) more likely to be unsuccessful in life compared to those who do not, and b) have lower levels of income than those who do not smoke marijuana. Of course there will be exceptions, just as there are exceptions to every rule, but on average, my evidence is still true. Easy extension of this point, which proves why we ought not legalize marijuana.

Marijuana helps our brain out!

Awkward, considering I have two sources specifically saying the opposite of this. To quote specifically from the article, "Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory." If that helps the brain out, then sure marijuana is good for our brains. This is only true if my opponent chooses to accept the above complications as helpful rather than hurtful. Easy extensino of this point for the same reason as the above three points.

Marijuana doesn't cause cancer! It just has carcinogens that aren't really carcinogens!

Awkward, this just isn't true. To quote straight from my source, "Marijuana smoke contains nearly four times as much tar and 50 percent more carcinogens than tobacco" So unless my opponent wishes to debate why carcinogens don't cause cancer, he seems to be losing this point. Easy extension for the same reason as the above four points.

Marijuana isn't that addictive, so people are less likely to abuse it!

1. I have ample amounts of sources that prove this wrong, sources that you didn't even breathe on in your last round.
2. Even if marijuana isn't that addicting, it would only then lead to more abuse, as then people could use more and more of it while still being relatively safe from getting addicted, while compared to more potent drugs that users must be careful when using to avoid addiction. So if marijuana isn't addictive, it would only then lead back to higher levels of abuse, which links harder into the problems caused by smoking marijuana.

Marijuana helps ADD, ADHD, and Multiple Sclerosis!

Pretty sure cancer outweighs here. Just saying...

Hey! I found a source that says marijuana isn't addictive! Take that!

Nice, except for the fact that you conceded my four or five sources that say the exact opposite. So I'm pretty sure I outweigh here, and am thusly winning the point.

Hey! He conceded hemp has good qualities! I have to win now, right?

Wrong again, good sir. I'm still winning on numerous bad health attributes of smoking marijuana, so I still outweigh.
But even if, we can simply grow hemp and not smoke it. Hemp is a common material used in making rope, so we can use it for that. So I can use the same benefits he's boasting about hemp while still saying we ought not smoke marijuana.

He conceded the Prohibition of Alcohol analysis! I have to be winning! Right?

Again, wrong my good sir. All your sources about the Prohibition (note the capital letter, indicating event, not action) relate to alcohol harms, not harms of prohibiting (note the lack of capitalization, indicating action, not event) marijuana. So that really doesn't have any place to apply.

Marijuana is a good medicine! Cross apply my other points!

If all we're going to do is cross-apply arguments, cross apply my rebuttals to his points. Plus, now let's go through all the points he DIDN'T talk about how marijuana really, truly sucks.

1. He conceded that marijuana causes a decrease in coordination.
2. He conceded that the second-hand smoke from marijuana has negative effects on people.
3. He conceded that marijuana causes negative personality afflictions in users.
4. He conceded that marijuana is shown to be bad for the body.
5. He conceded that marijuana causes a decrease in male's serum testosterone levels, sperm count, and sperm motility.
6. He concedes that marijuana causes harmful psychological side-effects to users, such as paranoia, emotional disorders, increased risk of schizophrenia and other neuropsychiatric disorders.

So these are six FULLY CONCEDED reasons as to why we ought not legalize marijuana because of the negative affects of it on our body.

So at this point, the round breaks down really easily.

1. He's not fulfilling his BOP as to why legalizing marijuana is something we ought to do. Since the BOP rests solely on him, his failure to do this means that he loses.
2. Even if the BOP is on both of us, I'm better fulfilling my BOP than he is, meaning that I win.
3. I'm winning on five out of five of the contested reasons why marijuana shouldn't be legalized due to negative affects.
4. He then conceded six other reasons why marijuana ought not be legalized for the same reason. This makes a total of 11 reasons why we ought not legalize marijuana, which also means a total of 11 reasons to vote con.

Thus, I urge a con vote.

