The Instigator
Zealotical
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Clockwork
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Medical Marijuana

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 7 votes the winner is...
Clockwork
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,597 times Debate No: 7685
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (7)

 

Zealotical

Pro

Medical Marijuana has been clearly demonstrated by many studies to be a safe non-toxic medicine, useful in the treatment of some of our most disabling medical conditions including multiple AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, etc.
Clockwork

Con

Per the Advanced English Dictionary:

Marijuana: The female leaves of the Cannabis plant as used to create a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs.

For the purposes of this debate, medical marijuana will stand as Marijuana used to help manage, suppress, or reverse symptoms from medical disorders, such as (but not necessarily limited to) those mentioned by my opponent.

The main chemical used in "medical marijuana" that helps to manage disease is Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, more commonly known as THC. While THC can be helpful in the treatment of certain diseases, the parts of the cannabis plant used to make 'medical marijuana" contain only three percent THC.

In order to intake this measly amount of THC, the patient must also assume the numerous harms of in taking marijuana itself, including the intake over 400 hazardous chemicals and numerous psychological and physiological hazards.

But wait: the (few) good things that marijuana brings to the medical industry have already been isolated and incorporated into a FDA-approved pharmaceutical drug called Marinol. Marinol preserves the benefits of THC while lessening or eliminating the harms brought about by Marijuana consumption. If the harms can be lessened, why legalize a destructive alternative that is in all cases inferior and will be abused?

Medical professionals have noticed the notable effects of certain narcotics in the suppression of pain. Does that mean that they legalize opium or heroin? Of course not, because pharmacists can isolate the positive effects of pain suppression and reduce the rather negative effects of extreme addiction and potential for homicidal rage.

Why, then, legalize medical marijuana, when the aforementioned pharmaceutical drugs are superior in every regard to marijuana? The affirmative plan holds no greater utility, and accordingly, it is your duty to vote Con.

Criteria: For Pro to win, he must prove that "medical marijuana" has some sort of benefit that is not matched by currently-approved THC-utilizing drugs, and must further prove that these said benefits outweigh the benefits that the FDA-approved drugs hold over marijuana.

Sources:

http://www.homedrugtestingkit.com...
http://www.drugs.com...
http://www.usdoj.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
Zealotical

Pro

Scientists and mentally-ill victims of bipolar disorder have independently made the discovery that cannabis can improve this medical condition, whether the mania or depression. It may also reduce side effects of other drugs used in its treatment, such as Lithium, Carbamazepine (Tegretol) or Valproate (Depakote). Moreover, 30-40% of patients with bipolar disorder are not consistently helped by or CANNOT tolerate standard medications.

Marijuana helps terminally ill people to have a better life because smoked marijuana can give rapid relief from great suffering to some patients, quickly improving such patients' comfort and mental outlook. The terminally ill can still maintain their human dignity and suffer less.

Legalized marijuana would provide patients with a quality drug to help their pain. This would make the usage of drug controllable, ingredients would be well known and experts would determine the appropriate healing quantity. Legalization for medical purposes is also necessary to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to invest in further research of marijuana's healing properties.
Clockwork

Con

My opponent provides no source for the bold claim that up to forty percent of persons with BP disorder cannot tolerate standard treatment medications, or any suggestion of logic or evidence that cannaboids would be an exception. Even if my opponent's doubtful claims are true, the minimal impact of medical marijuana is easily negated by the 400+ toxins found in the substance. Additionally, THC has never been used as a controlled substance in the study of BP disorder, directly contradicting my opponents assumption that cannaboids could be used to combat the disease. Furthermore, marijuana has been proven to heighten the risk and intensity of the depressive states of bipolar disorder.

My opponent's second main point is completely irrelevant. Unnecessary and harmful freedoms are not handed out to the terminally ill simply to ensure that they have a pleasant trip out of life. Doing such sets an unneeded and negative precedent to the rest of society. Honestly, "happiness" isn't an idea that falls under the umbrella of medicine, and the Affirmative plan draws no line if happiness was an acceptable use for medical marijuana. If I had a bad day at work, would I be justified in using harmful drugs as an escapism? The use of medical marijuana as a means to achieve happiness by escaping from life's problems is neither a just reason for assuming that societal harms achieved by legalizing marijuana, nor does it even fall under the concept of medical marijuana in the first place.

In my opponent's final main point, he affirms that marijuana could be used as a method of pain relief. While this may be true, my opponent makes no claim or provides any evidence to suggest that medical marijuana would be a preferable option to pain relief medications already available, including Marinol. He asserts that experts could control the use of the drug, completely ignoring the already controlled substances already on the market. My opponent's claim that the legalization of medical marijuana would encourage research of the substance is irrelevant as the research of cannaboids is not prohibited by the negation of the resolution.

What we must see is that current treatment options are far superior to the suggested use of medical marijuana, and any minuscule benefits are far outweighed by the harms of making marijuana easily available.

Per the New York Times:

"In this environment, it was worrisome to read a first-person report in The Times on June 12, that the writer, a 31-year-old marathon runner, found it "shockingly easy" to obtain marijuana in San Francisco. Although she was in peak health, she sought medical marijuana on the grounds that she suffered a migraine headache every month or so. After her own health plan turned her down, she got a recommendation from a clinic doctor who never asked to see her medical records. His say-so was enough to get her an identification card from the city's health department, along with cards for two friends she had designated as "primary caregivers" so that they could pick up her marijuana if she felt too ill to fetch it herself. That laissez-faire transaction sounds like an easy target for anyone seeking to denigrate the whole program."

It's obvious that the legalization of medical marijuana has been abused on a widespread basis. Taking the action suggested by Pro provides little to no benefit to those actually sick, while simultaneously harming society as a whole.

Note that my opponent has failed to refute any portion of my case, and as of now it remains untouched.

REQUEST: My opponent needs to provide evidence that says that a large portion of BP patients cannot tolerate Marinol but CAN tolerate natural cannaboids. He also must prove that marijuana would be a preferable option of pain relief when compared to current approved medications.

Sources (not including those previously used):
http://www.pendulum.org...
http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Zealotical

Pro

Zealotical forfeited this round.
Clockwork

Con

My condolences to my opponent for whatever has rendered him unable to post an argument. However, thus far, my opponent has provided absolutely no evidence, has failed to validly defend my attacks upon his case, and has made no attacks on my case. He has failed to prove that the pros of legalizing marijuana outweigh the benefits of the status quo, which works to solve virtually all problems posed by my opponent while additionally keeping society free from the dangers of increased distribution of marijuana for recreational purposes. Taking this into account, the only logical vote is a vote for Con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
PRO forfeited - points to CON.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Osiris 7 years ago
Osiris
ZealoticalClockworkTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
ZealoticalClockworkTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by bored 7 years ago
bored
ZealoticalClockworkTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by TheCategorical 7 years ago
TheCategorical
ZealoticalClockworkTied
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 
Vote Placed by Deathgodxiii 7 years ago
Deathgodxiii
ZealoticalClockworkTied
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 
Vote Placed by grayron 7 years ago
grayron
ZealoticalClockworkTied
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 
Vote Placed by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
ZealoticalClockworkTied
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:07