The Instigator
cameronl35
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Medical Marijuana

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 3 votes the winner is...
cameronl35
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,664 times Debate No: 19916
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

cameronl35

Pro

Full resolution: Medical Marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America.

I will be affirming that medical marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America. This debate only pertains to medical marijuana, not marijuana in general.

STRUCTURE:

Round 1-Acceptance

Round 2-Cases/CON rebuttal

Round 3-Rebuttal

Round 4-Conclusion/Summary

Definitions:

medical-curative; medicinal; therapeutic [1]

marijuana-the most commonly used illicit drug; considered a soft drug, it consists of the dried leaves of the hemp plant; smoked or chewed for euphoric effect [2]

I would like to thank 16kadams for agreeing to debate this topic. This should be a very fun and informative debate!

Sources:
1. http://dictionary.reference.com......
2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Debate Round No. 1
cameronl35

Pro

I would like to thank 16kadams for proposing such an interesting topic to debate today. We agree on all definitions so let's now move onto the case.

C1: Medical Marijuana has been medically proven to have numerous benefits.

If need be, I could potentially use all my space going on about the medical benefits of marijuana and how marijuana can benefit us however I'll provide three different benefits today.

Sub-Point A: Alzheimer's Disease (Thanks Danielle!)

Lisa M. Eubanks, PhD, Staff Scientist at the Scripps Research Institute and the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology notes, "THC and its analogues may provide an improved therapeutic for Alzheimer's disease [by] simultaneously treating both the symptoms and progression of Alzheimer's disease" [1] Since the characterization of the Cannabis sativa produced cannabinoid, tetrahydrocannabinol in the 1960s, this natural product has been widely explored as an antiemetic, anticonvulsive, anti-inflammatory, and analdebilitating disease are critical as Alzheimer's disease afflicts over 20 million people worldwide, with the number of diagnosed cases continuing to rise at an exponential rate [2]. These studies have demonstrated the ability of cannabinoids to provide neuroprotection against amyloid peptide toxicity. [3]

Thus we see that medical marijuana provides plausible assistance with a prevalent disease, Alzheimer's Disease.

Sub-Point B- HIV/AIDS

Numerous studies have shown that medical marijuana has benefited AIDS. While I urge the readers to do some research on their own, I'll summarize some of the results of experimentation. “The study, conducted at San Francisco General Hospital from 2003 to 2005 and published Monday in the journal Neurology, involved 50 patients suffering from HIV-related foot pain known as peripheral neuropathy. There are no drugs specifically approved to treat that kind of pain. Three times daily for nearly a week, the patients smoked marijuana cigarettes machine-rolled at the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the only legal source for the drug recognized by the federal government. Half the patients received marijuana, while the other 25 received placebo cigarettes that lacked the drug's active ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Scientists said the study was the first one published that used a comparison group, which is generally considered the gold standard for scientific research. Thirteen patients who received marijuana told doctors their pain eased by at least a third after smoking pot, while only six of those smoking placebos said likewise. The marijuana smokers reported an average pain reduction of 34 percent, double the drop reported by the placebo smokers as measured with a widely accepted pain scale.” [4] Investigators at Columbia University published clinical trial data in 2007 showing that HIV/AIDS patients who inhaled cannabis four times daily experienced substantial increases in food intake with little evidence of discomfort and no impairment of cognitive performance. They concluded that smoked marijuana has a clear medical benefit in HIV-positive patients. [5] In another study in 2008, researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine found that marijuana significantly reduces HIV-related neuropathic pain when added to a patient's already-prescribed pain management regimen and may be an "effective option for pain relief" in those whose pain is not controlled with current medications. Mood disturbance, physical disability, and quality of life all improved significantly during study treatment. [6]

Medical Marijuana also has numerous ways to help treat HIV/AIDS, yet another epidemic in today's society.

Sub-Point C: Cancer

According to a 2007 study at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, cannabidiol (CBD) may stop breast cancer from spreading throughout the body. [7] A study by Complutense University of Madrid found the chemicals in marijuana promotes the death of brain cancer cells by essentially helping them feed upon themselves in a process called autophagy. The research team discovered that cannabinoids such as THC had anticancer effects in mice with human brain cancer cells and in people with brain tumors. When mice with the human brain cancer cells received the THC, the tumor shrank. Usingelectron microscopes to analyze brain tissue taken both before and after a 26- to 30-day THC treatment regimen, the researchers found that THC eliminated cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact. [8] Cannabis has been found to help cancer patients with pain and nausea, and recent research indicates it has tumor-reducing and anti-carcinogenic properties properties as well. It has proven highly effective at controlling the nausea associated with chemotherapy, and its appetite-stimulation properties help combat wasting. Cannabis can also help control the pain associated with some cancers, as well as that resulting from radiation and chemotherapy treatment. [9]

Finally, we can come to the conclusion that Medical Marijuana can help cure cancer. When we look back, I have provided three benefits for three prevalent diseases: Alzheimer's Disease, HIV/AIDS, as well as cancer. I could go on and on discussing mental disorder benefits as well as Glaucoma, but I don't want to bore the readers and I urge them to do some of their own research.


