The Instigator
Matthew3.14
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
bobbyluig
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Medical Marijuana

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 1 vote the winner is...
Matthew3.14
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,141 times Debate No: 23120
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Matthew3.14

Pro

This is a debate about legalization for medical marijuana. The perimeters are to be set as Californian law, customs, and society. My fellow debator, bobbyluig, resides in California, so this pertains as common knowledge for both debators.

Definiton of medical marijuana: Marijuana used as a herbal therapy or some other type of medicine prescibed by a physician.

First round is acceptance.
bobbyluig

Con

I accept. Good Luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Matthew3.14

Pro

There are 2 strong arguments that throughly justify the legalization of medical marijuana:

Support 1: Restricting the use of medical marijuana violates the needs of individuals. People who need this as medicine are barred from their treatment.

Support 2: Medical marijuana has extensively proven in a myriad of cases to be a treatment including for cancer and neuro-disorders. (See www.medicalmarijuana.net/uses-and-treatments/cancer-and-chemotherapy/). Giving legal access would be the same as allowing a cancer patient to be given treatment. Why would one deny treatment to another?

Sources:
www.medicalmarijuana.net/uses-and-treatments/cancer-and-chemotherapy/
norml.org/component/zoo/.../recent-research-on-medical-marijuana
bobbyluig

Con

Medical Marijuana is Marijuana and would therefore be considered as a potential drug which can not only cause addiction but also create unwanted side effects. As my opponent previously stated, Medical Marijuana can be used as a treatment for cancer and neurological disorders. However, the way in which Marijuana actually treats these symptoms should be considered.

Marijuana, according to most websites, stimulate and then muffle the nervous system in such a way that the human body is no longer concerned with the disorder but rather feel the need for more Marijuana. This its self is addiction. Therefore, we can conclude that although Marijuana can treat symptoms, it does so in a dangerous way which creates more side-effects than results.
Debate Round No. 2
Matthew3.14

Pro

I would like to thank Con for stating the harmful effects of marijuana. However these are key flaws in his argument.

Rebuttal 1: The potentiality of marijuana as a harmful drug is valid but under discretion of the user. Those who decide to use it unwisely choose to do so. It can be compared to other [bad] decisions such as smelling whiteout. Des this mean that whiteout should be made illegal? By no means!
Con's argument is focused on the harmful affects of marijuana, but disregards the fact that it is up to the user to decide the usage.

Support: The point that other rights (such as having paint) might be violated further supports my 1st reason that rights are at stake when making medical marijuana illegal.

Sources: http://tiny.cc...
bobbyluig

Con

You must however, understand that unlike other items, taking just one dose Marijuana will already leave an imprint in a human's neurological systems which numbs out certain senses. Despite the controlled dose, usage of Marijuana will greatly increase the chance of being addicted to it, even with minimal usage. In addition, Marijuana will ultimately harm users more aside from partial success in treating symptoms. In fact, Marijuana is a major cause of cancer and neuro issues as it not only damages brain, repertory, immune, and physical functions but is also highly addictive. There are other methods of curing these symptoms in a safer, more conducive way.

tinyurl.com/75csfjs
tinyurl.com/6rxtqmc
tinyurl.com/ysanqh
tinyurl.com/88pkvm8
Debate Round No. 3
Matthew3.14

Pro

As a closing, I would like to once again thank my opponent for participating in this debate with me. Nevertheless, there are aspects I would like to note:

1: Con has failed to address any of my supports up to the conclusion thus conceding to each and every single point of mine.

2: Con has repeatedly ignored the point made that it is up to users to decide on what to do with marijuana. He has only reiterated his point on how harmful marijuana CAN be, never addressing the user's decision nor defending any rebuttals by Pro (me).

3. Recall the phrase issued by Con "damages brain, repertory..." This is completely absurd. Repertory refers to a theatrical presentation which is completely deviating from this debate.

Based on everything, vote PRO
bobbyluig

Con

The main problem, is that Medical Marijuana is often used as an excuse for drug addiction. Since legalizing Marijuana allows young children and adults to become possibly addicted to the drug, it is best that we avoid taking risks by making Medical Marijuana illegal. This, however, will not offend one's rights as harmful substances should not be legally administered under any circumstances. This is why, poisonous substances are not allowed to be prescribed legally, as they are often more harmful than helpful. In conclusion, using Marijuana as a therapy or medicine is highly dangerous as there are more than effective ways to treat symptoms. Legalizing this drug, will only be overall counterproductive to a patient's physical and mental health.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by cannon.lord 4 years ago
cannon.lord
The funny thing is neither of you brought up drugs that are used instead of medical marijuana. The number one killer in America from drugs is actually prescription drugs. They are said to be far more addictive and dangerous. Supporting this would be the actual DEA charts.
Posted by Matthew3.14 4 years ago
Matthew3.14
How interesting!
Posted by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
I actually read a study that showed people who smoked one joint everyday for seven years, actually had an increased lung function. However, going over this limit of a "joint year" (thats what they called it) is when problems start to occur.
Posted by xzcxzcasdasd 4 years ago
xzcxzcasdasd
lol, "Joe" *cough cough* is very convincing...umhm, yes that is totally true...
Posted by Joe1234 4 years ago
Joe1234
Ohh..this debate was nice. I remember doing medical marijuana debates with my friend back in law school...good times.

Ok back to this:
Easy decision- Pro's the winner. Recall the points made by Pro during the debate. Con never even discussed it. That disappointed me. Also, the comment right before me by bobbyluig was kinda weird. No offense, but I think you (bobbyluig) are trying to pull something off here, not a good choice buddy.
Also, Con's arguments were completely away from the topic. He was focusing on how marijuana is damaging, but never truly linked that to why it should be illegal until a weak linkage at the end.
However, I did like how Con researched the topics and used the websites. Bravo to Pro too for doing that. Just one friendly thing to note for Con though- just remember to spread out your sources in each round, don't congest them all in one. Overall, good job to both of you!
Posted by bobbyluig 4 years ago
bobbyluig
Totally, "Des" this mean. Not a word.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Matthew3.14bobbyluigTied
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: Pro had sources, and proved that medical marijuana is useful and not allowing it is violates individuals needs. Con dropped several argument and failed to refute them.