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

Should Weed be legal for recreational and medical purposes?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 3/5/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 461 times Debate No: 71141
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I think it should. Why not I look forward to this debate.


May the best debater win.
Debate Round No. 1


Well for medical purposes I doubt there is a debate. It helps with pain, seizures, loss of appetite, and vomiting and helps cancer patients going through chemo and you can't get high or addicted to it. So I doubt there is much debate there.

I also think I should be legal for recreational purposes for many reasons.

1. It would make the weed safer
2. It would reduce crime including violent crime
3. It would save the tax payers millions and produce millions in tax dollars.
4. It would reduce addiction
5. Get the government out of are personal life
6. Alcohol double standerd.

Let me explain these one at a time.
1. It would make weed safer because it could be regulated. Just like during prohibition of alcohol it wasn't as safe because it was being made in bathtubs with dangerous chemicals in them and wasn't regulated. People would die from one drink because of these chemicals. Same with weed. You can't die from weed but there can be chemicals in black market weed that has very bad effects. If it's legalized and regulated by the FDA it would be far safer and less negative side effects from it. This happened with alcohol. Historically we know this is true

2. It would reduce violent crime. For example during prohibition the Mafia was getting extremely powerful with all the money and power it was getting from selling the black market alcohol. Same with Gangs currently. They get powerful by selling black market weed. It would reduce crime because the government throws people in jail for smoking weed most of them are non-violent offenders who did nothing more then smoke a joint and are now in jail for up to 3op0 years. It would reduce violent crime because in the black market if someone cheats you (Takes your money and doesn't give you the weed) what do you do? You can't go to court you can't sue them. It takes violence. That's your only option. Also gang kill each other so they can't sell weed in a certain territory. So that would reduce violent crime.

3. It would save the tax payers millions of dollars and produce millions of dollars. It would save the tax payers millions of dollars because we wouldn't have to pay for non-violent people to be in prison for doing nothing wrong. By the way America has a largest prison population in the world. We have 5% of the world's population and we have 25% of the world's prison population. 1 in 4 people in are prison for a non-violent drug offense. It would save the tax payers millions on housing inmates. Plus there would be less people in prison for violent crime for the reasons I said earlier. We would also take in millions of tax dollars. Colorado has made so much money from the weed taxes they most likely have to give some of it back to it's citizens. It would raise millions of dollars and the tax dollars saved and taken in could go to education, roads, bridges and medical care for people.

4. It would reduce addiction. This seems weird right. Well let me explain. People who are addicted will go to rehab in much higher numbers. They don't go now because they are scared of being arrested. Plus people who want to smoke weed already can because it's not hard to get. So people go to rehab and less people are addicted

5. My next point is what business is it of the governments what I do with my own body. If I want to smoke weed and I'm not hurting anyone else why should the government control what I do. If you say they should then you're saying the government owns you and can tell you what you can and can't do with you're own life. That's called fascism.

6. There is a major double standard with weed and alcohol. Weed is much less addictive there are zero deaths from weed. But it's illegal and alcohol isn't. This is a society bias. We assume weed is worse because it's illegal but all study show it's much safer.

It would make the weed safer
It would reduce crime including violent crime
It would save the tax payers millions and produce millions in tax dollars.
It would reduce addiction
It would Get the government out of are personal life
There would be no Alcohol double standerd.
And it's very useful medically.

So what is your argument against it?


Look, i'm all up for this if it's an emergency, but this used as an everyday thing is just to risky. In some cases, these treatments can cause addictions, mood-swings, and a number of other promblems.

There was even a report of a doctor prescribing to much, and the patient got seriously addicted. The patient ended up in an asylum for a number of diffrent crimes caused by just one overdose. I'm sorry, but it's just too risky.
Debate Round No. 2


Lets look at your two arguments

1. Weed has side effects
2. Doctor sometimes give to much of it.

Yes weed has side effects just like every other medicine that's not a argument to ban it.

Really the doctor gave to much of it and the person got addicted. That's funny because you can't get addicted to medical weed it's not possible you clearly didn't do a five second google search on this. Next time research for five seconds. Even if that was true you're saying because it was bad for one person people going through chemo and having seizures should just suffer is that you're argument? I also love how you haven't address my arguments in the first round


Prof.Asteroid forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Blazzered 3 years ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can overdose with weed.... I'm not an expert on marijuana so I could be wrong.
Posted by Blazzered 3 years ago
I would debate you on this, but I am 50/50 for both sides and I don't know a lot about marijuana as it doesn't really interest me.

I'm against it because I think people would abuse it. It's annoying enough constantly hearing people talking about getting high and doing a bunch of dumb stuff while doing it.

However medical purposes are well, medical. You can't argue against something that does help some peoples health. I dont know a lot about the medical care but if I am correct it can sometimes help against cancer, it helps people with mental illnesses, and so on and so on.

Pretty much I would be for it if people didn't abuse it so much or talk about it so much. I mean it's not legal and yet I still see people abusing marijuana and I can't go to school for one day without hearing about some girl doing dumb stuff and making mistakes with some guy while she was high or some dude doing dumb stuff that got him into trouble or got someone else into trouble while he was high.
Posted by flash-man69 3 years ago
i support the stoner
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blazzered 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro gave good reasons and backed up what he had to say. His points remained standing.