C2: The government should not decide whether medical marijuana should be illegal or not, let the competent doctors decide. This whole issue comes down to simply whether or not medical marijuana should be prescribed by doctors. The federal government should not have its say in determining whether or not the doctors can prescribe the marijuana or not. We should allow the experienced doctors to determine whether or not a patient should receive marijuana, not the federal government. Thus, when we look onto the doctor's opinions we see doctors believe it should be prescribed.
According to the Wall Street Journal's Health Blog:

The American College of Physicians, 124,000 members strong, has issued a 13-page position paper asking the federal government to drop marijuana from its classification as a substance considered to have no medicinal value and a high chance of abuse . . . "They've said essentially that the federal government has it all wrong," Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, [says]. [10]




Along with this association, numerous doctors and individuals believe that medical marijuana should be prescribed. At the point at which the competent individuals and the ones who spend their whole entire lives working in the field of medicine believe it should be prescribed, why would the federal government have any say? I can provide more sources and more examples but I think when you look at what I have provided throughout all the sources (most from doctors) you can come to the conclusion that doctors believe it is a necessity and obligatory to legalize medical marijuana.

Conclusion:

Medical marijuana has been empirically proven to benefit diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDS. Many doctors want to legalize marijuana and the experienced doctors should decide whether medical marijuana should be legal or not, not a governing body. Let the decision rest upon the individuals who spend their lives working in the field of medicine, not those who do not have enough knowledge on the topic. By letting this occur, we see many doctors are in favor of legalizing medical marijuana and it would have enormous positive impacts on today's society and well-being. For these reasons, I urge a PRO vote.

See http://www.debate.org... sources.


16kadams

Con

I do not know if this is allowed, but I'll use my dad (doctor) as a source. So lets do my contentions before my rebuttal.

C1: Marijuana has terrible health defects.

What does it do?

In addition to the possible effects on your brain, smoking marijuana may also be hazardous to your developing lungs. Marijuana smoke contains 50% to 70% more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. [1]

C2: FDA's statements

As you know the FDA said that there are no medical benifits to marijuana. If you wan't a link then will be provided.

C3: It's linked schizophrenia

Repeatedly, studies have found that people with schizophrenia are about twice as likely to smoke pot as those who are unaffected. Conversely, data suggest that those who smoke cannabis are twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as nonsmokers. One widely publicized 2007 review of the research even concluded that trying marijuana just once was associated with a 40% increase in risk of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.[2]

And males are more suceptable this disorder.

C4: Linked to testicular cancer

Men who use marijuana may increase their risk for developing testicular cancer. A recent study of several hundred Washington State men with testicular cancer showed an association between current marijuana use and the more aggressive of the two types of the disease. Moreover, the association was strongest among men with a long history of regular marijuana use. [3]

During the past 50 years, the number of new cases of testicular cancer reported annually in the United States has nearly doubled. So has the percentage of the general population who report having smoked marijuana at least once. Dr. Dey suspected that the two trends might be related, although exposure to various environmental factors may also be involved. [3]

Along with the simultaneous rise in rates, there are biological reasons to hypothesize a connection between the drug and the cancer. Research has shown that marijuana smoking reduces sperm production and male fertility, and other work has linked diminished fertility to increased risk of testicular cancer. [3]

C5 withdrawl that happens every week raises aggresion (So if I smoke it now I'll be mad next week)


Marijuana smokers living at home reported "clinically significant" withdrawal symptoms -- such as sleep difficulty, marijuana craving, aggression, and irritability -- during periods of abstinence from the drug. The participants' self-reports were confirmed, in part, by observers who reported increased restlessness and irritability among the marijuana users when they were not smoking. [4]

Look it says aggression.

During the abstinence periods, participants reported increases in the severity of craving and sleep difficulty, decreased appetite, and increased aggression, anger, and irritability. In addition, participants reported an increase in "strange dreams" during the second abstinence period. Observers reported increased irritability and restlessness among the participants during abstinence. [4]

And this adds agression and anger to the list.

C6: doesn't help AIDS/HIV People, you can use other medicines

The Institute of Medicine concluded in its Mar. 1999 report titled "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base":

"The relationship between marijuana smoking and the natural course of AIDS is of particular concern because HIV patients are the largest group who report using marijuana for medical purposes. Marijuana use has been linked both to increased risk of progression to AIDS in HIV-seropositive patients and to increased mortality in AIDS patients.

