Prohibition of marijuana
Debate Rounds (5)
I want to point out that there is an agenda that keeps marijuana illegal. It does not make sense from a rational perspective that marijuana should be considered illegal while alcohol rules the night (with DUI)! It would only make sense that legalizing marijuana will cause problems from a financial perspective.
Originally Dupont was to blame for prohibition along with Harry J. Anslinger and William Randolph Hearst! They came up with a campaign that demonized cannibus along side African Americans and Communism!
"Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies."
Prohibition is in the same tradition as racism and political propaganda! It is ignorance fueled and unjust. It deserves to be debated and not just swept under the rug. If you truly believe prohibition should be tolerated. Let me in on it. I really do not understand!
First of all, to say that a plant that grows in nature is not a harmful one but cocaine is is hypocritical, as cocaine is a natural drug as well. Other harmful plants include, but are not limited to: Monks hood, Poison Ivy, Nightshade, Hemlock, etc.
You said that there is no scientific data that proves Marijuana as dangerous; that is because the research is inconclusive. The only agenda that exists against legalizing marijuana is the one that fears the safety of potential users and those around them. The reason alcohol is still legal (which it shouldn't be) is because of the fact that the culture of alcohol is too great to simply stop it, for people will still bootleg it (as shown by the prohibition). Marijuana should not be legalized simply because it "isn't as bad as alcohol." If it is bad at all, it shouldn't be legalized because some people like the high they get from it.
Now, the only people who will have financial problems if weed is legalized will be the dealers who had previously been selling it. This, in fact, is a good reason to keep it illegal, for if these dealers cannot sell their marijuana, they may switch to "harder" drugs. As unfortunate as it is that these dealers exist at all, it is probably best they stick to weed and not something worse.
Although I agree that marijuana isn't TOO bad for you, that is not reason alone for legalization of it
Do not mistake passion or my tongue in cheek writing style for "emotionally charged" I do think that passion is necessary for debating (unless you are a robot) But I will do my best to look out for shooting myself in the foot (that is where I think you were going with your comment about emotion) I intend to focus on the negatives of prohibition vs. the negatives of marijuana. I will however address a few of your arguments so I do not just ignore your opening post!
"First of all, to say that a plant that grows in nature is not a harmful one but cocaine is is hypocritical, as cocaine is a natural drug as well. Other harmful plants include, but are not limited to: Monks hood, Poison Ivy, Nightshade, Hemlock, etc."
You are absolutely right. The more I thought about my position on marijuana being equal to cocaine.. it actually brought into question whether cocaine should be illegal.. before you cry fowl.. think about it.. cocaine, as addictive as it is, still not more dangerous or addictive as alcohol or Tobacco! What we are dealing with in federal law and even you argument is:
1. It was arbitrary to compare to the other plants you listed. It was like comparing water to ammonia
2. There are blatant inconsistencies with what is considered illegal. It would be like making marriage for gays illegal while
allowing rape. I know that sounds extreme but so is lung cancer and liver disease!
"You said that there is no scientific data that proves Marijuana as dangerous; that is because the research is inconclusive. "
So marijuana is guilty until proved innocent? All I hear is that there is no proof to consider anyone who smokes marijuana a criminal. It is an injustice (not emotional.. Fact) That marijuana users be demeaned or oppressed simply because they prefer to get high over getting drunk or want to seek an alternative to alcohol!
"The only agenda that exists against legalizing marijuana is the one that fears the safety of potential users and those around them."
How does that change from what is happening today? With the prohibition of marijuana you do not prevent its use. The only real difference that we would see if marijuana was legal is that it will finally be taxable and not help to fund other criminal activities! Gaining access to marijuana is easy for kids today. So even if kids were getting high it would still be illegal for them under legalization because they are not of age!
"The reason alcohol is still legal (which it shouldn't be) is because of the fact that the culture of alcohol is too great to simply stop it, for people will still bootleg it (as shown by the prohibition)"
Isn't "bootlegging" just a fancy word for "black market drug dealing" Prohibition DOES NOT WORK. IT was obvious with alcohol.. And even more obvious with marijuana. Again there is no logical reason to believe marijuana should not be legalized.. the reason has to be financial and not ethical! Prohibition in America began out of desire to remove competition. Not a conspiracy, this was very public (and extremely racist) Refer Madness is the epitome of demonization and dogma. Why continue such an atrocious tradition?
"Marijuana should not be legalized simply because it "isn't as bad as alcohol." If it is bad at all, it shouldn't be legalized because some people like the high they get from it"
So you are sticking to the "dangerous" standpoint. I will entertain that concept. Here is a list of activities that should be illegal due to the "dangers"
Swimming , Camping, Athletics, breathing in a big city, red bull, snickers, Mc Donald's, dating, sex, marriage, religion, tv, Internet, guns, nuclear energy, oil drilling, driving, talking to people, cell phones, public school, practicing medicine, child birth, living.. you see where I'm going? "Dangerous comes with the territory of being a human being on planet earth" We make our decisions in regard or regardless of "the dangers" So the "dangers" of marijuana is not substantial enough to deem illegal! We need to learn DISCIPLINE! Self Discipline is key.. not obedience! I do not need a Nanny! (O.K. I can see the emotional charge in that statement but I still mean it)
"Now, the only people who will have financial problems if weed is legalized will be the dealers who had previously been selling it. "
Don't worry about the dealers. They have plenty of other things they can sell. What I am talking about is pharmaceutical companies that do not want people growing medicine in their house for free. Also the origin of marijuana prohibition came mostly from an attack on hemp do to its versatility and resilience. This product was shelved in order to promote Nylon! (Which DuPont had invested millions into) They could not allow a competitor in such a risky time for the free market. I only bring this up to show you that marijuana is not illegal for the reason's you believe. It is political, not ethical!
"This, in fact, is a good reason to keep it illegal, for if these dealers cannot sell their marijuana, they may switch to "harder" drugs. As unfortunate as it is that these dealers exist at all, it is probably best they stick to weed and not something worse."
You have it backwards! The sale of marijuana only funds other illegal products such as meth or stolen goods. A drug dealer does not care about what you are buying, as long as you are buying it. So if marijuana was legal. People who would want to purchase marijuana would have to do so through a legitimate free market then they would not have to go through some back alley drug dealer who also sells acid and extacy! So to refute your statement; drug dealers do not just "stick to weed"
"Although I agree that marijuana isn't TOO bad for you, that is not reason alone for legalization of it"
Now we can get some where. I will try to simplify my arguments:
Problems with prohibition:
1. Instead of marijuana being a taxable product that would help our economy, the governments spends billions in tax revenue without even making a dent with the failing "war on drugs" (They should focus on meth and heroin to gain my support for their war)
2.Prohibition makes criminals out of law abiding, harmless citizens. The justice system should be helping people who have been victimized. Not to pursue personal agendas! To me the prohibition is a mockery of our freedoms. It boast superiority by demeaning "cheetos eating pot heads"! It bullies innocent people who have hurt no one! It is hard to take seriously! It is a waste of efforts and resources. It is intolerable.
3. Lets face it. People are getting high. Most people who smoke weed simply do not take the law seriously because the law needs to pick its battles. It is like crying wolf.. eventually we stop listening! So unless we want to continue with marijuana being synonymous with counter culture. We need to mainstream it so we can keep a better eye on it!
LtTentacles forfeited this round.
LtTentacles forfeited this round.
LtTentacles forfeited this round.
Finalfan forfeited this round.
LtTentacles forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
|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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: More rounds forfeited by Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.