The Instigator
Curci
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
Parker236
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should Marijuana be legalized?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Curci
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 509 times Debate No: 53026
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Curci

Pro

I tried to argue this before, but I simply did not have time to finish the debate. I now have sufficient time, so it's as good a time as any to debate this. Marijuana should be legalized, because it is not inherently interfering in any other people's lives, and falls under the realm of personal choice. Who are you to say what other people can and cannot do with there own bodies if it doesn't necessarily affect anyone else? That's my opening argument.
Parker236

Con

Well, you have a couple of good argumentive points, marijuana has some good beneifits, yet it also has affects to your health, it can damage your brain, and cause memory loss, you should only use it if you need it. for health
Debate Round No. 1
Curci

Pro

If you were going to judge the legality of something based on whether it's harmful to your health, the legal system would be messed up. Should soda be illegal then? Something being harmful does not mean it should be illegal, because if you interact with said thing, you are doing this knowing the risks. Nobody is forcing you to smoke marijuana, you do it of your own free will, knowing the risks. It's pretty much a reiteration of what I said in my earlier point, it's your own body. You can do what you want with it. "You should only use it if you need it, for health." I agree, you should only use it for health reasons, but I'm not going to force you to use it only in those circumstances. It is not anyone else's business if you ingest things which are "bad" for your body. This argument implies that we should therefore make all bad choices regarding yourself illegal. This becomes especially invasive when you ruin people's LIVES for smoking marijuana, possibly sending them to jail and making it significantly harder to get hired. This is the type of thing that if you get arrested for, it could ruin your life. That is EXTREMELY disproportionate for something which shouldn't even be illegal at all.
I could make a good motto off of this argument: "My body, my business". Haha, I love that.
Parker236

Con

Again, very good argumentive points, but marijuana can cause a danger to you and others, soda can be bad for your health, but not a danger to others,if you do marijuana you can end up hurting others and possibly your self and others.
Debate Round No. 2
Curci

Pro

Alright, so, I'm glad we got a nice friendly debate here. I consider your first assertions about how it should be illegal because of brain damage and memory loss effectively refuted. But for another closing note on that topic, brain damage and memory loss only occurs after a long time of smoking weed, and many people can function and smoke weed.
Now for my next refutations: "If you do marijuana you can end up hurting others and possibly yourself."
Once again, the hurting of the self point is invalid because of personal choice. It is not illegal to hurt oneself, nor should it be. If you want to inflict harm upon yourself, it is your business and nobody else's. There is also not inherent in marijuana smoking any form of direct physical harm immediately afterward. The chance of harming yourself after smoking marijuana is very small, will only result from direct harmful actions afterwards, which is in no way inherent in marijuana smoking at all. If you smoke marijuana and harm yourself, that is your fault, not marijuana's fault, because marijuana does not take away your ability to make choices. TONS of people smoke marijuana and don't harm themselves afterwards. I don't really see where that argument is going, but it doesn't matter, because as stated earlier, it is your own personal choice if you want to harm yourself. My body, my choice.
And you can end up hurting others? Once again, this is not necessarily a direct result of marijuana smoking, in fact, cases like that are extremely rare. Arguing that something should be illegal because it has a very small chance of leading to another thing that is illegal is ridiculous. If you were to effectively argue this point, you would have to prove that violence was inherent in marijuana smoking, which it isn't. If you incite violence after smoking marijuana, that is your fault, not marijuana's. Tons of people smoke marijuana without hurting anyone, proving the aforementioned fact. Why should the few people that smoke marijuana and practice violent behavior affect the totally non violent drug users? To further prove my point, I will provide this example. Using scissors in an art project could result in the harm of someone else in the room. Should using scissors be illegal then? Harm is not inherent in the act of using scissors. If your smoking weed alone in your apartment, and nobody's around, why should that be illegal? It makes no sense. And of course, it wouldn't be a marijuana debate if I didn't pull the alchohol card. You can end up hurting yourself and others when you drink alchohol. Should alchohol be illegal? I appreciate the debate and your arguments, so I hope this doesn't sound harsh. Your turn. :)
Parker236

Con

Yes, You have a very good point, but as stated their is still that very small chance of you possilby hurting others. if marijuana was legalized kids would be prone to watching their peers doing it and try it at an age at which could most likely hurt them. As you say the terms my body, my choices, you havre to think about how not only your choice can affect you but others aswell.
Debate Round No. 3
Curci

Pro

There is still that very small chance of you possibly hurting others." That's not a good standard to determine the legality of something. If you were operating by that logic, then I guess alcohol, scissors, paintbrushes, and steak knives should be illegal as well. Maybe driving a car should also be illegal. Matter of fact, I guess walking is now illegal too because you have the chance of bumping into someone and hurting them. And besides, how does the possibility of harming someone else when under the effects of marijuana apply to some guy just quietly smoking marijuana in his room? As said before, you have to prove that violence is inherent in the action to make it illegal. That is simply not the case. If you attack someone after smoking marijuana, let me repeat, that's not marijuana's fault!!! You may be under the effects of marijuana, but an effect of marijuana is not necessarily violence!
"As you say the term 'my body, my choice', you have to think about how not your choice can affect you but others a well."
When I used that phrase, I used it in the context of refuting your claims about why marijuana should be illegal because you can harm yourself, not about marijuana harming others.

"If marijuana was legalized kids would be prone to watching their peers doing it and try it at an age at which could most likely hurt them."
Why should the actions of kids affect whether fully grown adults can smoke marijuana or not? That's basically the same argument for smoking and alcohol. Do you think those things should be illegal? What you say is a fact, but certainly not sufficient enough to make weed illegal. That is all. Your turn :)
Debate Round No. 4
Curci

Pro

Okay, but I've already refuted the argument of harm with the argument of personal choice. You're repeating already refuted arguments.
Parker236

Con

I was Just showing you my research now this battle is over!
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Curci 2 years ago
Curci
Wow, jp just votebombed. Seriously? That is majorly unfair.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by kimmi 2 years ago
kimmi
CurciParker236Tied
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: pro had a lot better conduct and con didn't .con put some stuff in there and don't keep repeating what you say.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 2 years ago
Dennybug
CurciParker236Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con repeatedly argued the same point while pro had already refuted it multiple times, Pro presented a stronger argument. And Con agreed with pro's points in multiple rounds. As such I am giving conduct and Arguments to Pro.
Vote Placed by LostintheEcho1498 2 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
CurciParker236Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I still agree with con but do not think he gave a better argument than the pro. The pro, while not just having length, also had depth to his argument which he supported throughout and well.