The most compelling concerns regarding marijuana smoking in HIV/AIDS patients are the possible effects of marijuana on immunity. Reports of opportunistic fungal and bacterial pneumonia in AIDS patients who used marijuana suggest that marijuana smoking either suppresses the immune system or exposes patients to an added burden of pathogens. In summary, patients with preexisting immune deficits due to AIDS should be expected to be vulnerable to serious harm caused by smoking marijuana. The relative contribution of marijuana smoke versus THC or other cannabinoids is not known."


So it weakens the already weakend immune system.

C7: Alzheimers

The Alzheimer's Research Trust stated in a Feb. 22, 2005 article in BBC News titled "Marijuana May Block Alzheimer's":

"If it is possible to make drugs that act only on CR2 [one of two main types of cannabinoid receptor in the brain]... they might mimic the positive effects of cannabinoids without the damaging ones of marijuana.

However, this is a fairly new field of research and producing such selective drugs is not an easy task. There is also no evidence yet that cannabinoid-based drugs can slow the decline in human Alzheimer's patients."

So it doesn't really hurt their sickness, doesnt help. Also it would still give them all the downsides above.

C8: It is addictive

Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction; that is, people have difficulty controlling their drug use and cannot stop even though it interferes with many aspects of their lives. It is estimated that 9 percent of people who use marijuana will become dependent on it. The number goes up to about 1 in 6 in those who start using young (in their teens) and to 25-50 percent among daily users. [5]

According to the 2008 NSDUH, marijuana accounted for 4.2 million of the estimated 7 million Americans dependent on or abusing illicit drugs. In 2008, approximately 15 percent of people entering drug abuse treatment programs reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse; 61 percent of persons under 15 reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse, as did 56 percent of those 15 to 19 years old. [5]


C9: Alternatives that do the same things, minus all of the downsides.

The alternatives are proven to work, always, without these Marijuana downsides. So why Marijuana if you can use these:

For pain: codeine


British reports say it is no weaker or stronger than marijuana. Same benifits, less downsides.

Nausia: Zofran same benifits, downside: slight possible anxiety if used with other meds.

Home remadies for nausia: ginger, which can be eaten in slices, made into a tea, or drunk as ginger ale, and lemon, which can be squeezed into any liquid or simply sniffed. [6]

CB1 Activators: Frog legs, studies still being done on it's safeness

Hungry: This is what marijuana is most used for, here are alternatives: prednisone


There are more, these medicines are from 6 and on the source debate, and my dad (doctor) said thowhere correct.

rubutals:

Running low on space O.o

"Medical Marijuana has been medically proven to have numerous benefits. "


Not according to the FDA

"Alzheimer's Disease"


seems as though we have differing evidence both from credible sources. I will post more later.

"HIV/AIDS"


I proved above that marijuana hurts the immune system, worsening AIDS/HIV. I tis not helpful. My contentr rebut or make even so far.


"Cancer"


Well it starts cancer, so how does this help? There are alternatives As I have pointed out. I'm running low on space so an alternative won't be provided, my dad/doctor and lawyer will answer round.

"The government should not decide whether medical marijuana should be illegal or not, let the competent doctors decide"


The FDA is totally capable of deciding on this issue, they are made up of doctors and scientists. Also here's my view: States rights. Let the states choose. Also My dad (great surgeon, one of the best in my state) says that If only competant doctors existed, medical marijuana wouldn't exist. So basically he calls it a dumb idea.

Who has the BOP? D medical marijuana is a law that would be new, so you need to prove it benificial? Answer next round.

Sources in our sources debate



Debate Round No. 2
cameronl35

Pro

I would like to thank 16kadams for his impressively swift response. Now let's move on to the rebuttal.
R1: Terrible Health Defects

My opponent makes a rather presumptuous claim by immediately stating that it has "terrible health defects" with only one source to back it up, an anti-drug website (primarily to inform children). The first problem with this is that it states "may be hazardous" so we already know that there is no definite harm. Smoking is also not the only way of consuming marijuana. Also, what the source is implying is that smoking marijuana to an extent will cause harm, not medically or with care. My opponent must also believe all kinds of drugs should be illegal for medical use because of side-effects such as morphine, levitra, novocaine, and other painkillers. Marijuana would be prescribed safely as it is a non-addictive drug. The U.S. Department of Justice as well as the FDA have both confirmed that marijuana has not killed anybody and is not fatalistic or even as close to as harmful as most toxic drugs. [1,2] My opponent has not justified his contention and a slight possibility of damage can easily be avoided with proper medical care. Even tobacco is far more dangerous than marijuana.

