The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should Cannabis be legalised?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,329 times Debate No: 38833
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Recently at school we have been debating whether the drug known as Cannabis or Weed should be legalised. When this was a class debate, my argument was doubted and my team therefore lost the debate. I would now like to try again, this time debating against some professional debaters (or rather, debater).


Round 1: Acceptance only
Rounds 2-3: Arguments.

Please no trolling, and if you are going to accept, then please stick with it and don't forfeit every other round.


Challenge accepted.
Debate Round No. 1


I believe that Cannabis should be legalised, but only for medical purposes. This is because that way, Cannabis would be helping people instead of causing strife. This could be accomplished by giving hospitals, clinics, doctors and nurses a special licence that permits them to diagnose a patient with a certain amount of cannabis. If said patient abuses the cannabis they have i.e. re-selling it the police have a right to arrest the consumer (buyer) if the consumer does not have a prescription with the cannabis. Also, when the original owner of the cannabis is caught, they can then be fined, and maybe given a jail sentence for a certain amount of time (I'm not sure how long exactly).

What do you think?


Juris forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Unfortunately, my opponent has decided to forfeit the 2nd round, so I have nothing to rebut. The link below, however, includes many points on the argument, including an opinion from David Cameron. I hope it will help when the voting period starts.


I would like to apologize for forfeiting the previous round, I was busy. But of course, it doesn’t mean that this debate will be decided based on the forfeited round, it should be on the arguments presented before us.


I believe that Cannabis should be legalised, but only for medical purposes.

Your personal belief does not support your claim. You failed to even state the scope of your so-called “for medical purposes”

This is because that way, Cannabis would be helping people instead of causing strife.

This is begging the question. You just restated your claim without evidence to support it. Also, you assume that it helps people but where is the explanation, reason why it begs the question.

Overall, you’re very unsure with your stand, you failed to offer direct evidence, and you absolutely failed in this debate.

And please do not direct us to a link, what should only be included in the debate is what you wrote in the blank spaces.

I will present several expert opinion to counter your abortive arguments:

"Although I understand many believe marijuana is the most effective drug in combating their medical ailments, I would caution against this assumption due to the lack of consistent, repeatable scientific data available to prove marijuana's medical benefits.

Based on current evidence, I believe that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that there are less dangerous medicines offering the same relief from pain and other medical symptoms."

-- Bill Frist, MD
Former US Senator (R-TN)
Correspondence to
Oct. 20, 2003

"By characterizing the use of illegal drugs as quasi-legal, state-sanctioned, Saturday afternoon fun, legalizers destabilize the societal norm that drug use is dangerous. They undercut the goals of stopping the initiation of drug use to prevent addiction.... Children entering drug abuse treatment routinely report that they heard that 'pot is medicine' and, therefore, believed it to be good for them."

-- Andrea Barthwell, MD
Former Deputy Director, White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
Chicago Tribune editorial
Feb. 17, 2004

"Marinol differs from the crude plant marijuana because it consists of one pure, well-studied, FDA-approved pharmaceutical in stable known dosages. Marijuana is an unstable mixture of over 400 chemicals including many toxic psychoactive chemicals which are largely unstudied and appear in uncontrolled strengths."

-- California Narcotics Officers Association
Official policy statement "The Use of Marijuana as a Medicine"
Oct. 31, 2005

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro backed off the resolution with their R2. You cannot call the debate "should cannabis be legalized?" then only argue for medical purposes. If that is all you are arguing for, you need to make the resolution "Should cannabis be legalized for medical purposes?" Because of this, I cannot award arguments for Pro. Con forfeited R2 and only made arguments in R3, the final round. This gave Pro no opportunity to counter any of the claims, so they cannot be weighed. This leaves just the conduct point for Pro due to the forfeit.