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

Should Marijuana be legalized for recreational use?

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: 5/20/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 709 times Debate No: 51638
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




This should be an intelligent argument. I look forward to this debate . The first round is for acceptance only. Sources should be included if available. good luck to my opponent, who shall be taking up the "con" side of this argument.


I would like to thank my opponent for issuing this debate and look forward to a great debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Seeing as cigarettes and liquor are legal, marijuana should be legal. In an economic sense, the benefits outweigh any small consequence. Legalizing marijuana would decrease the amount of people in jails on possession charges. That in turn reduces the amount of tax dollars being used on prisoners. Since marijuana would have to be regulated, jobs would be made and the demand for under the table distribution would decrease. While the amount of illegal distribution would not cease, the benefits are great.The economy would see an upturn out of the rut it is in .


Contention 1: Legalization increases violence

The DEA has connected the link between Marijuana and terrorist activities. Legalization will only increase it as the demand will go up while the Cartels will use violence to keep the supply down. Here is a quote from the DEA regarding this issue, "The bombers swapped hashish and ecstasy for the 440 pounds of dynamite used in the blasts, which killed 191 people and injured more than 1,400 others. Money from the drugs also paid for an apartment hideout, a car, and the cell phones used to detonate the bombs." (

Donnie Marshall, Congressional subcommittee on drugs has stated that legalization will not stop violence.

Contention 2: Health Factors

I know my opponent has said that it is safer than alcohol and tobacco, but I will now give you some alarming facts. Marijuana is addictive and can increase your heart rate by a factor of 20 to 100. Smoking 1 joint is the equilivent of smoking 5 cigarettes. The 'High' fallowed by a crash that can cause fear and depression. These last forever while a 'High' will only last a few hours. (

We all know how expensive our health bills are. Well, when it comes to Marijuana in the year 2002, the ONDCP has found that the total cost of Marijuana injuries totaled over $52 billion, that's when it's illegal. Imagine if it were legal and opened up to the general population. (
Debate Round No. 2


Corrections: I have never discussed the health risks of marijuana. There are health risks in everything. Do you suggest that we stop fire fighters from doing their job because of the risks?

The truth is inevitable, Marijuana is not what it is portrayed to be. In the countries in which Marijuana has been legalized, such as Uruguay the crime rate is far less than America. So what is to blame for the crime? Surely it could not be Cannabis .

According to my source, organized crime bosses are taking huge losses in profit since the Legalization of Marijuana.
Finally, choice is supposed to be the ultimate decider. whether or not something is safe or not is not the deciding factor. Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke and Montesquieu have said that the power is in the people. The same ideals have legalized so many other "dangerous" things. Countries need to stop trying to protect people from themselves because it is not working. How is this protecting anyone when people are being killed to protect and distribute an illegal commodity?
The kind of fear my opponent is trying to instill is the same fear that caused the harmless substance DDT to be banned world wide. The people who want Marijuana banned will make all kinds of ridiculous and erroneous correlations and hide behind the title of "Dr". Mind you not every doctor is medical and not all medical knowledge comes from doctors. Dr. Dre would not be the leading authority in breast cancer but the title seems to give the unknowing researcher a reason to believe in the merit and integrity of the person who published the work.


My opponent brings up that he didn't bring up health risks so my argument is irrelevant, but this is incorrect. The reason why is that I am arguing that the health risks are offsetting the positives of marijuana. So my argument still stands.

My opponent is once again inncorrect as I have brought up a professional source to back my marijuana will increase with legalization argument while my opponent has not.

So since my opponent has dropped a major health factor argument and has not brought up a valid source then I see no reason to not vote con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by JO3Y 2 years ago

If there are such health risks, legalize marijuana and teach about them. And what the hell? Organized marijuana crime would increase? Lol
Posted by iwannaknow 2 years ago

The link did not paste the first time...apologies
Posted by JO3Y 2 years ago
Would, but I'm Pro, good luck to you
Posted by yomama12 2 years ago
id think it should. Marijuana is only legalised for hospital use, so there's no way people should be allowed to smoke it just for recreational use. Can you please fix the settings so I can accept?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cobo 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate could have been done better. Pro's initial claims were not backed up by any proof while the con's had sources. Pro actually had some great rebuttals to the Con's contentions but did not actually follow all the way through.