R2: FDA statement

My opponent provides no source so we can not even say that this statement is true. Also, as I stated earlier the FDA also stated that marijuana is safe even in recreational purposes. When he provides a source we can further deplore into the contention's validity or invalidity.

R3: Schizophrenia

Here Con merely confuses causation and correlation. As his source states, “One explanation may be that the two factors are coincidental, not causal: perhaps people who have a genetic susceptibility to schizophrenia also happen to especially enjoy marijuana.” The article also later states “But when the researchers controlled for other factors known to influence schizophrenia risk, including gender, education and socioeconomic status, the association between disease onset and marijuana disappeared.”[3] So interestingly enough Con's single source blatantly contradicts his statement proving its falsehood. Thus we can come to the conclusion that this contention is completely invalid.

R4: Testicular Cancer

Not only does this claim disregard the entire female population but when it gets right down to it, there is no definite link. Again Con commits the fallacy of causation and correlation. The number of cases has increased simply because the population increased, not because more people began smoking marijuana. There is no definite evidence in this claim. Perhaps if one smokes marijuana to a certain extent this is slightly possible but there is no definite harm and no definite way in which we can derive that this problem is potent and will occur in the medical field.

R5: Withdrawal

The first flaw in the contention is that all of his evidence only refers to marijuana smokers living at home, not in the hospital or supervised by a doctor. Also the evidence collected was done by observers, not the person who is actually experiencing the results. Yet again, Con fails to prove how this is a definite harm but is rather a mere side effect, one that many far more harmful drugs have.

R6: AIDS

Yet again my opponent fails to read through his entire source, a common mistake by debaters. The source as a cumulative review states, “The profile of cannabinoid drug effects suggest that they are promising for treating wasting syndrome in AIDS patients. Nausea, appetite loss, pain, and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana. Although some medications are more effective than marijuana for these problems, they are not equally effective in all patients.” [4] It establishes that AIDS/HIV as a matter of fact is benefited by medical marijuana, an indisputable fact accepted by any medicine program who reads the evidence and weighs the impacts. Thus my opponent has no direct refutation and rather promotes my case.

R7: Alzheimer's Disease

There is no direct refutation. Con's evidence this time completely supports my case. It is apparent that he obviously has not even read his statement. Let's comparse the contention. “"If it is possible to make drugs that act only on CR2 [one of two main types of cannabinoid receptor in the brain]... they might mimic the positive effects of cannabinoids without the damaging ones of marijuana.” So the contention is stating that there may be something that can replace marijuana and it actually accepts that there are numerous positive benefits of marijuana, but let's move on to see how whimsical this argument is. He quotes “However, this is a fairly new field of research and producing such selective drugs is not an easy task. There is also no evidence yet that cannabinoid-based drugs can slow the decline in human Alzheimer's patients.” Thus his evidence says that replacing it is not easy and is not reliable. Obviously his proposal is completely contradictory. Finally it says there is no evidence that these drugs he is advocating for can slow the decline. Yet again his source proves his new proposal unreliable and is not valid. There yet again is no direct refutation so the judge must assume that marijuana can benefit Alzheimer's as his case even indicated.

R8: Marijuana being addictive??

My opponent yet again goes on to discuss marijuana for recreational use, not medical use. These are two completely different things. It is an ancient belief that marijuana is addictive. Not only does his evidence provide no definite link, I'll provide multiple sources proving that it is not addictive but rather compulsory however almost anything can become compulsory. I suppose food, water, love and debating are bad as well. With that in mind, let's look at some evidence. According to Psychology Today (where some of Con's evidence derives from) marijuana is not an addictive drug for most people. [5] According to a longitudinal study of young adults who had first been surveyed in high school also found a high "discontinuation rate" for marijuana. While 77% had used the drug, 74% of those had not used in the past year and 84% had not used in the past month. Of course, even people who continue using marijuana for several years or more are not necessarily "addicted" to it. Many regular users - including many daily users - consume marijuana in a way that does not interfere with other life activities, and may in some cases enhance them. [6,7] There has been no scientific evidence that marijuana is an addictive for it is a presumptuous myth and should be disregarded.

R9: Alternatives

First off Con provides 0 evidence going through every benefit of marijuana and replacing it with another drug. Even if perhaps he were to go through virtually everything, that still wouldn't discard the legal validity of medical marijuana. As long as it has benefits (which my opponent fails to address) then it should not be illegal and it should not be a crime to use it for medical purposes. My opponent thinks that he can justify how medical marijuana is invalid. While I think it is perfectly fine for him to get inspiration from his dad this does not stand in a debate and voters should already by now have determined that Con's claims are not supported and are rather lavish.