Debate Round No. 3


Lets note that Zaradi claims to only carry weight in one of three parts of this debate.
--Z says success is affected.
1. Since there are many exceptions it just proves that marijuana isn't the cause, but rather something else is.
--Zaradi pulled out the measuring stick. He has more sources saying its very addictive.
1. It's addictive. Skyrim, fatty foods, and sugar are addictive too.
2. My claim is its the least addictive. I thought this was common knowledge; I really didn't expect it to be a battling ground.
3. Its too bad this had to come down to a counting competition by your standards, but here we go, out of the following substances (heroines, cocaine, alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, marijuana): says Marijuana is far less addictive and far less toxic, D. Perrine PhD. says its least addictive substance behind caffeine, N. Bewoitz PhD. says too its the least addictive substance behind caffeine, J. Henningfield PhD. says its the least addictive but at the same rate of caffeine, on the same scale it was also rated lowest on withdrawal signs. But lets not stop. University of Wisconsin's Health Department states, "The majority of marijuana users do not develop addiction: they do not experience loss of control." Scientific American Mind writes, "Marijuana is the least addictive substance at 9% under alcohol at 14%." On a rating of 1-100; 100 being most. Caffeine is on average placed at 70. Marijuana is placed at....22.
4. This also on the side shows that the withdrawal symptoms that Zaradi loves to point-out show up very minimally.
5. Scientific American Mind also points out that many pharm. drugs are easily more addictive than marijuana. If its legalized Zaradi would have you believe that all of a sudden more people will become addicted, but as he as already conceded Marijuana would step in as a replacement for these MORE addictive substances as many MORE addictive substances treat the same thing. Therein less addiction in the alternative world.
--Z says "So if marijuana isn't addictive, it would only then lead back to higher levels of abuse, which links harder into the problems caused by smoking marijuana." Lets talk about that...
--Z talks about blood, heart attacks, and cardiovascular.
1. T-Lymphocytes in the blood are not effected by Marijuana, I said this in the previous round, your point on blood wasn't "uncontested."
2."DEA aggressively goes after this point, claiming that according to Harvard researchers, in the hour after having smoked marijuana, one's heart attack risk goes up five fold. However, this 'fact' is not properly cited and is indicative of the DEA's sloppy attempts to cite its sources. Marijuana's effects on blood pressure are complex and inconsistent as of yet." Institute of Medicine. Blood contention out.
--Z says the brain does not like Marijuana.
1. The receptors in the brain that allow uptake of cannaboids like THC are part of the most widespread receptor system in the body. The body is naturally attuned to these molecules and uses them to great effect. "numerous studies have established that cannabinoids help reduce pain and other distressing symptoms."
2. According to the Institute of Science, memory, like I stated before, is only effected on the short-term basis and only during intoxication. Secondly, according to WebMD, in their article Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage the Brain, "some 700 regular marijuana users were compared with 484 non-users on various aspects of brain function -- including reaction time, language and motor skills, reasoning ability, memory, and the ability to learn new information."[Basically everything Zaradi says Marijuana does horrible things to] There was little difference between the two groups. And the researchers went on to say that marijuana impaired the capabilities of those tested much less than alcohol and other drugs. Therein they concluded, "This finding enables us to see a marginal level of safety" and "we are unlikely to see deleterious side effects in individuals who receive cannabis for a short time in a medical setting." Brain and coordination contention out.
Z says caricogens make marijuana lead to cancer, and this point can't be escaped.
1. But alas, this cancerous notion it not false, also. WebMD writes, "People who smoke marijuana do not appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancer, new research suggests.While a clear increase in cancer risk was seen among cigarette smokers in the study, no such association was seen for regular cannabis users. Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers."
2. Looks like Zaradi is going to have use the measuring stick again to try to save his inconclusive argument.
Z says "So unless my opponent wishes to debate why carcinogens don't cause cancer, he seems to be losing this point."
3. Zaradi is correct when his sources say that marijuana has cancer causing molecules as my same article says, "marijuana has 50% higher concentrations of chemicals linked to lung cancer than cigarette smoke" So after they say this, they ask the natural question so why doesn't marijuana cause cancer or for that matter more cancer than cigs??? Short answer: tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. Long answer which I won't attempt to paraphrase: "Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging the death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors."
4. Marijuana is the reason Marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Remember in the earlier round when I said it helps slow down tumors, well now you got your answer.
5. Not only does this prove even more so now that marijuana is a invaluable medicine but it also shows that marijuana does not cause cancer.
6. This also shows that the smoke of marijuana is not harmful.
7. Therein this concludes not only is it impossible to overdose off of marijuana but now it can't even cause cancer. Cancer contention out.
I'm running out of characters here so
1. Zaradi dropped all my points on potential market of Hemp, garnering me my impacts of better econ, innovation, environment.
2. Zaradi dropped all my point on why prohibiting marijuana hurts society, garnering me my impacts of: less violent and property crimes, gangs have less personnel and financial power, less gang wars near southern border, government saves billions, police aren't asset hunting. I only used a alcohol prohibition source for one point-that prohibition leads to disrespect for law, depreciating its importance. Which was also dropped. Ever other point was reached from exclusively prohibiting of marijuana sources. Do I need any more weight on my side?
3. He put all of his eggs in one basket, marijuana and body. I have shown how its a very useful medicine, how it does not harm the body, how smoke does not harm the body, and why scientists consider it to be within the margin of safety This round has shown quite clearly that at worst his analysis of the body is incredibly questionable. At best, he's flat out been refuted.
4. Do I even need to mention that he dropped all of my analysis on why it's such a great medication for over 30 different illnesses. He just said "Well it causes cancer." But we already took care of that problem.
5. Zaradi could argue dropped points, but I would urge on-lookers to discourage this since I can't defend their validity, as I'm out of rounds.
6. As far as BOP goes, as an on-looker, just chose who you agree with. Should the status-quo not defend itself because its the status-quo?
7. For these commanding reasons the alternative world is highly favorable over the status-quo, and I urge a Pro vote.
Thank you, once again, to Zaradi and our viewers.
p.s.--sources in comments page.


