Also, Marijuana is unnecessary. Other, less powerful medication can accomplish the same thing, though to a lesser degree, without the major negative repurcussions of Marijuana.
Marijuana must not come back to the US.
Medical Marijuana will not cause cancer, mental illness, and those who use Marijuana don't only barly use it but won't use other drugs. (http://www.drugpolicy.org...)
Not only that, but 800,000 people each year are arrested for possesion only and if legalized it will decrease the jail birds and it will decrease drug cartel crime in america.
Already 17 US states have legalized the drug, meaning that these states have found use in the drug. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...
Your second argument seems to be that if legalized, crime related to illegal use will go down. You are, in fact, making a very dangerous and unwise statement. This will set a precedent of caving to pressure from the Cartels. The Cartels, seeing this, will then not only become bolder, but will turn to other black market trades to make up for lost income. This would send crime up, not down. Also, where and when is it legal to smoke marijuana in this plan? Can people simply smoke it whilst walking down the street? If yes, doesn't that cause major health risks for everyone using merely the same street as a marijuana smoker? Marijuana is too easy to become addicted to, and even recovered/ recovering addicts will have much greater temptation and relapse. This cannot be allowed to happen. We must not legalize marijuana.
Lets look at the facts 1/4 of crimes are drug related.
War on drugs costs $100 billion a year.
15% are teenagers (http://www.druglibrary.org...)
and as brought up in my last speech 800,000 are arrested for marijuana possession.
*Note I am only solving for Medical marijuana not decriminalization of all drugs and the above are marijuana facts not others ei meth.*
If Medical Marijuana was legal here are the benefits: drug arrests would drop (as I said 800,000 just for marijuana possession), less kids would try it, violence would drop, states would have more money (taxing marijuana), Mexican drug cartels would be crippled (http://nakedlaw.avvo.com...)
My opponent drops the argument of that 17 states have legalized medical marijuana meaning that they have found it safe and useful don't let my opponent try to bring this up next round.
I addressed the memory loss argument directly in my response, and I have evidence through the link below about the major health concerns of Marijuana. Also, looking back to your initial rebuttal, I see nothing directly related to memory loss, except perhaps your statement that it does not cause brain disease, which is not an argument that I contested. Even if that is true, however, Marijuana causes impaired judgement, which is something that even you cannot dispute, and there are multiple concerns related to that alone, including increased possibility of violence, incapability of performing higher functions and complex motor skills, etc. This can cause danger for themselves and others.
My opponent also states in his second response that less kids would try Marijuana. This is patently ridiculous. Marijuana would be even more readily available, and it may become as prevalent or more so as smoking cigarettes, which would expose millions of others to the dangers of the drug. His argument that 25% of crimes are drug related is irrelevant. The mere fact that millions commit a crime does not make it morally justifiable. This is, in fact, a logical fallacy, classified as Tu Quoque, roughly translated as "You, too." This also applies to his 17 states argument which I lumped in with the crime statistic. I did not drop it.
And now back to the Cartels. My opponent states in his second rebuttal that the Cartels would be crippled without the black market trade of Marijuana, but also states that he is ONLY solving for Marijuana, not all drugs. This is a major contradiction. The cartels have much more than just Marijuana at their disposal, and would only step up production and distribution of these as a result of losing Marijuana. In short, legalizing Marijuana would be a ludicrous action. It would only increase Cartel activity, as well as harm those who choose to use Marijuana and those around them. Marijuana is not the only solution to the issues it is intended to solve, and my opponent cannot justify that using Marijuana is better than replacement drugs, ie Prozac (fluoxetine).
I am talking about Medical Marijuana not all marijuana in general. (Medical Marijuana will not cause cancer, mental illness, and those who use Marijuana don't only barley use it but won't use other drugs. (http://www.drugpolicy.org......)
My opponent also tried to invalidate the same source restated above by saying that it was from a clueless police officer in San Francisco. This was an article published by a reporter from a respected newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, not some police officer blogging. Now, even if my sources are so ridiculous, how about we take a closer look at some of his?
His source from the AVVO (stated below) states that emergency room visits could increase due to loss of motor skills and judgement. It also says, and I quote, "Public safety will suffer, and the quality of life in our communities will deteriorate." His source from MedicalMarijuana.procon.org (also stated below) also states, and again I quote, "There is no possibility of approval of any plant as a medicine to treat any illness, now or ever because the chemicals in whole plants (to say nothing of smoked plants which are composed of many, many more chemicals) could be approved as a medicine. Plants are unstable mixtures of different chemicals which cannot be used directly to provide a 'dose' of a specific chemical to be used as a medical treatment." My opponent may notice that he can no longer refute these arguments, as they come from his own sources. Either he must invalidate his own sources, and therefore many of his own arguments, or he must accept my arguments as fact. Marijuana is a major hazard to public safety and health.
My opponent mentions in passing that I ignore the fact that it is treatment for the terminally ill. This is patently ridiculous, as I addressed that in all three of the previous rounds by stating that Prozac worked equally well in that regard.