Conclusion:

My opponent fails to read his evidence and has no direct refutation towards any of my arguments but rather states that the FDA does not approve (no source). So because my opponent can not support almost any of his claims, is arguing against recreational purposes rather than medical, commits logical fallacies time and time again, fails to read his sources that work towards my case, and disregards a majority of my case I strongly urge a PRO vote.

For sources see the sources debate. The link is dead so just check either my profile or 16kadam's profile.

16kadams

Con

"Terrible Health Defects"

http://www.defense.gov...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Better?

"FDA statement"

link requested, link granted

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...

"Schizophrenia "


I did mix them up, but the evidense is growing. Did you know that aids wans't proven a STD for a few years. My dad (doctor) said that the evidence is very strong, and will ba proven a causation within a few years. And this is from a pro marijuana legilizaation dude.

"Testicular Cancer"

women don't get testicular cancer lol

Also the link is pretty strong in some of those studies. http://www.independent.co.uk...

there is uncertanty but the evidence here is overwhelming.

"Withdrawal"

overlooked by a doctor? People abuse the system all of the time, even under a doctor.
http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.com...

"AIDS"

Marijuana doesn't work, I have proved this, cannibis hurts the immune system, worsening aids.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu...

"Alzheimer's Disease"

you say replacing is unreliable, I have proven so is marijana. It slows you down among other things. So your argument comes back to bite you. No medicine cures the desiese, but some medicines are reliable: http://www.mayoclinic.com...

"My opponent yet again goes on to discuss marijuana for recreational use, not medical use."

I already proved above that it is abused either way. So this argument was pre-refuted.

"Alternatives"

Oh so medicines listed is 'no proof' it is a ton of proof. I proved that many medicines replace the drug.

Conclusion:

yours is false, I provided proof as you asked for this round. I will re-do all of my contentions again to finish off.

C1: Terrible health effects
http://www.nida.nih.gov...

a non 'kid' website.

C2: FDA statement

provided above

C3: It's linked schizophrenia

still some doubt, but it is fairly well proved.

http://healthland.time.com...

Researchers have suspected a link since the 1960s, and study after study has hinted that use of marijuana may trigger schizophrenia, a serious mental illness that affects one in 100 people.

Recent studies, however, provide evidence strong enough to give public health officials — not to mention parents and educators — pause, especially as legalization efforts pick up steam. The latest to weigh in is research to appear in the May issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry. Scientists in Australia followed nearly 4,000 young adults born between 1981 and 1984 at the 21-year mark, and found that the longer study participants had used marijuana, the higher the risk of psychosis-related outcomes. Those who had experienced hallucinations early were more likely to have smoked or used marijuana longer and more frequently.

pasted from: http://www.miller-mccune.com...

C4: Linked to testicular cancer


this is well proved as well. I used a goverment source too, but let me prove it again:

http://www.fhcrc.org...

http://articles.cnn.com...

http://articles.latimes.com...

C5 withdrawl that happens every week raises aggresion


point still stands. even under medical supervision one can get addicted. Under my doctors supevision I got addicted to afrin for a few days. SO point still stands.

http://www.idmu.co.uk...

C6: doesn't help AIDS/HIV People, you can use other medicines

it was proved above, and you quote false quotes. but I will prove it again.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) stated in a Jan. 2, 2002 email to ProCon.org:

"Marijuana can affect the immune system by impairing the ability of T-cells to fight off infections, demonstrating that marijuana can do more harm than good in people with already compromised immune systems."


Janet Lapey, MD, Executive Director of Concerned Citizens for Drug Prevention, Inc., in her Oct. 1, 1997 Statement to the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary in the House of Representatives:

"Marijuana is not the safe drug portrayed by the marijuana lobby. It is addictive; it adversely affects the immune system... Marijuana use is a risk factor for the progression to full-blown AIDS in HIV-positive persons, and HIV-positive marijuana smokers have an increased incidence of bacterial pneumonia."

C7: Alzheimers
Susanne Sorensen, MD, head of research at the Alzheimer's Society, stated in a Feb. 22, 2005 BBC News article titled "Marijuana May Block Alzheimer's":

"The Alzheimer's Society looks forward to seeing further research being carried out on cannabinoid receptors as drug targets for Alzheimer's disease but would warn the public against taking marijuana as a way of preventing Alzheimer's.

It is now generally recognized that as well as providing a 'high,' long-term use of marijuana can also lead to depression in many individuals."