I thank my opponent for a well interesting debate. Unfortunately, my opponent seems to be running various and large amounts of new arguments in his final round (these arguments I will point out), and should a) not be weighed, as it is abusive for me not to be able to post new arguments and/or sources in the last round and him to be able to and b) should result in a loss of the conduct point. With that, I will go into a summary of the round and explain why my opponent just isn't doing enough work to prove his BOP and why he will be losing today's debate.

His response about how exceptions point to something other than marijuana being the cause for a lack of success is both a) new, nowhere else in this debate was this mentioned, and b) just false. I cited specific studies that showed that, compared to non-users, marijuana users were statistically less likely to be successful in life and were statistically more likely to have lower levels of income compared to non-users. These were not touched. Clear extension. *Note, this is not a new argument. All I am doing is telling you to reference material brought up in previous rounds. No new argument made*

All of the sources he quoted as to how marijuana is not addictive is 100% new. Actually, all of the arguments he put on the addictiveness of marijuana are new. No previously-mentioned arguments were brought up again. Since I refuted all the other arguments and/or outweighed the previous arguments, this is a clear extension.

But even if marijuana isn't addictive, you can extend the analysis I give saying that this would only lead to higher levels of abuse due to the minimal risk of addiction. He says "Lets talk about that..." but never actually does. This is a clear conceded point. So if you are buying that marijuana isn't addictive, it then only links harder into the harms of marijuana use. Clear extension of this response.

He then mentions he already said marijuana doesn't affect the T-Lymphocytes in the blood. I never contested this point. My point was that it raises heart pressure and causes serious problems for those with diabetis and heart diseases. This went uncontested throughout the entire debate, and thus is conceded. Clear extension.

He also tried to cite a new source, but a) this source already conceded that an hour after smoking marijuana, one's heart attack risk goes up. He tries to play it off by a miscite, but that doesn't mean the result is invalid. It just means that the DEA is lazy when citing evidence. Thus, his own evidence confirms mine. So a clear extension here.

On the evidence that marijuana negatively affects the brain, he again tries to make new arguments and nothing else. He references an old argument, but that argument only confirms that when we smoke marijuana, negative things happen to the brain. His only non-new argument confirms my evidence. Clear extension.

On marijuana causing cancer, my opponent only brings up new points and sources here, again. Nothing non-new was mentioned against this point. Thusly, this point can be extended as unrefuted in the final round.

He tries to say I dropped the hemp having benefits argument but 1) I already showed how our health outweighs benefits to the economy and 2) I already showed that we can use hemp for other things while prohibiting marijuana. So under this point, I have the same offense as he does.

He tries to bring up that the Prohibition of alcohol is the same as prohibiting marijuana, but I already showed you that these two things are entirely unrelated. He garnered all of his offense off of this connection, and I severed it last round. No offense off of this point. Nothing was dropped here, despite my opponent's whining that it was.

I have disproven how marijuana is a good medicine, and that it only causes harm or, at the least, causes worse harm than it could possibly help fix. All he does to try and prove it is point to his new arguments in this round, but nothing non-new was mentioned to support this conclusion. I've already shown you how new arguments in the final round are a) unfair to me and b) abusive in debate. So he has nothing to support this conclusion, thus the conclusion is false.

He tries to extend all the other smaller diseases it has shown benefit to fixing. But I already shown that causing cancer outweighs fixing ADD or ADHD. Would you rather have a hard time paying attention or would you rather be dead or dying? Cancer clearly outweighs, as I have already pointed out.