Finally, back to Cartels. My opponent seems to think that this is a minor argument, but it is not. Removing Marijuana as a source of income for them would only force them to resort to other, possibly more dangerous means. Also, my opponent states that his argument does not legalize all Marjuana, only medical Marijuana, so crime would, in fact, stay approximately the same. One of these arguments or the other must logically be accepted as fact. Does he solve for all Marijuana, thereby rendering the Cartels more dangerous, or does he not, thereby causing no change in crime? My opponent is being incredibly illogical, and hiding behind weak arguments that my sources are not valid. I have now used his sources to back up the same arguments, and shown how my sources are also valid. Legalizing Marijuana, medical or otherwise, would be catastrophic for the entire country. I ask for a Con vote to ensure that this ludicrous and dangerous course of action never happens.
http://www.ci.sanmateo.ca.us... and http://www.fugitive.com...
My opponent goes to quote some of my sources, however the sources state both good and bad effects of marijuana and my source from Avvo states 7 ways America would change if it was legal. Sure there are some side effects, I'd be lying if I wasn't, but this debate is about whether or not Medical Marijuana should be legal and in order for that to happen we've been debating does the good affects outweigh the bad let"s see
Good- Treats Alzheimer's Disease, Anorexia, AIDS, Arthritis, Cachexia, Cancer, Cohn"s Disease, Epilepsy, Glaucoma, HIV, Migraine, Multiple Sclerosis, Nausea, Pain, Spasticity, and Wasting Syndrome. Reduce crime rates, and empty some jail cells. (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org......)
Bad- Memory loss (which I refuted in my first speech and 3rd and my opponent dropped), drug cartels violence (still arguing about), and Childhood addiction (Refuted and my opponent dropped).
So the score is Pro 18 Con 1.
Another important issue is that my opponent has ignored the fact that he fabricated a source so he should lose based on that. We shouldn't even be debating, because this is harmful to education so this point alone should give Pro at least conduct at the minimum.
My opponent just says this random drug is better than medical marijuana when I brought up evidence proving that Medical marijuana works better so please prefer my source over his words.
I'm only solving for medical marijuana so the whole drug cartel argument should be just thrown out the window. Then my opponent goes on to call me illogical, I've been here a year and this is his first debate.
So in review.
Pro is winning 18-1 in good/bad effects
Con fabricated a source
Con is using bloggers info on his most important piece of evidence
Evidence score is 6-0
Please vote Pro.
My opponent has stated, and I quote, "I'm only solving for medical marijuana so the whole drug cartel argument should be just thrown out the window. Then my opponent goes on to call me illogical, I've been here a year and this is his first debate." I'm sorry, but how long you have been in debate is irrelevant to the logic of your arguments. You are illogical, I proved that in round 4, and no matter how long you stay and no matter how experienced I am, nothing will change the fact that what you stated was illogical.
My opponent has also stated, and I quote, "My opponent goes to quote some of my sources, however the sources state both good and bad effects of marijuana and my source from Avvo states 7 ways America would change if it was legal." "However"? How does the fact that his sources state both pro and con evidence make my points less valid? My opponent has made multiple attacks on the validity of my arguments, culminating in a major ad hominem attack, but more on that later. Long story short, his validity arguments are all ridiculous (with the exception of the Manheimer mis- cite, and again I apologize for that) and his arguments are, on the whole, illogical except for his harms contention. Here, I have defeated his arguments through proving, with his sources no less, that public safety will suffer and the quality of life in our communities will deteriorate (see round 4 arguments).
And now to a major breach in debate ethics. My opponent made an Ad Hominem attack on me, in the form of stating, and one last time I quote, "Then my opponent goes on to call me illogical, I've been here a year and this is his first debate." This is a classic example of Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem is yet another logical fallacy, this one translating to "to the man". My opponent must defeat and attack my policy and reccomendations, not attack me. I am irrelavant to the validity of my arguments. Ad Hominem is insulting and degrading, and I am greatly offended by it.
Finally, his strange numbering of good vs. bad effects. He states that he is winning 18-1, but this is not true. First of all, it would at least be 18-2 because of threat to self and threat to others. Second of all, all 18 of his advantages are irrelavent because of my alternate drug argument. And thirdly, how does he weigh these arguments? What unit of measurement besides number of points does he bring to the table? I could say that there are many advantages to Nuclear war, such as defeat of all our enemies, American Hegemony, Global Democracy, etc, but all of those pale in the face of just one counter- argument, that being that half of the world would die screaming. Do you see my point here?
So, to wrap up, my opponent is being illogical in his counter- arguments, insulting in his Ad- Hominem attack, and defeated on all points by alternate drugs, a rise in Cartel crime, and negative side effects. All of these points have been proven, all points extended, and the only reasonable and logical conclusion is to vote Con. Thank you for your participation in our debate and please, do not vote for the legalization of Marijuana, as it can only lead to problems for all of us with little positive gain.
My opponent fails to see that his source is a police officer not a doctor/ scientist. He agrees he made the error, but his source is written by a police officer so this source can be thrown out the window.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|