C8: It is addictive

Alan J. Budney, PhD, Professor of Psychiatry and Researcher at the University of Arkansas Center for Addiction Research, stated in his Oct. 2001 article "Marijuana Abstinence Effects in Marijuana Smokers Maintained in Their Home Environment," published in the Archives of General Psychiatry:

"This study validated several specific effects of marijuana abstinence in heavy marijuana users, and showed they were reliable and clinically significant.

These withdrawal effects appear similar in type and magnitude to those observed in studies of nicotine withdrawal...

Craving for marijuana, decreased appetite, sleep difficulty, and weight loss reliably changed across the smoking and abstinence phases. Aggression, anger, irritability, restlessness, and strange dreams increased significantly during one abstinence phase, but not the other."

so it is addictive because the withdrawl are severe

C9: Alternatives that do the same things, minus all of the downsides.

shown above twice


Debate Round No. 3
cameronl35

Pro

I would like to thank 16kadams for his response and somewhat abstract rebuttal. Now let's move on to my final rebuttal and conclusion.


R1: Terrible Health Defects
This seems to be what my opponent's case essentially revolves around. It should be noted that while marijuana does have side effects and a potential for harm, almost every drug does as well. The only sources that my opponent has nonchalantly thrown out that are actually against marijuana don't even discuss medical use. The credible sources that he provides actually advocate for medical marijuana which my opponent does not even realize. My opponent fails to establish why morphine or novocaine should be legal in that case as well. As I stated earlier, numerous medical programs recognize marijuana as relatively safe for medical use. Let's go in depth and see what they say. According to an approved statement from the US Department of Justice in 1988, "Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity." [1] From January 1997 to June 2005, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported zero deaths caused by the primary use of marijuana. Through that time period, 279 deaths were reported where marijuana was a possible "concomitant" drug used in conjunction with other drugs at the time of death. In contrast, common FDA-approved drugs which are often prescribed in lieu of marijuana (such as anti-emetics and anti-psychotics), were the primary cause of 10,008 deaths. [2]

R2:
FDA Statement??
So yes apparently the FDA did issue a blanket statement disregarding all medicinal values of medical marijuana. This does not by any means mean it should be illegal. In fact many medical institutions have been negatively stigmatizing the FDA for making such lavish claims. To help prove the ridiculousness of this claim, I refer to Stephen Sidney, MD, Associate Director for Clinical Research for Kaiser Permanente. The FDA's pronouncement tells us little about medical marijuana, but it says much about how politics appears to be trumping science at the agency we all depend on to protect our health....The federal government has not only refused to fund medical marijuana research, it has put in place a set of legal and bureaucratic obstacles that have kept the flow of even privately funded medical marijuana studies to a trickle. So with one hand, our government tells us 'there's no data,' while with the other hand it works to ensure there will never be enough data. So why did the FDA issue this questionable document, containing no new information whatever, at this particular moment? The only apparent explanation is politics.... Science, it appears, took a back seat. For the FDA to do its job as protector of our nation's health, it must be free from commercial or political pressure. When politics trumps science at the FDA, we are all in danger." [3] Let's now have a look at to what NY Times had to say about this: "The Bush administration's habit of politicizing its scientific agencies was on display again this week when the Food and Drug Administration, for no compelling reason, unexpectedly issued a brief, poorly documented statement disputing the therapeutic value of marijuana. The statement was described as a response to numerous inquiries from Capitol Hill, but its likely intent was to buttress a crackdown on people who smoke marijuana for medical purposes and to counteract state efforts to legalize the practice. Ordinarily, when the F.D.A. addresses a thorny issue, it convenes a panel of experts who wade through the latest evidence and then render an opinion as to whether a substance is safe and effective to use. This time the agency simply issued a skimpy one-page statement asserting that 'no sound scientific studies' supported the medical use of marijuana.." [4] Thus it is not at all a valid scientifical standpoint but rather a whimsical attempt by politicians to attack the marijuana user party.

R3:
Schizophrenia and Testicular Cancer
There is really no solidification of this contention as he agrees so this has successfully been shot down because marijuana never causes Schizophrenia. Con then goes on to helplessly try to justify this by bringing up some "Pro marijuana legilizaation dude" (nobody knows what legilizaation is) and states how he believes it is true. This is bad conduct because there is no explanation, no source, and no credibility. I think it is clear to the readers and will move on. As far as the testicular cancer issue goes, I have significantly shot this down yet again and Con just spews out another source but I have proven that this is just another confusion of correlation and causation so we shall move on now.