I will argue dropped points, since you have had this entire debate to refute them, and have still failed. But that will come later.

My opponent tries to shake off his BOP and instead tell you to vote with you agree with. However, I've already clearly shown you that the BOP rests flat on my opponent to prove why we ought to legalize marijuana. He's failing to do this, and thus ought to lose the round.

With everything my opponent said last round refuted by non-new arguments, let's look to the arguments of mine that went conceded throughout this entire debate.

1. He still conceded that second-hand marijuana smoke is harmful to other people.
2. He still concedes that marijuana causes negative personality afflictions to the user.
3. He still concedes that marijuana causes a decrease in a male's serum testosterone levels, sperm count, and sperm motility.
4. He still ocncedes that marijuana causes harmful psychological and neuropsychiatric disorders and side-effects.

The other two previously conceded points (Marijuana causing a decrease in coordination and marijuana shown to be bad for the human body) were only refuted in this round by entirely new arguments. Thusly, these two can clearly be extended.

So at the end of the debate, the rounds break down pretty clearly:

1. He's failing to meet his BOP, and instead tries to shift it to others or remove it entirely. This merits a loss.
2. He has no applicable offense that isn't either a) refuted, b) co-opted, or c) outweighed coming off of his case. Thusly, he cannot possibly win.
3. I'm showing clear extension on all of my points brought up from my case. This includes five contested points, that I showed you I am clearly winning on, and six conceded points. Thusly, there are eleven reasons in this debate, aside from the BOP and lack of pro offense, to vote for con.

With that, it's clear that the only reasonable vote would be a vote to negate the resolution.

Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jwesbruce 6 years ago
I wrote under END OF THE ROAD point, "cancerous it not false." i edited this sentence and meant to replace "it not' with "is." lol my bad so please take the mental note
Scientific American Mind; Mar/Apr2012, Vol. 23 Issue 1, p64-65, 2p
Posted by jwesbruce 6 years ago
damnit, okay so i mistakenly left a "not" in a sentence i edited (just forgot to take out the not). "this cancerous notion it not false, also" Please mentally omit the "not" and the "it" and replace with "is' lol, changes things a bit.
Here are my sources:
and some of the same previous ones,
Posted by jwesbruce 6 years ago
tarkovsky, diggin the investigative work lol. Zaradi, i won't use his points, i dont want the discourse to be a controversy.
Posted by tarkovsky 6 years ago
The ethics of voting are left to the voter. Consideration of arguments presupposes qualification.
Posted by Zaradi 6 years ago
If the debater makes the argument and the argument stands. Giving the debater arguments and weight for arguments he never made is arbitrary judge intervention, which is highly unfair to the other debater.
Posted by tarkovsky 6 years ago
So by dint of the debate format, I haven't helped Pro anyway. So what's the matter? As a voter, deliberately misrepresenting sources is grounds for disqualification anyway.
Posted by Zaradi 6 years ago
Your weight as a commenter has no weight on the result of the debate round. If pro then takes your comments and applies them in round, it gives him an unfair advantage because he has access to his mind and arguments as well as the arguments posted by you. Sources can be interpreted in many ways (if I went there, I already have a few sources of my opponents that I would advocate "Throwing out" because he misconstrues what it's saying), but the sources are the meat and the warrant for the arguments. By giving him advice on sources to point out, you're essentially giving him free arguments to make, which is highly unfair.

Not only that, but it's the last round, and new arguments are never weighed in the last round.
Posted by tarkovsky 6 years ago
If anything, two unfair advantages here evens out the playing field.
Posted by tarkovsky 6 years ago
I'm asking the voters throw out your evidence, not pro. In any case, even if it was cheating, what do we have, cheating returned with cheating? Nothing lost, nothing gained.
Posted by Zaradi 6 years ago
It's still not your role to go through the opponent's case and say "Psst, say this! Psst, say that!" In effect, you're giving the other debater an unfair advantage in the round. Really, it's just cheating.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 6 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: counter roy
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources in comments violates the character limit, so they don't count. Pro indeed had the burden of proof, but with those sources missing Con didn't make the case.
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 6 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins because of great refuting of pro's points, and putting out better arguments.
Vote Placed by imabench 6 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro seemed to give more semantics arguments than the con did, and the pro failed to overcome many of the bad side effects that mary jane has on people. Arguments to the con, sources are tied, along with everything else.