R4: Withdrawal and Aggression
He states that there is a possibility for one to be aggressive but there is no evidence that this has caused aggression but there is some relation. It is generally considered that marijuana has soothed and calmed people, not made them aggressive. "When the system is hyper-aroused, as in today’s lifestyle, marijuana calms. The significance of this fact cannot be ignored. It explains the increased creativity reported as a part of the marijuana experience, because when both sides of brain processes are heightened, both types of brain activity are greater. The left brain notices more, while the right brain receives more. This is the unification of logic and intuition. The term “expansion of consciousness” is explained physiologically as a “shifting of brain emphasis from one-sidedness to balance” (Sugarmena and Tarter, 1978), which fits precisely with the feeling called “high." [5] Here's another statement: "At low doses, most marijuana users report a sense of calm, well-being and relaxation—the exact opposite of anxiety. Recent scientific investigation reveals that in addition to a sense of calm, low doses of marijuana produce a loss of temporal awareness (time), slight mental confusion, a slowing of the thought processes, impairment of short-term memory and sometimes an awareness of attaining special insights or knowledge." [6] We can not come to the conclusion that it will increase aggression but perhaps if you smoke extensively it will. Even so, many other drugs cause far more aggression and they should be illegal as well.

R5: AIDS/HIV
This rebuttal is going to be rather brief for I have already shot it down and he simply restated the same thing. I urge readers to refer back to my last rebuttal. He states there is a possibility of T-cells to fight off infections but there is simply no definite cause while I have provided that there is a definite benefit on HIV/AIDS

R6:
Alzheimer's
This ongoing project is only working towards achieving tangible results but has not even came close. With his evidence we can not come to any conclusions but only a rather possibility of there being side-effects, no definite harm here and can be completely disregarded. NO WARRANT!

R7:
Addiction and Alternatives
I am begginning to run out of space but first off addiction can simply be solved with less prescription and I have already proven that it is not addictive and it is never considered addictive anymore. It is a myth that has been disproven time after time. Con fails to justify any alternatives whatsoever and just posts links..this is not debate but a link competition.

Conclusion: Con fails to justify how Marijuana should be illegal (arguments), uses unreliable sources such as his Dad (sources), and spells things terribly such as 'rubuttal' and 'legilizaation' (spelling). With his logic many drugs should be illegal and he never really refutes the benefits but rather spews out sources. To end this I refer to Carl Sagan's video and vote PRO.


16kadams

Con

"It should be noted that while marijuana does have side effects and a potential for harm, almost every drug does as well. The only sources that my opponent has nonchalantly thrown out that are actually against marijuana don't even discuss medical use."

So you concede at last that it does have side effects. And I concede that other medicines have side effects. But not as bad as marijuana.

Side effects for marijuana:

1. Deppression
this is indefinatly linked to marijuana
2. Smoking marijuana poses some risks. As hard as it may be for some of you to believe, no matter how much you want to believe it, marijuana isn't all good. Smoking anything physically hurts your body. Anything that burns gives off carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide kills brain cells.
3. Gives lung cancer like tobacco. And is that used mediccally?
4. Gives mouth cancer like tobacco.
5. As proved above causes anxiety
6. Fear
7. Shrinks brain. GO her if you don't belive me: http://www.webmd.com...

So yes other medicines may have side effects, none this severe ost of the time.

"So yes apparently the FDA did issue a blanket statement disregarding all medicinal values of medical marijuana. This does not by any means mean it should be illegal."

We are not arguing the legality of the drug.


"This does not by any means mean it should be illegal. In fact many medical institutions have been negatively stigmatizing the FDA for making such lavish claims."

Cool ou brought in a doctor, the FDA is full of them. Their full of researchers too. Their job it to regulate medicines and have proof when needed to ban them. They have provided a lot of proof. So yes one doctor is mad, but a whoe team of scientists, doctors, and reasearchers agree with me. (I think I messpelled it lol).

Here is the FDA on medical marijuana when asked the question in a sepere time:

"Marijuana is listed in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the most restrictive schedule. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which administers the CSA, continues to support that placement and FDA concurred because marijuana met the three criteria for placement in Schedule I under 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1) (e.g., marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and has a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision).

Furthermore, there is currently sound evidence that smoked marijuana is harmful. A past evaluation by several Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA), concluded that no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use."

So they prove my abuse hery as well. So goverment +doctors+scientists=con med marijuana.

"There is really no solidification of this contention as he agrees so this has successfully been shot down because marijuana never causes Schizophrenia. Con then goes on to helplessly try to justify this by bringing up some "Pro marijuana legilizaation dude" (nobody knows what legilizaation is) and states how he believes it is true. This is bad conduct because there is no explanation, no source, and no credibility."


So he is the source...duh. Also accusing people of bad conduct when they havdone nothing wrong means you are the person with bad conduct. As I said, it is POSSIBLY linked to Schizophrenia. But as a patient would you really wanna take that chance? And by the way you are incorect, there is a source listed under it.


"As far as the testicular cancer issue goes, I have significantly shot this down yet again and Con just spews out another source but I have proven that this is just another confusion of correlation and causation so we shall move on now. "

I said POSSIBLY linked I belive somewhere. And once again, as a patient do you really want to take this chance? Also as a doctor is it does cause this and your patient comes back with testicular cancer, and this time with a lawyer do you really wan't to take this chance? So it is all about how much you value your life.

"He states that there is a possibility for one to be aggressive but there is no evidence that this has caused aggression but there is some relation."


You just concede that there was relation. And my goverment sources said that it DOES cause aggression.


"This rebuttal is going to be rather brief for I have already shot it down and he simply restated the same thing. "


Yes I did repeat, I proved that it is bad for the immune system, the thing aids effects. So why worsen the desiese? I will provide another quote on that:


Donald P. Tashkin, MD, in his 2001 article "Effects of Smoked Marijuana on the Lung and Its Immune Defenses: Implications for Medicinal Use in HIV-Infected Patients," published in the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, stated:

"Frequent marijuana use can cause airway injury, lung inflammation and impaired pulmonary defense against infection. The major potential pulmonary consequences of habitual marijuana use of particular relevance to patients with AIDS is superimposed pulmonary infection, which could be life threatening in the seriously immonocompromised patient.


In view of the immonosuppressive effect of THC, the possibility that regular marijuana use could enhance progression of HIV infection itself needs to be considered, although this possibility remains unexplored to date."


"I am begginning to run out of space but first off addiction can simply be solved with less prescription and I have already proven that it is not addictive and it is never considered addictive anymore."


DO you understand medicine? As a son of a doctor I do. If you have a sickness you need a certian amount o the medicine, to much is bad, to little is bad too. So you contradict yourself. If it is a medicine then lowering the perscription would hurt the patient. Also under the drug laws passed undenixon it is addictive. Also the experts I quoted prove my point, it is addictive.

"Con fails to justify any alternatives whatsoever and just posts links"


I named them the first time.

"Con fails to justify how Marijuana should be illegal"

we still are not arguing the legality.

"With his logic many drugs should be illegal and he never really refutes the benefits but rather spews out sources."

I refuted the first time and you didn't even defend your arguments. I added on to mine to defend them. And since in debate dropsare concessions you conceded most of my rebutals and your rebuttals are just critisism. Talk about conduct. And since you said that we need to post arguments then actually quote your video.

Conclusion:

I am bad at debate so I may heve sucked, but this last round I destroed his rebutals and his obnoxious remarks. (sorry I need to use spell check but I do not). Also your sources are flawed as they are doctors that are not even specialists. My rebuttals are linked to profesionals and groups linked to the subject. Also carl sagan is a pro legalization advocate, biassed. VOTE CON! please.

thanks for the debate =)




Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 4 years ago
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
Spelling and Grammar--Both had mistakes. CON did a nice job, but the refutations were comparatively vague and maybe a tad weaker. Overall, interesting debate; I would like to debate CON as well on this topic. Good job both!
Posted by PartamRuhem 4 years ago
PartamRuhem
started reading it over....I will vote later. Probably tomorrow.
Posted by cameronl35 4 years ago
cameronl35
you didn't read the resolution...i'll paste it for you " Full resolution: Medical Marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America."
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
no legality is use without prescription. You should have said legality of the medical usage. But here's my view, STATES RIGHTS WOOT!
Posted by cameronl35 4 years ago
cameronl35
you should read the resolutions more carefully...
Posted by cameronl35 4 years ago
cameronl35
Lol how are we not arguing about the legality of the drug? Isn't that the whole purpose of the debate?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
OK I have a few days...I'll do it tomorrow or the next day/
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ThePixeledWarrior 4 years ago
ThePixeledWarrior
cameronl3516kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Very hard not to vote pro after the confusing format of the Con's speeches. I have a hard time reading your evidence and differentiating it from quotes or other pieces of evidence. After that I see that the Pro has proven that there are both no negative health effects to Marijuana and even if there were, the benefits outweigh.
Vote Placed by EthanHuOnDebateOrg 4 years ago
EthanHuOnDebateOrg
cameronl3516kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO succeeded in providing adequate justification for exactly how CON failed to supplement a sufficient warrant; many of the diseases brought up by CON had no evidence to back it up. Furthermore, as the FULL resolution states concisely 'legalized', we will no doubt look to legal concerns when providing jurisdiction, for which CON fails to acknowledge. Conduct-tied; S
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
cameronl3516kadamsTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The majority of Con's arguments were based on the fact that medical marijuana is harmful, which Pro mostly refuted. I would have liked the debaters to focus more on legal issues instead of health issues but the win, unfortunately, goes to Pro.